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 48 three essential strands in the bundle of rights which is commonly characterized as property (U_S. v. General Motors Corp. (1945) 323 U.S. 373, 377-378), other rights, such as the right to devise, are also fundamental to property ownership. Thus a unanimous Supreme Court in Hodel v. lrvm9 (1987) 107 S.Ct. 2076 recently found a compensable taking even though only that one component of the bundle of rights was affected and even though the economic impact of the regulation was slight. Additionally, the Court held that the regulation must substantially advance the legitimate government interest. A buy-out could not be found to do so. The significance of the fifth amendment should be noted. In essence, the Takings Clause provides a check on the government's exercise of the police power for the public interest. The ultimate question in considering whether a regulation has gone too far is whether it "fore [es] some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." (Armstrong v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 40, 49.) It is well known that there is generally a considerable discrepancy between the bluebook value of a mobilehome and its in -place value when installed in a park. The difference is attributable to the location of the mobilehome in the park and the effects of rent control. The impact of section 17.49.060(c) is that the landowner who changes the use of his property becomes obligated to pay his tenants, solely at their option, an amount equal to the value of their personal property plus the lease value of the underlying land. In conclusion, the Court held: Together these provisions effect an enforced dedication of the land to perpetual use as a mobilehome park and clearly abrogate the landowner's basic rights to use and possess the property. We see little difference between the effect here and in those cases where property owners are required to subject their property to public use. (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., supra, 458 U.S. 419 [installation of a television cable]; Kaiser Aetna v. United States supra, 444 U.S. 174 [imposition of a navigational servitude]; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. 3141 [dedication of a public right of way].) The Court also found the conversion ordinance unconstitutional because it failed to substantially advance a governmentally legitimate purpose. Forcing a park owner to pay values for property placed on rented land is not a right within the American way of government; forcing payment is a transfer of wealth from one to another based on the end of a consensual relationship which was never expected, negotiated nor anticipated. That constitutes a raw taking from one party to another and is not a characteristic of a constitutional government.