AgdaPkt 2009-10-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 3 Finally, RTAC's report is not the final word. The ARB Board will consider the Committee Report at its November meeting. 'Transit' Continued from Page 1... The California Transit Association reports that the state has seized or diverted nearly $5 billion in transit funding in the last decade. With the Supreme Court's review denial, the case now returns to the Third District Court of Appeal to decide how and when the state will repay the diverted and seized funds. Please visit the California Transit Association Web site for more information about the case at WWW.caltransit.orQ. Ninth Circuit Concludes City's Mobile home Rent Control Ordinance Constitutes a "Taking" Under the Constitution Local governments were dealt a blow last week when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta. A three-judge panel of the court concluded in this case that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a "taking" under the United States Constitution, for which the government must pay "just compensation." This decision follows an equally disappointing decision by a federal district court last August, MHC Financing v. City of San Rafael, which likewise concluded that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance constituted a taking. The ordinances in the two cases are fairly similar; both limit mobile home park owners' ability to increase rents on the "pads" (or plots of land) where mobile homes rest. The ordinances also limit park owners' ability to raise rents on a pad when a mobile home is sold to a new party. Many municipalities have enacted similar ordinances in an effort to protect tenants from exorbitant rent increases due to housing shortages. Mobile home pad tenants are seen as vulnerable in light of the high cost of moving mobile homes. The Guggenheim decision is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that the Guggenheims purchased the property 18 years after mobile home rent control limits were introduced in the county. The county's original rent control ordinance was enacted in 1979 and amended in 1987. When the city Incorporated in 2002, it adopted the county's ordinance by reference. The Guggenheims purchased the property in 1997 and sued the city over the ordinance in 2002 - just one month after the city incorporated. By concluding that Goleta's ordinance constitutes a taking, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the ordinance impermissibly transfers wealth from park owners to tenants. Specifically, the ordinance caused the Guggenheims to rent their property at a rate less than the going market rate. Tenants, on the other hand, benefited from a "transfer premium" that allowed them to sell their homes at a higher price than that which they would normally gamer absent rent control. Goleta will be petitioning the Ninth Circuit for rehearing. The League will file a letter, drafted by Andrew Schwartz of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, in support of the city's petition. The League is also set to file an amicus brief in the MHC Financing case, drafted by Henry Heater of Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, depending on the outcome of the Guggenheim case. Ninth Circuit to Consider Retiree Benefit Case The League filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal earlier this week in Retired Employees Association of Orange County v. County of Orange. The district court in this case concluded that the county is not required to subsidize retiree health benefits absent an express commitment by the Board of Supervisors, which was never given. Unhappy with the lower court's decision, the retiree association has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In this era of rising healthcare costs and fiscal instability, the court's decision will have consequences for local governments throughout the state. 3