Laserfiche WebLink
DOWDALL LAW OFFICES <br />A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br />ATTO R N EYS AT LAW <br />City Council of the City of Santa Ana <br />City of Santa Ana <br />September 16, 2021 <br />Page 38 <br />8. TIFF ADAMSON TEST: RENT CONTROLS MUST CONSTITUTE THE <br />LEAST INTRUSIVE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO REMEDY THE <br />EXTENT OF ANY IDENTIFIABLE ILL REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE <br />INTERVENTION <br />A City may go no farther than necessary in enforcing rent controls. The City may not <br />perpetuate a rent control regime because it pleases or pacifies the recipients of the unjustified <br />legislation. The least intrusive alternatives are absolutely required to be exercised. In this <br />instance, the facts needed for rent control do not exist at all. Adamson Companies v. City of <br />Malibu, 854 F.Supp. 1476 (C.D. Cal. 1994). <br />"Accordingly, if the park owners show that the alleged shortage -driven monopoly <br />does not exist in Malibu, this rationale cannot justify the rent control ordinance." <br />Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu, 854 F.Supp. 1476 (C.D. Cal. 1994). <br />In Adamson, the Court carefully considered the extent to which the City may go in <br />imposing involuntary rent control. This a requirement of substantive due process. The plaintiffs <br />challenged the Malibu rent control ordinance as a substantive violation of the Due Process <br />Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. <br />test: <br />A substantive due process challenge to an economic regulation must satisfy a two-part <br />(1) does the ordinance serve a legitimate purpose, and <br />(2) are the means employed rationally related to the legitimate <br />purpose? <br />[Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 498 n. 6, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935 n. 6, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 <br />(1977)]. <br />The Ninth Circuit has articulated the test as one which requires that the plaintiff: <br />"... prove that the government's action was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, <br />having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general <br />welfare." <br />Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951, 957 (9th Cir.1991), vacated and remanded, <br />113 S.Ct. 31, 121 L.Ed.2d 4 (1992), adhered to in relevantpart, 987 F.2d 662 (9th Cir.1993); <br />see also Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365,47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). <br />In this matter, there is no rational basis for a rent control ordinance because there is no <br />housing shortage. Additionally, there are no rent increases or rent levels threatened calling for <br />