It won't be dismissed. The city has clearly acted politically to attack a specific individual, and project.

Kshama is costing taxpayer a lot of money. Curious how many homeless people could be housed for that $40 MILLION we are about to lose in this judgement. Not to mention the resources both financially, and manpower to fight this unconstitutional attack against a land owner.

This move is legal maneuvering. It may be they are seeking a settlement with the owner. It would be a good idea they settled, because the city is going to lose in court.

@2 It seems like a pretty cut and dry case. Man tries to sell his property and the City stops him. It was all just a stupid ploy to get gain more public support after the Head Tax disaster.

The judge is gonna slap Seattle like the little bitch it is.

@5 Only problem is it's been looked at multiple times over the years, and didn't reach that threshold. Kshama, and the rest of the council that stands lock-step behind her can suck it.

@7 All that matter is where this is headed. It's headed in the city of Seattle settling because they will lose this fight. There is plenty of proof that this was a political hack job, and had nothing to do with preserving anything.

I voted for Kshama back in the day.

@10 We all make mistakes.

Not all of us...

"The bulk of Forbes' lawsuit is based on the state's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). "

What an odd thing to say. Plaintiff's pleading asserts 7 causes of action, one of which is the LUPA claim. 1 out of 7 in no way comprises the "bulk" of the claims.

@1 The plaintiff is 1426 First Avenue LLC, the Nevada business entity that owns the building.

Roger Forbes has plenty of money from exploiting women at his strip clubs, enough to last the rest of his days. He can do the civic-minded thing and sell the building to the City, or some group that wants to preserve it.

Or Onni Group can do the right thing and find another property. Like the empty lot RIGHT NEXT TO THE DEJA VU, owned by Samis.

@9,

Any interest in providing some links to "plenty of proof" that it wasn't about preservation of the venue?

Also, and I'm just playing a hunch here... You didn't used to post under the now banned moniker "the centet is right" did you?

“It’s going to be a nail biter!”

When the city’s attorneys try to justify to the judge how two parking lots got “historical” designation, it’s going to turn into a laugher.

@14 Women have a right to sell their dance moves and bodies in exchange for money. Stripping, and sex work is not exploitation. Strippers and sex workers have a right to work for whatever employer they choose to work for, it's none of your business.

@5: Better yet, they could have extended it across the entire city. Everyone at The Stranger, and their supportive commenters here on SLOG, is forever whining about how Seattle sucks because it’s changed. Stopping all current construction, and making new permits illegal, would put an end to all of that offensive, unwanted change. (It would even protect more “historical” parking spaces than even your idea would, so hey, it would be a win all around!)

And the chances of the city winning the resultant lawsuits would be the same, too!

@18 Oh please, @14 is a White Knight coming to save these damsels in distress. One dollar bill at a time.

City will settle ie “We will rescind the law if you promise to rescind the lawsuit.”

Uh ohhhh...you stole a story from Erica's Story Jar again. Please do your homework! As an assist, I can share that she broke Creation, the Plague, the Abdication of Edward VIII, Patty Hearst and the SLA, Enron, and the Hale-Bopp Comet Suicides. Please make a note of it.

@24: Well, the topic of this thread is the lawsuit against the city for the recent specific action they took to “save the Showbox,” not some older possible broader action you think they should have taken that you believe was somehow related.

If you’re going to talk about something similar to the topic of the thread, then you have to specify the difference between the topic of the thread and your topic, because reading comprehension involves context.

(And then you throw around junior-high name-calling when you get angry. Quelle surprise.)