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 54 City and County of Honolulu (9th Cir. 1991) 759 F.Supp. 1477, the Court found that passage of the ordinance, per se, effected a regulatory taking because of the unavoidable consequences of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance suffers the same defect, because its application is unavoidable. Assessing the economic impact of Ordinance 90-95 and the extent to which it interferes with the reasonable investment -backed expectations of the plaintiffs, this court finds that the mere enactment of Ordinance 90-95 effects a regulatory taking of plaintiffs' property. As explained below, by indiscriminately and uniformly basing the maximum renegotiated rent on the initial rent paid under the lease and by neglecting to provide any mechanism for adjustment or review, the Ordinance operates to deprive lessors of a just and reasonable rate of return. Id., 759 F.Supp. 1477 at 1439. Thus, the future right of occupation, after a tenant leaves the park, belongs to the park owner. CONCLUSION For the record, please be advised the city cannot require the park owner to seek, collect, retain nor distribute or disseminate any information within the protections of a tenant or tenant's families privacy rights pursuant to California law, "Red Flag" record retention requirements and HIPAA. Nor will any park owners be seeking information from their tenants about which they themselves are not entitled to inquire, under applicable law and regulation. Further, for the record, please be further advised that all rights are reserved to invalidate any claim for the award of attorney's fees on behalf of any party, governmental entity, and or intervener which cannot constitutionally be levied against a plaintiff seeking to petition for redress of grievances against allegedly unconstitutional legislation, as such an award would impinge upon pursuit of legal relief for vindication of constitutional rights. Further, for the record, please be further advised any and all costs, deposits, or other demands for money at the inception of, or upon the filing any application for rent increase processing other than a small ministerial filing fee, shall be deemed to be in a violation of the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances in accordance with California law. Accordingly, any such demand made upon any my clients will be met with a petition for ordinary mandamus in order to seek an order precluding the levy of monies for the purported purpose of funding the administrative processing or judging of a rent increase application constituting a municipal responsibility. The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional in several respects as discussed. And it remains an open and genuine quandary why it is necessary at this time. The city enjoys the -54-