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 52 The Court held: "Without question, had the city simply required petitioner to dedicate a strip of land along Fanno Creek for public use, rather than conditioning the grant of her permit to redevelop her property on such a dedication, a taking would have occurred. Nollan, supra, 483 U.S., at 831, 107 S.Ct., at 3145. Such public access would deprive petitioner of the right to exclude others, "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176, 100 S.Ct. 383, 391, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979)." In the Rooke case, the Scotts Valley conversion ordinance went beyond the mere regulation of mobilehome park conversions. By essentially preventing any change of land use whatsoever, said the Court, "...it 'denie[d] an owner economically viable use of his land.' (Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 260.): Its provisions interfered with each of the three fundamental rights to "possess, use and dispose" of property. (U.S. v. General Motors Corp., supra, 323 U.S. at pp. 377-378.) And the restrictions imposed did not "substantially advance legitimate state interests." (AQins v. Tiburon, supra 447 U.S. at p. 262; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. 3141.) In closing, the Court held that the burden of the conversion could not be placed on the shoulders of the Plaintiffs. The ordinance was intended to benefit a favored class of citizens, namely those persons of low or moderate income whose principal asset is the mobilehome which is their residence. No one would dispute that the protection of people whose circumstances make them deserving of "unique protection" (Civ. Code 798.55, subd. (a)) is a worthy objective. But that does not establish that the Rookes and other park owners may be compelled to absorb the costs of such a "'comprehensive program."' The Florida Appellate Court has ruled in Aspen -tarpon Springs Limited Partnership v. Stuart, No. 92-2814, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, Jan. 18, 1994, that relocation assistance is unconstitutional. The conversion ordinance also required reimbursement for tenant equity and value. "...we find that section 723.061(2) constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. We agree with the trial court that the statute goes far beyond the legitimate goal of reasonably accommodating conflicting interests, in effect coercing mobile home park owners to surrender indefinitely their rights to possess and occupy their land and to exclude others. Once the park owners have them moved. A statute that requires any form of remuneration to recover the right to possess and occupy one's own property would seem to be -52-