Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 40 Our results support the hypothesis based on a more extensive and timely data set than had been employed in similar prior studies in California. Using pooled data from seven counties in California, before 1993, a flexible rent control regime results in real growth rates in prices 1.69 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 0.19 percentage points less; after 1993, a flexible regime results in real growth rates in prices 0.57 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 1.11 percentage points greater. After 1993, for communities with rigid rent control regimes, the rates of real price increases for coaches was positive and significant in six of the seven counties included in our data set. In general, rates of price increase were higher after 1993 and in communities with rigid rent control regimes (no vacancy decontrol). Hybrid weighted repeat sale price indexes tracking rent controlled and non -rent controlled units in the seven counties from 1983 to 2003 show that prices of rent controlled units have increased 153 percent while units not subject to rent control have increased in price 136 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points. The three -prong test to determine if a vacancy control provision is lawful is as follows: (1) the economic impact of regulation, (2) its interference with reasonable investment -backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental actions. See Lingle v. Chevron, 125 S.Ct. at 2081. Santa Ana owners can easily show that the proposed ordinance imposes a de facto housing subsidy on all park owners, causes transfer premiums of the underlying value of the property to the selling tenant based on the value of reduced rents. This result fails to serve the express purpose of the proposed ordinance of protecting affordable housing. It virtually guarantees its disappearance. Allowing profits generated by monetizing undermarket rents is anathema to the expressed interest of advancing affordable housing, while disproportionately imposing its burden on Park owners. The Ninth Circuit has held that regulations which improperly impose the burden of affordable housing on individual property owners constitutes an unconstitutional taking. Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1338 (9th Cir. 2003). Cienega Gardens involved a facial takings challenge to affordable housing regulations. The plaintiffs were property owners who had financed property developments with special federal funding which included an agreement to maintain the property as affordable housing while the laws were in place. Id. at 1324-1325. The federal government found that large numbers of these developers were prepaying the mortgages after 20 years, as allowed by the agreements. Id. at 1326. In order to preserve affordable housing, the federal government adopted legislation that prevented