“Courts”, “Judges”, “Law”. The US keeps using the old language to legitimize what can only be described as organized crime. The hedge fund, the corrupt judges. Its all just gangsterism beneath the words being used that belong to another time, if ever.
Nothing this corrupt will last.
The argument that a city should be able to unilaterally define what is or is not a “substantial danger” as a principle of democratic government is a short-sighted one. If a city can do that, then conversely it cannot make plausible promises. A decision to that effect might be good for Oakland, given the hole that Oakland has dug itself into, but it wouldn’t be good for cities in general.
You nailed it with “it cannot make plausible promises” though. So where’s the part that an entity that cannot make plausible promises should somehow be liable for hypothetical un-realized profits?
Well, fortunately for other cities that don’t make a habit of tortious interference, the law actually does hold cities to promises that they make.
^^ Exhibit A why ISDS, the World Bank, IMF, etc are a disease of the mind, not just a mistake. ^^