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Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 47 Scotts Valley, C.A.6th, July 13, 1990 (unpublished), in which the Court struck down a re- purchase requirement imposed on the park owner. This important case is a precursor of the authorities we may reasonably expect to follow. Donald and Marjorie Rooke challenged Scotts Valley conversion ordinance. It provided that a mobilehome park could not be converted to any other use, including a reversion to bare land, without approval by the City planning commission. The ordinance further provided that if a conversion were approved, certain conditions must attach. If the mobilehome could not be moved, or if the resident refused to accept relocation, the park owner was required to purchase the mobilehome at its in -place fair market value. On November 19, 1986, the Rookes filed their complaint against the City. Their lust cause of action stated a claim for damages for inverse condemnation. They alleged that the City's rent control and conversion ordinances together effected a transfer of a possessory interest in the property to the residents and amounted to a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the United States and California Constitutions. In their second cause of action the Rookes sought damages for violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And lastly, they sought a judicial declaration that the City's ordinances were unconstitutional, both facially and as -applied. The Rookes sought compensation representing the full value of their property or in the alternative for "interim takings as shown according to proof." In addition they sought damages for lost business opportunities, mental anguish, carrying costs of the property, litigation expenses, and punitive damages. The case went to trial on the declaratory relief cause of action and the parties stipulated that the only issue to be determined by the court was whether the conversion ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. In holding that the Ordinance violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, The Fifth Amendment was cited: The protection of private property rights is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No person shall be ... deprived of due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution similarly provides that compensation is required when property is "taken or damaged." The Court also held that "... a taking occurs when the government physically intrudes upon private property, either directly or by authorizing others to do so (Citing several cases). In addition to economic impact, the character of the governmental interference and the nature of the particular property right affected must be considered in the takings analysis. A regulation which "extinguish[es] a fundamental attribute of ownership" may also constitute a taking of property. A ins v. Tiburon supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262.) While the rights "to possess, use and dispose" of property are considered to be the -47-