In the midst of a battle against a dying industry, a Kentucky judge said Oakland owes hundreds of millions of dollars to a bankrupt corporation that exists only on paper. What do cities owe to whom as they try to extricate themselves from fossil capital?
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?
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. ^^