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 50 the future - the proposed ordinance would essentially require the park owner to pay for the mobilehome park twice, since he would therefore be purchasing value which is his. The park owner cannot be made to pay for the value which is already his. Moreover, the ability of the tenant to then remove the mobilehome and sell it again makes clear that the ordinance is irrational and overbroad to its intended function and to state law restrictions on reasonable relocation costs. One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing 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. 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960) 26 The Supreme Court recently decided Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 114 S.Ct. 2309. In that case, the City Planning Commission conditioned approval of Dolan's application to expand her store and pave her parking lot upon her compliance with dedication of land for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway intended to relieve traffic congestion in the City's Central Business District. She appealed the Commission's denial of her request for variances from these standards to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), alleging that the land dedication requirements were not related to the proposed development and therefore constituted an uncompensated taking of her property under the Fifth Amendment. LUBA found a reasonable relationship between (1) the development and the requirement to dedicate land for a greenway, since the larger building and paved lot would increase the impervious surfaces and thus the runoff into the creek, and (2) alleviating the impact of increased traffic from the development and facilitating the provision of a pathway as an alternative means of transportation. The Supreme Court held that the demand on the property owner exceeded any rational connection (a nexus or "rough proportionality") between the proposed use and the demands (exactions) made on the property owner. This case is dispositive of the conversion ordinance issue. The uncompensated taking occurs in the demand of relocation assistance which equals the value of the mobilehome as a possibility decided in the discretion of the tenant. The park owner must pay the cited value or the loan value in order to use his own property. Any use of the property is held ransom for payment to the tenants. This is the form of "extortion" to which the Supreme Court made reference in the Nollan case?' 26 When there is a taking, the fifth amendment mandates payment of the value of the property taken. United States v. 15.65 Acres of Land, 689 F.2d 1329, 1331 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1041, 103 S.Ct. 1435, 75 L.Ed.2d 793 (1983); United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, 531 F.Supp. 967, 974 (D.Haw.1982). "Just compensation" means the full monetary equivalent of the property taken. United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14, 16,90 S.Ct. 803, 805, 25 L.Ed.2d 12 (1970). Compensation must equal the fair market value of the owner's leased fee interest. Z' The Dolan Court in referring to Nollan states: "We resolved, however, that the Coastal Commission's regulatory authority was set completely adrift from its constitutional moorings when it claimed that a nexus existed between visual access to the ocean and a permit condition requiring lateral public access along the Nollan's beachfront lot. Id., at 837, 107 S.Ct., at 3148. How -50-