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 53 confiscatory, but the evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated that neither the "buy out" option nor the "relocation" option is even economically feasible. Therefore, as a practical matter, the challenged statute authorizes a permanent physical occupation of the park owner's property and effectively extinguishes a fundamental attribute of ownership, the right to physically occupy one's land." The Court again relied on the failure of the regulation to advance a governmentally legitimate interest "Unlike section 723.033, the regulatory scheme contained in section 723.061(2) does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, but instead singles out mobile home park owners to bear an unfair burden, and therefore constitutes an unconstitutional regulatory taking of their property. See Aeins v. City of Tiburon 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980), and cases cited therein." In Guimont v. Clarke (1993) 121 Wash.2d 586 [854 P.2d 1], cert. denied 114 S.Ct. 1216, 127 L.Ed.2d 563 (1994), the same issue was presented. Again, the requirement of value or equity buy-outs was rejected. "The amount of money a park owner must pay under the Act is substantial. In fact, under a worst case scenario, the size of the park owner's obligation is assistance even to those tenants who are not financially burdened ... [T]he imposition of costs on closing a business cannot be avoided in this manner. We conclude the Act is unduly oppressive and violates substantive due process." Obviously, requiring the park owner to fund mobilehome buyouts is unconstitutional whenever challenged. The future right of occupation of a mobilehome space, after the departure of a tenant who voluntarily terminates his tenancy by sale or vacation from the property, is a property right which belongs to the park owner. If a tenant voluntarily terminates tenancy, he has no further right to live in the park. He may sell the used mobilehome but certainly has no right to sell the rent -controlled tenancy at current fair market value. Such a practice is no better than "scalping" park entry fees. If park owners did it, a violation of state law would occur. The departing tenant offers no service at all for the added cost of the mobilehome located in the park --the purchaser is simply victimized with a "premium" for entry onto that pad. The regulatory taking can occur by the mere passage of the ordinance. There is no need to exhaust remedies or to await the development of an administrative record. In Richardson v. -53-