Answer:
The Correct for: Doug Bradford owned a restaurant and an adjoining parking lot.The city of Medford has been working on a project to prevent flooding in the area of Doug’s restaurant. The city wants to use a portion of Doug’s parking lot as part of its water diversion project. Doug says that he would rather cope with the flooding than lose the 10 parking spaces the city’s diversion project would use.Which of the following is correct? Is: a.Doug is entitled to a hearing on the issue of the taking for the diversion project.
Explanation:
All right this is a very difficult question. But it also is a very realistic one. In our situation, we have Doug Bradford which was the owner of property included in government property. They declare that they want to use his property for the project. However, he says that he prefers to deal with the flooding than giving them the space equivalent for 10 parking lot spaces. Now let's look at the options.
b) is incorrect because they can take the property and pay him compensation if he opposes supporting the project because in this case, he is opposing the development and progress of the community. So, by law, he can be required to sell the property. So it is incorrect.
c) The city government can take the land or any type of project to benefit the city or community. And they compensate the owner, so it is incorrect.
d) this is not entitled. So it is incorrect. Because even though the city is compromised to compensate they are not compromised to provide him 10 parking spaces somewhere else. They are compromised to provide them a fair amount of money to compensate him for his cooperation.
a) he is entitled to hear on the issue. Because if he doesn't do it. He is going to be judged as an avoider and irresponsible on the matter. Therefore we won't have the chance to deal with the city for compensation and they will give him anything they want. It is required by law, and if he doesn't attend the meeting. Well, he is avoiding an audience with the government.
