Do the seattle buisness owners have a legitimate case against Seattle for CHOP/CHAZ if this is true?

[lfromnj]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/us/defund-police-seattle-protests.html

Read this article by the nyt

The Seattle lawsuit — and interviews with shop owners in cities like Portland and Minneapolis — underscores a key question: Can businesses still rely on local governments, which are now rethinking the role of the police, to keep them safe? The issue is especially tense in Seattle, where the city government not only permitted the establishment of a police-free zone, but provided infrastructure like concrete barriers and portable toilets to sustain it.

If the Seattle city government helped sustain CHAZ are they partially liable for any damages?

[brucejoel99]

My understanding of the Seattle lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are alleging an unconstitutional taking (i.e., that the government seized their real property without payment). At the very least, it's an interesting approach, but it's unlikely to have any actual chance of success, as courts have ruled time & time again that police technically have no legal obligation to protect anybody, so I'd presume that - since they have no duty to protect from bodily injury - this would be a slam-dunk dismissal since it's about lost property/services.

[lfromnj]

My understanding of the Seattle lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are alleging an unconstitutional taking (i.e., that the government seized their real property without payment). At the very least, it's an interesting approach, but it's unlikely to have any actual chance of success, as courts have ruled time & time again that police technically have no legal obligation to protect anybody, so I'd presume that - since they have no duty to protect from bodily injury - this would be a slam-dunk dismissal since it's about lost property/services.

Of course I agree they dont have a legal obligation to protect. However to fund the rioters is different.

[brucejoel99]

My understanding of the Seattle lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are alleging an unconstitutional taking (i.e., that the government seized their real property without payment). At the very least, it's an interesting approach, but it's unlikely to have any actual chance of success, as courts have ruled time & time again that police technically have no legal obligation to protect anybody, so I'd presume that - since they have no duty to protect from bodily injury - this would be a slam-dunk dismissal since it's about lost property/services.

Of course I agree they dont have a legal obligation to protect. However to fund the rioters is different.

I think a judge would consider the claim that the city setting up concrete barriers in order to prevent traffic from passing through (which could arguably be contended in court as having taken place so as to protect traffic from the area's events) & installing port-a-potties so that the area remained sanitary both somehow served to "fund the rioters" to be absurd.

[lfromnj]

My understanding of the Seattle lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are alleging an unconstitutional taking (i.e., that the government seized their real property without payment). At the very least, it's an interesting approach, but it's unlikely to have any actual chance of success, as courts have ruled time & time again that police technically have no legal obligation to protect anybody, so I'd presume that - since they have no duty to protect from bodily injury - this would be a slam-dunk dismissal since it's about lost property/services.

Of course I agree they dont have a legal obligation to protect. However to fund the rioters is different.

I think a judge would consider the claim that the city setting up concrete barriers in order to prevent traffic from passing through (which could arguably be contended in court as having taken place so as to protect traffic from the area's events) & installing port-a-potties so that the area remained sanitary both somehow served to "fund the rioters" to be absurd.

I wouldn't say absurd but seems like a reasonable argument for the city to argue for.

[Seattle]

The point of the lawsuit was never really to recoup damages, but to pressure the city to end CHOP and expedite the Claims process for direct property damage (graffiti, broken windows).