LEXSEE DANIEL GUGGENHEIM; SUSAN ... - Land Use Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25981, *2Page 2for amici curiae League of California Cities, andCalifornia State Association of Counties.Terry R. Dowdall (briefed), Dowdall Law Offices,Orange, California, for amicus curiae CaliforniaMobilehome Parkowners Alliance.Elizabeth B. Wydra (briefed), ConstitutionalAccountability Center, Washington, D.C., for amicicuriae American Planning Association, APA California,Constitutional Accountability [*3] Center, and WesternCenter on Law and Poverty.Meliah Schultzman (briefed), National Housing LawProject, Oakland, California, for amici curiae AARP,California Coalition for Rural Housing, HousingCalifornia, Legal Services of Northern California,Non-Profit Housing, Association of Northern California,R. Keith Traphagen, and Tenants Together.JUDGES: Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Alfred T.Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt, Pamela Ann Rymer,Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Ronald M. Gould, Richard R.Clifton, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, Sandra S.Ikuta, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges. Opinion byJudge Kleinfeld; Dissent by Judge Bea.OPINION BY: Andrew J. KleinfeldOPINIONKLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:We address the viability of a takings claim arisingout of a rent control ordinance affecting mobile homeparks.I. FactsIn 1979, Santa Barbara County, California adopted arent control ordinance for mobile homes. 1 Mobile homeshave the peculiar characteristic of separating ownershipof homes that are, as a practical matter, affixed to theland, from the land itself. 2 Because the owner of themobile home cannot readily move it to get a lower rent,the owner of the land has the owner of the mobile homeover a barrel. [*4] The Santa Barbara County rentcontrol ordinance for mobile homes had as its statedpurpose relieving "exorbitant rents exploiting" a shortageof housing and the high cost of moving mobile homes. 3The rent control ordinance was amended in 1987. 4 Theordinance has a complex scheme for setting rents,limiting how fast they rise, and affording landlords amechanism for disputing the limits. 51 Santa Barbara County, Cal., Ordinance 3, 122(Oct. 22, 1979).2 See Yee v. City of Escondido:The term "mobile home" issomewhat misleading. Mobilehomes are largely immobile as apractical matter, because the costof moving one is often asignificant fraction of the value ofthe mobile home itself. They aregenerally placed permanently inparks; once in place, only about 1in every 100 mobile homes is evermoved. A mobile home ownertypically rents a plot of land, calleda "pad," from the owner of amobile home park. The park ownerprovides private roads within thepark, common facilities such aswashing machines or a swimmingpool, and often utilities. Themobile home owner often investsin site-specific improvements suchas a driveway, steps, walkways,porches, or landscaping. When themobile home [*5] owner wishes tomove, the mobile home is usuallysold in place, and the purchasercontinues to rent the pad on whichthe mobile home is located.503 U.S. 519, 523, 112 S. Ct. 1522, 118 L. Ed. 2d153 (1992) (citation omitted).3 The first section of the ordinance provides the"purpose" of enacting it:A growing shortage of housingunits resulting in a critically lowvacancy rate and rapidly rising andexorbitant rents exploiting thisshortage constitutes serioushousing problems affecting asubstantial portion of those SantaBarbara County residents whoreside in rental housing. These
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25981, *5Page 3conditions endanger the publichealth and welfare of the County ofSanta Barbara. Especially acute isthe problem of low vacancy ratesand rapidly rising and exorbitantrents in mobile home parks in theCounty of Santa Barbara. Becauseof such factors and the high cost ofmoving mobilehomes, the potentialfor damage resulting therefrom,requirements relating to theinstallation of mobilehomes,including permits, landscaping andsite preparation, the lack ofalternative homesites formobilehome residents and thesubstantial investment ofmobilehome owners in suchhomes, the Board of Supervisorsfinds and declares it necessary toprotect the owners [*6] andoccupiers of mobilehomes fromunreasonable rents while at thesame time recognizing the need formobile home park owners toreceive a fair return on theirinvestment and rent increasessufficient to cover their increasedcosts. The purpose of this chapteris to alleviate the hardship causedby this problem by imposing rentcontrols in mobilehome parkswithin the unincorporated area ofthe County of Santa Barbara.Goleta, Cal., Mun. Code § 08.14.010; see alsoSanta Barbara County, Cal., Ordinance 3,122 § 1(Oct. 22, 1979), codified at Santa Barbara County,Cal., Code § 11A-1.4 Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance 3,678(Dec. 21, 1987).5 The ordinance limits the ability of park ownersto increase rent of existing tenants. Park ownersmay only do so once a year, or at the terminationof a lease term. Goleta, Cal., Mun. Code §§08.14.070-080. The amount of the increase isdetermined through arbitration. Goleta, Cal., Mun.Code § 08.14.040. Park owners can automaticallyraise rent by 75% of the local consumer priceindex (a measure of inflation), and may seekadditional increases for various reasons providedin the ordinance. Id. § 08.14.050. When a tenantsells the mobile home to a new [*7] tenant, thepark owner may only increase the rent by 10%.Id. § 08.14.140.Eighteen years after the original rent controlordinance went into effect, and ten years after theamendment, the plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Guggenheimand Maureen H. Pierce (the Guggenheims) bought amobile home park, "Ranch Mobile Estates," burdened bythe ordinance.The park, when the Guggenheims bought it in 1997,was in what California calls "unincorporated territory" inSanta Barbara County. Five years later, in 2002, the Cityof Goleta incorporated in territory including theGuggenheims' land. California law requires a newlyincorporated city comprising previously unincorporatedterritory to adopt, as its first official act, an ordinancekeeping all the county ordinances in effect for 120 daysor until the new municipality changes them, whicheverhappens first. 6 Goleta did what was required on its firstday of existence, February 1, 2002, so the county rentcontrol ordinance for mobile home parks became the cityrent control ordinance on the first day of the City'sexistence, as the City's very first official act. And onApril 22, 2002, within the 120-day sunset period, the Cityof Goleta adopted the [*8] county code including theordinance, this time without the statutory 120-day sunsetperiod. 7 The parties have stipulated that there was a legalgap when the ordinance was not in effect, apparentlyreferring to the hours between the City's coming intolegal existence and the performance of the City's firstofficial act on its first day. Those hours on the first day ofGoleta's existence are the only time between 1979 and thepresent day, and the only time during the Guggenheims'ownership, when no rent control ordinance has burdenedthe Guggenheims' mobile home park. 86 Cal. Gov't Code § 57376(a) ("If the newlyincorporated city comprises territory formerlyunincorporated, the city council shall,immediately following its organization and priorto performing any other official act, adopt anordinance providing that all county ordinancespreviously applicable shall remain in full forceand effect as city ordinances for a period of 120days after incorporation, or until the city councilhas enacted ordinances superseding the county
Page 1: Page 1LEXSEEDANIEL GUGGENHEIM; SUSA
Page 5 and 6: 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25981, *12Page
Page 11 and 12: Appellants Daniel Guggenheim, Susan
Page 21: 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25981, *73Page

LEXSEE DANIEL GUGGENHEIM; SUSAN ... - Land Use Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?