HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1992, 1B - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING RENT INCREASES UPON CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS MEETING DATE:
city of San -.AIS OBISPO _ ,�zo
ITEM NUMBER:13 Q
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Q
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Mobile Home
Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Concerning
Rent Increases Upon Change of Ownership, and
Certain Exemptions
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a Report Regarding Proposed Amendments
to the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization
Ordinance, and Provide Staff with Direction as
to Any Preferred Amendments. Two Ordinances
are Included for Council Consideration.
DISCUSSION:
At the June 16, 1992 Council Meeting, Councilman Roalman presented
a communication item to the Council on the issue of mobile 'home
park vacancy control, in response to a request from Mr. Bill Henson
and a petition signed by 239 mobile home owners. . The Council
directed staff to bring back a report on the legal validity of
mobile home park vacancy control regulations in light of the recent
Supreme Court decision in the case of Yee v. City of Escondido, and
to draft a proposed ordinance reestablishing mobile home park
vacancy control in the City of San Luis Obispo. Since the June
16th meeting, the. City has received additional requests to
reinstitute vacancy control, as well as to delete the exemptions
from the rent stabilization ordinance for parks with 66. 67 percent
of spaces under lease agreements (SLOMC 5.44 . 030F) , and parks with
condominium ownership (SLOMC 5.44 . 030 (G) . (Copies of the various
citizen requests are included as Attachment 1. )
BACKGROUND:
In July 1989 , the U.S. District Court entered its final decision in
the case of Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, holding that the vacancy
control provisions of the City of Santa Barbara Mobile Home Rent
Control Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional "physical" taking
of property. (The Santa Barbara ordinance was substantially
similar to San Luis Obispo's ordinance at the time, limiting rent
increases on sale to no more than 10%. ) The City of Santa Barbara
settled the case, and it therefore became binding law in the
federal courts, at least with respect to California.
In January 1990, the City received a request from Western Mobile
Home Association to amend the City's rent stabilization ordinance
to delete its vacancy control provisions in light of the Hall
decision. In June 1990, the City Council amended the Mobile Home
Rent Stabilization Ordinance to delete vacancy. control . A minor
/-1
Agenda Report
Page Two
technical revision was also adopted in July 1990 to establish a
process for determining fair market rent on decontrol.
After the Hall decision, the federal courts continued to strike
down vacancy control regulations as "physical" takings. However,
several California state courts refused to follow the logic of
Hall. As a result, the Supreme Court accepted the case of Yee v.
City of Escondido in order to resolve the conflict. In April 1992 ,
the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the vacancy
control provisions of the Escondido mobile home rent control
ordinance against the argument that such provisions constitute a
"physical" taking of the park owners property. The decision is a
logical one to the extent that it is difficult to imagine how a
regulation can ever be considered a physical occupation of land.
At the same time, the Court left' the door open, under the proper
set of circumstances, for an argument that vacancy control
provisions constitute a regulatory taking. (A copy of Yee v.
Escondido is attached for your information, as attachment 2. ) The
Yee decision has been hailed as a victory by both sides. Mobile
home tenants claim it is a complete vindication for the legal
validity of vacancy control . Park owners assert it was practically
an invitation to relitigate the issues on a "regulatory" taking
theory. Since Yee, several cities have adopted or readopted
vacancy control provisions. Not surprisingly, the Yee decision
has generated extensive litigation throughout the State. (Mr.
Louis Shuster, a mobile home park tenant, has submitted extensive
material on vacancy control in other California cities, which is
available in the Clerks file for further Council review. )
STATUS OF CURRENT LITIGATION:
Attachment 3 is a June 1, 1992 Memorandum from David H. Hirsch,
Lompoc City Attorney and Chairman of the League Mobile Home Rent
Control Committee, on the status of current litigation after Yee.
The memorandum gives an objective overview of the unsettled legal
issues involving vacancy control. Since June 1, the case of
Sandpiper Mobile--Village v. City of Carpenteria was set for
reargument under a regulatory taking theory and was heard by the
Court on July 22 , 1992 . A decision is pending. The decision in
Azul Pacifico v. City of Los Angeles was vacated by the United
States Court of Appeal on July 2.3 , 1992 , and therefore the
discussion concerning Azul is no longer relevant.
Within San Luis Obispo County, both the cities of Grover City and
Arroyo Grande have recently established vacancy control. Grover
City was sued in San Luis Obispo Superior Court on August 5, 1992
on various inverse condemnation and civil rights theories in the
case of Le Sage Enterprises v. City of Grover City. The City of
Arroyo Grande has likewise been threatened with litigation, and it -0
Agenda Report
Page Three
appears that park owners are pursuing their administrative remedies
as a prelude to filing a suit. Morro Bay has received requests to
reinstitute vacancy control but is waiting to see the outcome of
current litigation before proceeding further.
In June 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Commission. This case had been carefully
watched by legal scholars because it was anticipated that the
newer, conservative members of the Court would use Lucas as a
vehicle to fashion new rules with respect to regulatory takings,
which could also affect. vacancy control. To most observer's
surprise, the Court issued a narrow decision which, while departing
from traditional takings analysis, was not the sweeping revision
many people had anticipated. It appears now that the Court intends
to proceed in a deliberate and incremental fashion, perhaps waiting
for the right case with the right facts, before making any major
changes. Therefore, it is uncertain at this point whether there
will be significant changes to the law of regulatory takings which
might affect vacancy control.
OPTIONS:
Option 1: In light of the unsettled legal issues concerning
regulatory takings and the high probability that litigation will be
forthcoming if the City reinstates vacancy control, the Council may
wish to defer action until such time as the legal issues have been
clarified. At the very least, it may be prudent to see what the
results are in Sandpiper Mobile Village v. City of Carpenteria and
Le Sage Enterprises v. City of Grover City before proceeding
further.
Option 2: If the City Council wishes to reinstate vacancy control,
pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) . This would
essentially restore the vacancy control provisions deleted in June,
1990.
Option 3: If the Council wishes to delete the exemptions from the
rent stabilization ordinance for parks with 66. 67 percent of spaces
under lease agreements (SLOMC 5. 44 . 030F) , and parks with
condominium ownership (SLOMC 5. 44. 030G) , pass toprint the attached
ordinance (Exhibit 8) .
Option 4: If the Council desires to reinstate vacancy control and
delete the exemptions described above, you should consider adopting
both ordinances simultaneously.
Option 5: If the Council has additional concerns or proposed
revisions to the mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance,
continue this item with additional direction to staff.
13
Agenda Report
Page Four
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the Council decides to reestablish vacancy control, it should be
recognized that there is a high probability of litigation, and a
corresponding commitment of time and money. As the ultimate
resolution of the regulatory taking issue may ultimately be made by
the Supreme Court, it may be a lengthy and expensive process.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" : Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit "B" : Proposed Ordinance
Attachment 1: Copies of Citizen Requests
Attachment 2 : Yee v. Escondido
Attachment 3 : Memorandum from David Hirsch
J-4
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series)
An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo Amending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code and Section 5.44.060C Relating
to Space Rent Increases in Mobile Home Parks
Upon Change of Ownership
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo:
SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
5.44. 010 Purpose and intent.
A. There is presently within the city
and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces
for the location of mobile homes. Because of
this shortage, there is a very low vacancy
rate, and rents have been for several years,
and are presently, rising rapidly and causing
concern among a substantial number of San Luis
Obispo residents.
B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the
lack of suitable alternative housing, have had
to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a
further reduction in their standard of living.
C. Because of the high cost and
impracticability of moving mobile homes, the
potential for damage resulting therefrom, the
requirements relating to the installation of
mobile homes, including permits, landscaping
and site preparation, the lack of alternative
homesites for mobile home residents, and the
substantial investment of mobile home owners
in such homes, this council finds and declares
it necessary to protect the owners and
occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable
rent increases, while at the same time
recognizing the need of park owners to receive
a suitable profit on their property with
rental income sufficient to cover increases in
costs of repair, maintenance, insurance,
utilities, employee services, additional
amenities, and other costs of operation, and
to receive a fair return on their property.
D. This council finds that the present
low vacancy rate and frequent increases are
particularly hard upon and unfair to residents
of mobile home parks within the city. Large
numbers of these residents are senior citizens
and others on fixed incomes who installed
their mobile homes in the city when the
EXHIBIT "Aff ��
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
present inflationary rent increases could not
reasonably have been foreseen.
E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring
to sell their mobile homes have had difficulty
finding buyers because, upon a change of
ownership, the park owner was able to raise
the rent without regard to the city's mobile
home rent stabilization ordinance.
F. This council finds that it is in the
best interests of the citizens of the City of
San Luis Obispo to assist those who are
seeking to sell their mobilehomes and those
who are seeking to buy such homes to have the
same fair rental protection as is afforded to
those who remain in their mobilehomes without
sale. This council further finds that
provisions allowing annual rent increases
together with provisions allowing rent
increases upon a showing of necessity protect
the park owner's right to a fair return on
investment, thus eliminating the need for rent
increases above 10% upon change of ownership.
G. However, this council recognizes that
a rent stabilization ordinance must be fair
and equitable for all parties and must provide
appropriate incentives for mobile home park
operators to continue their parks profitably,
as well as to attract additional investors for
new parks.
SECTION 2. Section 5.44 . 060C of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
C. The maximum monthly space rent of a
tenant may be increased by the owner when
there is a change of ownership affecting a
mobile home. However, such increase shall not
exceed ten percent of the then existing space
rent and may not, be relied upon any more often
than once in any thirty-six month period as
the basis to increase rent. In the event of
change of ownership resulting from subletting
of the mobilehome space as may be allowed by
state law, should such become state law, then
upon any such subletting the space rent may be
increased up to ten percent of the then
existing space rent. In the event of change
of ownership resulting from vacation of the
space, then the space rent may adjusted to
fair market rent in the community. Nothing in
1"'`Q
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page Three
this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as
may otherwise be provided for in this Chapter.
SECTION 3 . This ordinance, together with the names of council
members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at
least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after
its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo. at its meeting held on the day of ,
1992, on motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
EYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City A 'nistrative Officer
A orn
Community De lopment Director
Legislative Draft of
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 5.44.010
5.44 .010 Purpose and intent.
A. There is presently within the city
and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces
for the location of mobile homes. Because of
this shortage, there is a very low vacancy
rate, and rents have been for several years,
and are presently, rising rapidly and causing
concern among a substantial number of San Luis
Obispo residents.
B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the
lack of suitable alternative housing, have had
to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a
further reduction in their standard of living.
C. Because of the high cost and
impracticability of moving mobile homes, the
potential for damage resulting therefrom, the
requirements relating to the installation of
mobile homes, including permits, landscaping
and site preparation, the lack of alternative
homesites for mobile home residents, and the
substantial investment of mobile home owners
in such homes, this council finds and declares
it necessary to protect the owners and
occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable
rent increases, while at the same time
recognizing the need of park owners to receive
a suitable profit on their property with
rental income sufficient to cover increases in
costs of repair, maintenance, insurance,
utilities, employee services, additional
amenities, and other costs of operation, and
to receive a fair return on their property.
D. This council finds that the present
low vacancy rate and frequent increases are
particularly hard upon and unfair to residents
of mobile home parks within the city. Large
numbers of these residents are senior citizens
and others on fixed incomes who installed
their mobile homes in the city when the
present inflationary rent increases could not
reasonably have been foreseen.
E'. Tenants In mobile home parks desxrl... g
to sell their mobile hcimes have had difficulty
£x.�d�.ng l�uy�rs <becat�se, ti�pon a change ;of
ptanerehip, ;the park owner :was able to raise
tt�ie. went without; ... tq !the czty's' mo3iile
home rent s�abi�a.zation ordinance
;. . ...This councz] e0ds;! that;xtastte
Iaest neests flf thejoitizens of the ;City of
Obspa to ;assist those who are
seekri 'tn ;sell their moblehosnes anis ...hose
iaha axs seek�nq to buy suchihomes to have the
same €.air ren tai.;prate;ct�on: as is afforded to
tha$e ;who remain ;in th''esr; obiletiomes without
sale. This caunci:3 further : find's that
.............._:....__ .........__..::....__..._.....
provisions a3lotaing annual relit increases
together a�th provisions al':3owiig rent
x�creases upon a :showing of t�ecsssaty :protect
the park owner's; right to : a fair return '.'on
nvestZent, tbus elamnatang the 'need for rent
increases aupon change of ownership
GE However, this council recognizes
that a rent stabilization ordinance must be
fair and equitable for all parties and must
provide appropriate incentives for mobile home
park operators to continue their parks
profitably, as well as to attract additional
investors for new parks.
Legislative Draft of
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 6.44.060C
C. The maximum monthly space rent of a
tenant may be increased by the owner when
there is a change of ownership affecting a
mobile home. However, suc3z increase shall not
exceed ten :percent of :the t�iea existing space
pint end may not be relied upon oily more often
than :bice �n a�� th3�ty six month period as
the basis to increase ::rent Irzthe event of
+char,+ge of ownersYixp re:sult3ig from su ;lett�nc
c'f thyno3�� ehome space as may :e allowed by
state law, shoul3 such.; becoae state lair, then
upon any such sub;lettig the' space rent may b
i�gxeasest `up to ten;: perof the Chex
existing space rent Zn the_ eve:nt of: chaige
o ownership resulting fromacataonof the
ssace, then the Space rent iaay be is edtt
fair market rent ;gin the camtt una ty h
Noti.... in
this paragraph shall precT de an ad ustment :as
iiay others�ise be provi3ed for 3n this Chapter
vIelatlen e€ this ehap-ter €er an ewner to
intentlenally—and Will€ully—inerease the
menthly-spaee vent e€-a tenant abeve-thefait-
maEket-rent-in the eenmenity-€er the- purgese
e€ €eyeing the tenant to sell his mebile heme
te- the ewne3F, his agents-er representative.
The—ewner shall use nermal ander
business-praetlees in establishing the new
fair marleet rent ameunt €er- eaeh spaee. The
eity- eeunell reeegnizes- that the ad hee
L � •
establishmenfa-€air market Fent ameuntfer
any given sgaee whenever there is-a -ehaage-e4
ewmer-ship-a•€€eetimej a- mebiie heme "- ---_
lead-te €averitism, diser-tminazien, evaslen ..F
the rent stabiiioazien eEdinanee,and
s s anz4ai eeenemie uneer-tainty€erbeth
buyeL-s and —seders e€ meaile hemesz
There€ere, the ewners _F .,ti ,.....bile ..___ _,.
shall epee, and net than enee at the
beginning e€ ea eh ea i endar year, pest feE eaeh
speee 4n the parle the new fair market rent
aseunt-whieh will: be established igen--eke
fee the mebile
spaee. The park ewner-shall-greviae - S�t
to the neer#, and shall pest a eepy e4
said list in the e€€fee of the—mebiie--heme
parte. Ne rent shall be impesed er eelleeted
in emeess of th6 pvevisiens e€ said list.st.
f -�D
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series)
An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo Amending Chapter 5. 44 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code to Delete Exemptions 5.44.03OF
and G from Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo:
SECTION 1. Section 5.44 . 030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to
delete subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
so that the new Section 5. 44. 030 shall read as follows:
5.44.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not
apply to the following tenancies in mobile
home parks:
A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for
nonresidential uses;
B. Mobile home parks managed or operated
by the United States Government, the state of
California, or the county of San Luis Obispo;
C. Tenancies which do not exceed an
occupancy of twenty days and which do not
contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty
days;
D. Tenancies for which any federal or
state law or regulation specifically prohibits
rent regulation;
E. Tenancies covered by leases or
contracts which provide for a tenancy of more
than a year, but only for the duration of such
lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or
other termination of any such lease or
contract, this chapter shall immediately be
applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases
other than that allowed under the provisions
of the lease shall be allowed during the
duration of such a lease or contract.
SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council
members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at
least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after
its final passage.
EXHIBIT "B" /-/�
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1992 , on motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
EYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
'J ^—
City Adm' istrative Officer
t ney
Community Deve o ment Director
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 5.44.030
5.44 . 030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not
apply to the following tenancies in mobile
home parks:
A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for
nonresidential uses;
B. Mobile home parks managed or operated
by the United States Government, the state of
California, or the county of San Luis Obispo;
C. Tenancies which do not exceed an
occupancy of twenty days and which do not
contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty
days;
D. Tenancies for which any federal or
state law or regulation specifically prohibits
rent regulation;
E. Tenancies covered by leases or
contracts which provide for a tenancy of more
than a year, but only for the duration of such
lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or
other termination of any such lease or
contract, this chapter shall immediately be
applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases
other than that allowed under the provisions
of the lease shall be allowed during the
duration of such a lease or contract.
F. Sjqaees In a mebile heme park in whireh
at least 66.6'7- pereent e€ said spaces are
geverned by a lease With ars initial term of
mere than
G. Mebile heme-games whieh sell lets €e=
€aetery bulla er manufaetured—heus-iec er
whieh—prey ide eende In I eWaership e€ saeh
lets, even if ene—er were hemes in the
develepment are renteder _____d =_t.
l-l3
July 6, 1992
Mr.Bill Roalman
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8100
Dear Councilman Roalman:
When rent control was removed from the San Luis Obispo
Ordinance Chapter 5 . 44 , . the result has been a large increase
in rent when a mobilehome is sold . This has had a negative
Qf- fect on mobilehome sales . As -.re know house sales are slot; .
Sale of a mobilehome is almost impossible .
The mobilehome owners who did not sign• a lease bccaus2
they did not feel it was in thier best interests were left
with no protection .
Mobilehome owners effected by ordinance 5 . 44 . 30 para-
graph "F" deserve the same protection as other mobilehome
owners in our community .
I would like to make a proposal that the vacancy control
.limitation to protuct mobilehome residents from c::cessir0
rent increases when a vacancy occurs be reestabliGhed .
I would like to propose that. the exemption 5 . 44 . 30 `" .be
removed from the San Luis Obispo Pent Stabilization Ord 4lance .
These are very important to mobilehome owners . I would
appreciate yur giving them your ser:Lous consideration .
Sincerely ,
Earl Clester
3960 S. Higuera
San Luis Obispo , CA
93401-7458
( 805 ) 543-6115
.. a -
AUG e 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS O131'',PO,CA
ATTACHMENT 1
RECEIVED
JUN 2 t 1992 June 22, 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIC OBwPO.CA
Ms. Penny Rappa, Vice Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject : Rent Stabilization for Mobilehome Resident
Dear Ms. Rappa:
This communication seeks to inform you of recent
developments in community control of rent adjustments
for mobilehome residents. Copies of Rent Control
Ordinances were obtained from the following _cities:
San Jose Escondido
San Bernardino Yucaipa
Lancaster Grover City
Oxnard Ventura (County)
A. Vacancy Control of Mobilehome Rents
Review of the ordinances for these communities
reveals that all but one of these ordinances require a
Board' s approval or specifically limit increases in
mobilehome space rents when a vacancy occurs. In the
City of Oxnard reinstatement of vacancy control has
been recommended by the city attorney, and may have been
enacted as an ordinance amendment at this writing.
B. Exclusion of "Condominium" Parks from Rent Control
Only two of the ordinances cited above contain
exemptions or exclusions from rent control protection
for tenants in mobilehome parks. Ordinances for the
City of Oxnard and the County of Ventura include a list
of exemptions identical in wording to that found in
ordinances for both the County and City of San Luis Obispo.
C. A Proposal for Council Action
Given this sampling of rent control ordinances pro-
tecting mobilehome residents in communities similar to
San Luis Obispo, the following requests are proposed:
1 . That vacancy control limitation be reestablished
in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance
to protect mobilehome residents from excessive rent
increases when a vacancy occurs.
City of San Luis Obispo June 22, 1992
Page 2
2. That the exemption of tenancies in mobilehome
parks with 66. 67910 of the rental spaces governed by
a lease, or in parks which provide condominium
ownership of lots, be removed from the San Luis
Obispo Ordinance (5. 44.030) . Mobilehome owners
renting spaces in mobilehome parks affected by these
exemptions are deserving of the same protection
accorded all 'other mobilehome tenants in our com-
munity.
Should you wish to review a copy of the ordinances
cited herein, they are in the possession of Ms. Cindy
Clemons, Assistant City Attorney .
Res ectfully,
i
Louis J. uster
10.32 Murl Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 544-2260
cc: Jeff Jorgenson, City Attorney
Jim Wills
W-FTING AGENDA
�-/�-92 ITEM # COM d_.i
��Illli II III IIIIII III�IN�(������GIIII! II III I���
o Cit O sAn tuiSBis
ms-=Mb Fmgm
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 15, 1992
COMMUNICATION ITEM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Councilman BR , n
SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME PARK VACANCY CONTROL
I have received a communication from Mr. Bill Henson requesting that the Council place
on its agenda the issue of vacancy control as an amendment to the City's Rent Stabilization
Ordinance.
A copy of a petition signed by 239 mobilehome owners is attached. I believe it warrants
some discussion or review by the Council.
I, therefore, request that Council direct staff to bring this back with a report examining the
recent Supreme Court's decision allowing a city to prohibit an increase in mobilehome
space rent at the time the mobilehome is sold and draft an ordinance similar to the one the
City had before.
Also attached are recent newspaper articles reviewing this issue.
Thank you.
BR/PV:cm
Attachments
c: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer (w/o attachments)
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer (w/o attachments)
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney (w/o attachments)
Pam Voges, City Clerk (w/attachments)
1-17
What Does The Decision ryrea»r
or.11 a.avrnn eooa.er+eew..r GSMOL s Supreme Court bele(end u
*p thus the Supreme Court has member of tbo firm of Shute,Mih:dy N ,
rendered lis leng•ttwaued ei¢laloo In Wtdnbega.raeogeiralhatthiswoul.l
Yee v L1ryate_"mien.the MON.. be Jus park awan'logical nest mo'e.
-A qumlan fm OSMOL members u nt�Wish to cuCi sur rutile
u: "what does d all mmnT'Failowed quints ishave to challenge[bore pro•
DY:'How door the cue apply to arae they
will You need lodnof;AWfor the answer teedom under a regulatory taking
o them qucnimul theory."she mid.
(N one thing thea Is no doubt.Jur Don Lincoln also fma teal this is it -
tee U'C0000t'a euherdmow opinion tbraot w be taken seriously.
elaanY held than oa to face.the Faeon• "raw.'li bid not s y'tfted the Lr tU r••�
dido Ordleonra did NOT result In a 'sbez clialt ates."sPaisrVd. mieour
other eballenla� he add. "ln tact, N
'physical eking"of the pork ewna's ILL. CV
proptar.As s tswit.fall• ceura RM within twcatyfoal hour of dee YCC
docislm Escondido war sued aguin in a i
hitm stet all other ease which have a can eotdeedlat that its mobflehome rL u)
rclkdupodre"physlealtsking tueOry rest ordikaom eolrotwtrd a draial of
d Ha ate OVERRULED. M Sao a p
Dlata turomay taxa Lincoln d Endo. subsraatve duo ploae»cad a regale• Is n to
man.tlxola*rrrekaHeatsssee0. torytabog.RisCkWthatughthe
cisely smeed:"Jalap Is dead" mkkkfPu+l4a ma msldmu have won C j
The Isere of"physical taking"was amylorbankskew ittte1Over-while t.`
bre primary!Hutt argued to All vacancy we can rejoice thus JC is no marc.we Ldsi
contrail cosn.to dam.The Supreme caasw nfloNtobecomeevermlGrdcul
Court.es the MtbCU Coon In the land. but must be ever vigilant and be pre-
has
mhos now once and for all decided this pitted to defend 00rats any new Chei-
issue agulnn the port owners. kkges._
But what about tho iame of lageie• Bid what cram Oso the"regula.
rorymkl.gTMmhypark owner orgaal• corytakln`tbeorybaveefsueseediall
sedans ad calfs."are grasping this Why wasn't 4 raised In the Supreme
Isatin In an aaempt w mtvnte some. Courtalantgwhbthcparkowmats,Cher
thing from the('nun's declsirh%They claims? There is speculation that
point am than bemuse the Cuurt failed Meaaers Jagieilo and Bork.who pre
to rub upon"mplatory uAleg."but sated the Ymi CNA knew [hut the
uncal so much about it.an am invite. votes were not that:to support Is.mol
toe boa beeneatendcd fm prat owner thus did not urpue the'leguhdruy urs.
to continue their challenge oa o new, ins lave.In 1090.the Supreme('urns
erred even Hare ptnnrinlep,drnry. In' decided at an called SftI!pXS:Wilrn•
dead. Fran Layton. co-author of Cenrinuedanpatea
Page 4 Speetal SuprWs Court Wdon May,1992
What does the decision mean?
CtouDmrd frau Puts J Fro Laymn has need tbat belle would have used is j'usft 1t now mpre' theory of'regulatory tskfkg" should
N" erne.I exn.nta.l®which the" Kodnsti•the Orelhihttt of M.Crani' seater"Pio B:'Lad is nab bent ern' not be oaoath to pravut SOvemmcm
ooghiy discussed mgulaim takings Is mk4ymeyhavedmadyeesuiedthotthis ploYedberauseTIMA"fatted.Until a from ptoteicdnt Its no dy Citzras.
arimmot"neelmewu.While Jus. ncst?etalumtakint'Neorywill na ease 4decided which Mdsvamoq h4mrdedaElethotYatdiGaotBe
hiea0'Ce.00rlteseottactlyathtedrhot succeed. `Remember that7hidgc coouollob@oemheaosumtoml'leges eidealllswascannawdwith vomney
no aliforniacue has pmriouslyap• Kozimisi'sdecision inpr,11%n Aewv latory {ukineitIs "tinnleknl no mostol.Butitwasb'tsuppessedtolTbe
plied it regulatory uWnga wheiytis b My el I err neelm' finds that Los ma"m hew many now thrim are made Case did decide the Issues thus were
tem ordhnkace. numerous Cilifornis Angelei vaCWXY Control paevishse by park ewnem before It.and by a unsatmous must
decunam have Issued decisions which tubstastiallyadvaocet doCIty'skgit• How am ten YS dodnon apply t0 add in favor of mobilchome owners.
foverlowltevanrtuo[mgulatioe mmagowamentparposeofpm"4n8 ym7Thewwerdepm6+Whoawhether The pa&OwaCAnmDow"124 dthe9
"Physical taking"walysrs requires■ missing homroween from dwMad you Ilw..�.d.a Jtttiadetioa urltp a seat DniL"k 4 SECY who Ina a steep uphill
strict look m one simple fan:"ls there mobilehome'values dere to mew tag' matrol 1 C U you do not,the climb.The tido k this houg has pock
a eking a aaT u so.the landowner ing:the mid.-Ho else cottcladtd em' "daek:lanreherneltmed'iotyoshrdry a d4isite tam.and allheal}h de pork
erwtbemrktra.urea tine easeaasod lior in er.,.e.1 erre Reserve v.Cbv nf or Can m now mmidar and tdopt owners have nowod their A—i! the
But in Considering a'�egdamy.iakr Ra kLa rhat a virtually Jd=*d soot muse."VampeYaemol p vuacuwowd road to a total victory is dearly visible
tw a M- bas am ability to look n bllebomavocsocy eel pmv.!—- a be a key pan of ace'such eadsooco ahead
many foesonr$m
.Includke Imanda 12111011112Y MWW to tale ktidmate low if your City has a seat comae!Ndi'
purpose end publk policy behind the etamom porpoise of kcCP4 mobile" noes end did Brei remove to vacancy
ragulotmif.iollowietacompletelook homermi1mcalrtomintpsohlbi4lvdy eonaalQsatoafosatter$e�rheyahoWd
as rbc face tat law Is Been as going too high and lbw did not violate:park wan= be mapsmL:md Their 10111 mm
fm B will be held m be a"mgutatosy as subsmadve due groomers ri1Ns' has beat vladles"NO dWY acrd do
sadQ&"Tbw.by the very mtum of aha U thus a®oa fair to conclude shat each..$,
theary.itshould beeadafor cities to altheaghthe was ls24Q'I' 69te119b' IfyaardCdidremovevemsYmns.
defend agaim a"milulalory mklot' an battle has beam fosghtabdwoaIIA cdit0w14bund1smed4l000CI b11 b
ci than I& was 19 dakod against -regalasory taking-was the bat av- your agneamtives that g0 ad its
Ea noun of ouock foe nett*pone,tbm' effspdt wedmdaedt atihermcnred
� a
�I #• kip!,
lit,
2
7� �
�
gill a a41}� ° ° 1p C .Ikill E
! sit 4 3 �
6 _ ULLI
�
Y $_
yea ° y
5 � r
y 'zt
g I I -fl.
'Z k021
3a 83114 egg
1 hall
T O d N7 W 17021 NC W 1 I ONf'100 0b S: T NOW ZG - S T - Nnr
June 9 , 1992
Dear City Councilman Jerry Reiss :
Enclosed please find 239 signatures from mobilehome owners .
These signatures represent a request that "vacancy control"
be placed on your agenda and considered for reinstatement
to the Rent Stabilization Law.
We were limited by time from gathering more signatures. No
one we approached refues to sign. If the number is not
sufficient, please advise us of the addition numbers which
are needed and we will supply, them.
Sincerely,
Bill Henson
-do
1_7
TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
SUBJECT: Reinstatement of "vacancy control" to Rent
Stabilization Law:
On April 1, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that Escondido or any
other jurisdiction could prohibit an increase in mobilehome space
rent at the time the mobilehome is sold. A new buyer may occupy
the mobilehome at the same rent charged to his seller. We request
that vacancy control be added to Section 5 .44 .060C of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A number of cities and counties
have already added vacancy control to their ordinances and some of
these are listed below:
City of San Jose
City of San Bernardino
Ventura County
City of Oxnard
Union City
City of Yucaipa
City of Morgan Hill
Please consider adding San Luis Obispo to the list.
Sincerely,
Vacancy Control was removed from the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law due to a court case in Santa Barbara in
1990 .
Some mobile homes change hands far more often than
others , so as a result of this change, large
variations in rent often exist in mobile homes
which sit side by side. (Often a difference of
$60 or more a month exists . ) At present, an
increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome
is sold.
A recent Supreme Court decision empowers cities
to outlaw the rent increase when a mobilehome
is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable
and fair.
I ADDRESS: DR
jr ✓�
PRINT NAME �/fTRic h Al S�,�gTeR 10 3 2 1n JL
SIGN NAME
y�f
- - -
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NMIE
PRINT NAME � ..-/ P
ADDRESS:
SIGN NAMEJ� . Ci/GritiC — /� 0 /� !✓r.rhr.#r 7.+�
PRINT NAME r - �] ADDRESS:
/�a -
SICN NAM ---
PRINT N41E S.+A 92oA/ �. D2Es P ADDRESS:
NAME ��� ADDRESS:
PRINT N
- ,L ' /613
S L . O
SIGN N_M/E
T
PRINT NA TN . ADDRESS
PRINT N ,Sa �uET_ Cha_
SICN NM1E - '/
PRINT NAME`Do h, o� ,( e fj ✓ y ADDRESS. Cite �X" �uj ✓t -rz a
SIGN NAME _gg / y�
PRINT NAMELIJCt/ /�[%/1✓y ADD>%EG/7 (�rv,u/�� tjnvt SGS
SI GN NAME'
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: 6�p p.t 1' DA'
SIGN NAME �76w1v�svB%,5 CN 4��4oS
_ --
PRINT NAME g �/ �, A/IV ADDRESS: le �- 9
SIGN NAMEQILt,.,Q JAN
PRINT NAME r ��/� �rj n1 ADDRESS: 1(az / ,eAU. J7�
l, -
4 -0
SI-GN NAME
PRINT NAME b-NL 0. R+ ADDRESS:
SIGN 'NAME
F - M/CKGF - ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME J / 71j� �
SIGN NAME.
PRINT NAME a.eGq --r-
SIGN
/C AGF ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME et2ctG -Qa:
PRINT NAME• ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME _ - ------`r /
cf 3 SLm�
. PRINT NAME ADDRESS.
SIGN NAMEe �c.rrA+
PRINT NAME ^, c �' C.f , ADDRESS:
�r
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME , ���� ADDRESS.
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAPtE �� ��, WA�) ADDRESS:
N Q �5.� 1 r2 nzX�r,-rte �n.
SIGN NAMEy
PRINT NAME — ATIDRE
SIGN NM1E wr i
PRINT NAD -- 7, i [_ _ GL ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME _
PRINT NAMEA e ADDRESS
l�LI/(�[___ J ___���� Gam- l
SIGN NAME _719 /
ADDRESS:
PRINT
PRINT'NAME -e2 9 � la„
SIGN NAME 11, A h M Zra ,_,�: 0
PRINT .NAME -- � ADDRESS:
XL
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAM l/ U ADDRESS:
�p
SIGN NAM_ —
PRINT N ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM L` �yi4 LSirst✓ �' �! '1 o
PRINT NAME J C ADDRESS:.
-7
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME J Ii e v V ADDRESS:
SIGN`NAME._......_ ..
PRINT NAME (NIrC'EB ADDR D �RZ& ._
SIGN_Nnmt _�6
PRINT NAME MI¢ I 6 s ADDRESS:
I^ 11, E
slcN anME �� w��. -. -
PRINT NAME �jQ�/�/L'�S 7o�E/n�i - ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME: --
PRINT NAME �� ff // t_ �E LEU Al! ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
nt •rn F/J Llior�
117
SIGN NAME � -,& _ t, �•�+ . `�3y�—r_
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME + ,cJ `++ ---
ADDRESS'
PRINT NMME / S ��� fJ / fJ
SIGN NAME II 2! S . .✓
PRINT NAME . -r
ADDRESS:
I%rJl1/d,ZlE �G/'f✓SL�f/ /O SG /�eL ►�
A
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME or
SIGN NAME`
PRINT NAME /JV1� — _C ADDRESS JD
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME -� ADDRESS:
�. . = F -,
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: !! `�
SICN NAME 1004 mow . VV
PRINT NAMF� – / ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME --5 5 ADDRESS:®
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �o�eN !�• /✓e 1 �� AD/-fi�SS:
SIGN NAME Cvi.re ��i
p /v
PRINT NAME ADDRESS'
� �"JT
�G- /�� 1�7i/7 — S,/7 N
S I G 14 N AM E
—
PRINT NAME] ,y� p,/ A11DRF.SS D
SIGN NAME___ i f'
PRINT .NAME Je R 0!¢ ADDRESS: 1014 / xyy De
gy/�vls 46r-po cA jjyw- ,
SIGN NAME �,K t -- —
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS:
SI GN�NAMF,
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ` fvine I�Y�r ADDRESS:
u
SIGN NAME loot ya—e
ADDRESS
PRINT NAME _ flu :
�a n�
SIGN NAME �ur
I D l 6
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM / U 0 ? 3-5)oe-
PRINT NAME A( /L/(�/ /
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME
� r ADDRESS:
Baas 9vqrwe�
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS_-
-- ---- -- -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �r;L C ws L ! ��/y ADDRESS: _ n_
SIGN NAME �,�I� L�.lchL
PRINT NAME ,�.�CtC�r ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAD1E -- ----- ADDRESS: i -1
p
SIGN NAME... _ - --
PRINT NAME S L, C3- --L-- -N ADDRESS�:/2- �.,,�� �e
SIGN NAME 5'L-0, CD
PRINT NAME G 1 ADDRESS: c'�
SIGN NAME
r� ADDRESS: �a�� ���,n �,•P
PRINT NAME / /
ui Syu
SIGNT NAME...... --
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
mw
• SIGN_NnME�5�� n� �_ �_ CSL—.3�
PRINT NAMEM fa2C-U F 2 1716 of .9 u �- ADDRESS: 'Q
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAMr: _ ^�--
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEADDRESS:
wATPiN � n di1 �9ci (�LA72E D2
SICK NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS.
/a:.L yc/i17V' ��} yos-
SIGN NAME �---- ---
PRINT NAME der - ADDRESS: `114NJ6-
SIGN NAME'
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME jADDRESS:
- I
SIGN NAME
PRINT NK%fE ADDRESS
SIGN NAME _
PRINT NAME - - - - ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME I _
PRINT NAME
(ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ! ADDRESS:
i
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
INT NAME ----- -- - ADDRESS:
PR
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN�NAME _._.-..---.•_-- —
PRINT NAME -- -- - - - ADDRESS:
i
SIGN NAME_-
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME .
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
f
l
PRINT—NAME �' � SSi _ L D�v ; f ADDRESS':
SIGN NAME ./
07, M- (J l c#,71 6.
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NA-lE -
PRINT NA61E ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME - ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAND ADDRESS:
PRINT •NAME . .._ . - - _ ._ .. ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME_
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME . -- -- - -
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME:
I
/ d7
PRINT NAME 14 � L < — .1 �,:.ti N I ti �� ADDRESS,, Cl/i � r
SIGN .p64FFE� T' l'• •�
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAM �• ti ! �� ��� r�^! �'i•• .�J
- ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME r, �`1~ ..`L���' ��/L C�c •�..(� . �
-- ADDRESS:
PRINTNAME
lo'
SIGN NAME —
ADDRESS:
PRINT NM1F.
SIGN NMIE r pt ,,1 ,:r'L //. • J LVr'. n'J d 1t,1
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME s - - 1-S
SIGN_NM1j?'eC-,-', amu:---
PRINT NAME -
ADDRESS
� �J-_.�,r�:�� --• ---.__ - - - --- - -- --- -
SIGN NAME ii< 5� � / �•• �, L t<'.��`-'�< ^�" - -
_ �i� ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME 4,1¢�,T_[�q �,��
SIG—T � .`l /
rM1E ADDRESS
Lb eX7 1Ec�C>Gii�/
SIGN NAME � i Fc S��•
ADDRESS
PRINT NAME sl
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ <�. -:i' ADDRESSk
{ rA` 0 GSC
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME /44 1J r7 ADD
SIGN NAME (x r ' ee
1 4'C,l Y'rX-o
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS: �.
SI .N NAMEADDRESS:
---'---'-------
A"
- PRINT NAME - - - /033 �I6 ell
SIGN NAME w
F �� f/ i✓I c- - I-LAK ADDRESS: O
PRINT NAME �//�I�� / O ZS AMAlefY DP I SL
SIGN NAME
PRINgNA. S� ADDRESS: V7
SIN
i
� � C__ ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME y `
-91
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME-
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME -
-- ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
- ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME.
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME -
ADDRESS
PRINT NAME -- -- -- -- - - - -
SIGN NAME
- " " - ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME'
- --- ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME.-.-_-:.--...._--
_... -- --_------
ADDRESS: - - -
PRINT -NAME - - - -
SIGN: NAME___ ,..
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME - --
i
l�
PRINT NAME q ADDRESS /(,,- Ire lR-
� .P jai P / / ALO 2 i2 �_ (.0a ti/oS�
SIGN NAM a J;' ZF- ��• rr
PRINT N r ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SICN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME i .'' <i i ;7/JFf'�ii/
PRINT NAME ADDRC-SS:/C�'G
� r
SICN NJN `I ��..v �,....• G/I�.�-j �/� '3 �r'�
rL�
PRINT NAME J. r�,y^� <rE> ADDRE S.
G.9
SIGN NAAIE < A-/ « �. � Gee ; - S )2-_,�(L�c� L`�l[c " ar''-C% :`Yd-�
_ -
PRINT
NAME '.(Z1 - !_ A I� ADDRESS
SIGN NAME^ �s —�+�- ll[
V
PRINT NAME -! p1Q /S�/`/ ADDRESS:
E//z—,q( tLl�� �— c, fah e�
SIGN NAME _ / icC�p D �/ L) A
PRINT NAME U ADDRESS: , }
T�AW1Y���1« /o Y9 ?�'c•w;.�J iC.t�.
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME l'iAit/:�2J'/ 6(14 ADDRESS: le 7
Y
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME / :qm ���� ADDRESS: /O 3/G
SICN NAME i'l r% "� ,dn.GU/� D�ir�_ r' ��'•
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
SICN NAME Q �_ 9
. .cum .w-•
PRINT NAME �iC'F� = �F_ VIVI-7 nnDREss: ./G2t /`1c'.c'L /Ic'/lit_
SIGN u��'�r/Q2�S.L�
PRINT NAME f-1 „i D TAJ/lid dntir - ADDRESS:
c� Jel..4 6 ti/ JAZ.
SIGN_NAM t_ •_(/lG�[�/ '2lift✓ _�.cw /sa. ,. S
PRINT NAME cc-- YF/510-S ADDRESS.:
IS
SIGN NAMEiP1r. /�u�G
PRINT NAME ,2��� R ADDRESS:
/ Q ' LTa� %3%m�
SICN NAME 7rr7wcr / rov-� _. +it. __:_. - -
II
I
— — ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME J c' wir IJ
SIGN NAME' p ✓ �r Cly
PRINT NM1E ADDRESS: r
i
SIGN NAME
-PRINT NAME ty ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME JNn/ 4 Ui
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -----
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -. ---
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME _
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME —
_ .
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
^PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME —
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
--- ADDRESS:
PRINT -NAME - - -
SIGN._NAME
—
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME_ -
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME ----
I
PRINT NAME i I �L _�-� �V SQ r�� ADDRESS:
^���LM�i DAF
SIGN NAME 'rQ tL� �-'
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAM 2 � � r ,a ADDRESS:
SIGN NAMES
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIG N NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
ve,
SIGN NAME _
PRINT NAME � T/�- ` —A '11L4 ADDRESS: ]�)
�>
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME. ,y,y,��h'?q ��� ADDRESS
SIGN NAME „�,✓� sq �t.(� -rnti -
PRINT-NAME �7�«p /vj. Ccs(Yr bS ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME__a jrv��� 87l Pfl+e �R-
PRINT NAME 47 p ��N y' d /^r !�' CSF_/�' C� ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME ( ,?/ , r7 /, / F�>?
PRINT NAME e 1' A ('-, P ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME j� aL1 tr. �2�r= 1Lr
_ L
PRINT NAME Q jl Q - 6 LL ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME C-eaukA4,-p- _
PRINT NAME SUN ADDRESS:
SI.CN NAME
PRINT NAME -Q - �� S ADDRESS: —
SIGN NAME%---.
PRINTNAME Fu zq a rrll /¢�' ���Lr'/�f/ ADDRESS, 1 d7 3 G y '�
SIGN_ NAMt� �
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME —
PRINT NAME r ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
i
r ^
ADDRESS:
;PRINT;NAME
E p ME ADDRESS:
Jro s c2T L-' EC�
SIGN NAME - /�c�9 YNr✓ �A _
PRINT NAME jIk-�AVZL� %b 0A H4-
ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME40
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
GtlFCL F_. /11r � r.sonl 17061 �4WN Ru F-
SIGN NAME �� c�ilN 4.";-s rsAo 9 O�
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
j .. F�O oh/ 7/G �yyw A
SIGN NAME ,�d
.d KSS AJ /RC /
PRINT NAMEMe �j
P_RINT NAME / n/1' -- ADDRESS
SIGN NAME �[ I7/r L) —
PRINT NAME _4 17 J 7
13,e-t2rH� �. K� < LoGG n 8
SICN NAME
pJ,,,il/LLlG—
PRINT NE J /7A,O D )9L. U-S - A�/ 1 S
AM
SIGN NAM L (/J �/
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME I _
PRINT NAME R i �.F ��/ .c : �S /ADDRESS:
_
SICN NAME d CLM' `
PRINT NAM-;-_'
PRINT NAME II // Tt �— ADDRESS.17'r
Ir11rc1l� y r
SIGN NAME � .� .— 1.-=—'� _ -p ivS
ADDRESS: Jho/ r//E(��� N.
PRINT -NAME,d15- c�• 935/OS
SICN NAME .
PRINT NAME C��AR LEs A • C�/r lf�1'4A ti! ADDRESS: 1700 �pEL(ZA lJr6�✓
SIGN NAME . ----
PRINT NAME�l,XAd- H ADDRESS: do
/7o
SIGN NAME � � -e�w---.---.--. —
I
Y-33
PRI N"-NAME n� I C C 13 L M E R y ADDRESS:
SICN NAME {�.C�•cet� 63 `C%mc�. l7 C Zil,
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NMIE
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME 4"-- OS
PRINT NAS / �' ADDRESS:/ efi7 �
SIGN NAME T w � �5 �5 d
PRINT NAME ADDRF.S.SS:
_ m of APs / 7/6
/ �p
SIG N NAMEU°.-J--...___ S4fl 1�S .4f7!1.c_D.L4-
PRINT NAME U; r y; ,�; a �.,%/'/Le- ADDRESS._ /%b
SICN NAME - - _..
PRINT NAME °s / I ADDRESS:/017/ h �/_
7
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ����' ��N �vt�jVJCCNC" Annaess: 1221 hmZr ene, (Dl?-
SIGN NAME -1, -,�N7i ujkup-,4�•
« �t�,�c�
PRINT NAME L �//� ADDRESSr: / FC i lf1FG A,A-.D
SIGN NAME, 7 S_fa /l�/+ c.'1SOR15cc) -C6qr2 1�
PRINT NAME A / el '/ ADDRESS:
z::�L 573lei'l
PRINT NAME L�n��e,s T . /�f- r ADDRESS:!
SICN NAME
—PRINT NAME C°c�lYo/ 11J��Y�q ADDRESS:
SIGN
7. . . _ ._ .. ADDRESS: 1 g 33 Citi T.r+ 6 D ct,
PRINT NAM • T / -{
slcN NAME S'An/• . v� 1 e-�•�"3�Fo t'
PRINT NAME. ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME . _ —_—
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
�I
1 it
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIG4 NAME
PRINT NAME
1'r ADDRESS:/ ADDRESS A?p
SIGN NAAfE —
tZ
PRINT NAME � Y �� ar ADDRESS: �� �� y�✓.a+�i 1Sh �
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME / R�. = � KR/+/-��
SIGN NAME — _�„���� SLG _ CR j3le
oV"
PRINT NAh1E �/��✓ �� L--� ADDRESS:
�
SIGN NAME C�� / DDy (,/RVC TT;5 �G�
PRINT NAME DOS , S Yz C��ARdSIEy ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
PRINT ADDRESS)0/
RINT N
-- --- - - OIg- -C�_.L-�a.✓_ALX --• - S L !�
SIGN NAME '-
PRINT , LJ� L ` ADP.RESS: ��
NAME UG ��
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
T3.e�L A IA61 /8d B C�n-rn e'ff�e.
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME RESS
PRINT NAME (/ -i-C'_ A� C-V ✓'^'r-//y /JY `
SIGN NAME. SLD
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: �o/b l � 7
SAIIy s1� -
�/ � 5*,v e6O66ve �4 931.05
SIGN NAME .�. .�J- ... Y`.Cpa✓- ---- -- -- —
PRINT NAME �"o ��}���1�✓ ADDRESS: c
SIGN NAME._...
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN--NAME
.. s�x�•-� /1102 - —
PRINT NAME e ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME . � —
PRINT NAME yF L C/V G s r/ L' E ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME: �; -/0 3 v2 � '+�- CYiI�. ✓i `�' _
/�3S
PRINT NAME I__ y ADDRESS:
. � •(,O C1 I:. C L�GG/�
SIGN NAME !2l 7 / i ei + .,. .
^ PRINT NAME L aV111. 4 L J , �� / ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME sT� �. ADDRESS:����
_
SIGN NAME
_ AME - --- - ADDRESS'
PRINT N
f�lr L Mo f� / g3� Gclnel _
SIGN NAME l ,.m�,,j�
PRINT NAME (� / E V S C�� �C'KrG ADDRESS: 1 b
SIGN NAME
/ -- ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME /a�V P- Y14-0m /.97i7pie-t�e J 6�
SIGN NM1E QLD X13 `taS
PRINT NAME G ADDRESS ,
SIGN NAME JOnMp Y� _��eYwt S .
PRINT NAME f ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME '
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME •-----•--'_-_- •_-- ADDRESS: -
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME i ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME- ! ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN
--�� ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME • - - - - - -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME. _ _ -
I
_ - I
i
I
I
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME l-
PRINT NAME ?A/` G t�/cr ADD/REBS
SIGN NAM!,
/
D ��y
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SICN NAME /L r <4
PRINT NAME �d ADDRESS: (�
no}e1/i 3• - /Gad KJreh Orl,v?
SIGN NAME )
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME � � 5 N J
SIGN NAME_ �� /�rflG �`! ✓`�� 3 G�
PRINT NAME `�`� �TF_ �Q C'1art ADDRESS: �
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS .
SIGN NAb1E
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME
- - ADDRESS:
SIGN WIE
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME - ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME --
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME.... ...: ..._._.-... --- ----=
PRINT NANL•
ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -. ._:.__..._
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAMF, -
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
——�=—
TO: CITY COUNCIL .MEMBER
SUBJECT: Reinstatement of "vacancy control", to Rent
Stabilization Law:
On April 1, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that Escondido or any
other jurisdiction could prohibit an increase in mobilehome space
rent at the time the mobilehome is sold. A new buyer may occupy
the mobilehome at the same rent charged to hi.s seller. We request
that vacancy control be added to Section 5 .44 . 060C of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A number of cities and counties
have already added vacancy control to their ordinances and some of
these are li.sted below:
City of San Jose
City of San Bernardino
Ventura County
City of Oxnard
Union City
City of Yucaipa
City of Morgan Hill
Please considek adding San Luis Obispo to the list.
Sincerely,
Vacancy Control was removed from the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law due to a court case in Santa Barbara in
1990 .
Some mobile homes change hands far moreoften
than
others , so as a result of this change, large
variations in rent often exist in mobile homes
which sit side by side. (Often a difference of
$60 or more a month exists. ) At present, an
increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome
is sold.
A recent Supreme Court decision empowers cities
to outlaw the rent increase when a mobilehome
is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable
and fair.
!-fig
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS: I,I i 6j:... , 1:.-)
:� �I
� ~ I(.(..�.i. ,��('I:(�(-i-LA.i t �s(•'I �G�v � 6_.7.`' �•f l3
SIGN NAME' //..-
- :� } r✓ � `�.: r_ y n ADDRESS:�`I
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
- Aa
PRINT NAMET)�h�,��� -
SIGN NAME �QM
!
PRINT NAME AD� iS'�
ttr_:" f �, - I ,: y
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME
11
SIGN NAME1�CI--'--
Y PRINT NAME ` 1 � C I ADDRESS: .l -
SIGN NAMt�-Cyt�•1}s.'�
PRINT NAME �� W[-% 4'rji ADDRESS
�� - � 1
SIGN NAMEc �ui;c-
----
PRINT NAME I✓f ADDRESS:
At IT
SIGN NAME -•�
PRINT NAME I • �' - _. ADDRESS:
J
- SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMF .: ' ADDRESS,,!.,
SIGN NnME.Tf.•/.T%'..--� �7. /_�� .:� . :.. ---•--
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME���
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS:
it
PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME -
L ,, � CG
--
.,..,T hl(l-i v 4.0 roL t.lc _ nnnxFSS:
1 /
SICN NAME�77-r_.�
PRINT NAME II RCh ADDRESS: C,
!c
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME —Q/JL c' ADDRESS: ?�6 �•• I
/� _ rt
1
SIGN NAME
I
-3`�
=^^— ---- l• � _ / ADDRESS4 1
PRINT NAMES i i /+i
IM k! / - )�'NN . /
SIGN NAME
i j - ADDRESS:
PRINT NMIE,',, nil '1 I - iL _„ ,Q�
SIGN NMIE •ln"c/� ? l - +. �ienO-_ �, i i---
PRINT NAME - —1K ! ADDRESS:V'��/?-
SIGN NAME r`, ' I v L.Ir-�': ••c�� ! � �L,_'.�r (—/_ ... `r
PRINT NMIES �' (� _ r c'./Z i ADDRESS:j J�� r` �!��•�.Lnc�i_rR ��
�f l
SIGN NM1E,-,
Ci Z ' f Y/!',+ f_rc•c � �• li< <: -<<' r —
PRINT NMT:_i C G� �_ k� )� Af1DR1L•SS::ea
SIGN NAME
' ---- ADDRUS:. :Y
PRINT NADI - .> >. � ;�. l,J
SIGN
PRINT NAMEA 9T}1(G r' S /i�C /✓/ L/v ADDRESS .3 ( � j •� 4.� =rl .��_.--
SIGN NMiE ��TL4/rl �/� _�JiE',: [- 1,., -- t:+. v� t!r✓ �.J `•/�
PRINT NAMEtz"A ADDRESS: 3 _ ��J/�JJ� y,f 1Gr,� �Q -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �� ADDRESS:
�:
� -.r' ,tri _—
SIGN NAME
RINNTT NAME ADDRESS.: � '�( �_ ��/�+[� 1-
P :�.• // r [� � /�': (r \
SIGN NANir �, /' . l✓ / /
PRINT NAMEDD/- ADDRESS:
c
SIGN NAME
PRINT NM1E ADDRrSS:
so
SIGN NM1E .r,�i
_PRINT NAMG L r: L t H r�
ME
/+,.wL/, C 1 r %1:ter" S..L .t� C F•
AGN N/.M - •� —�—._
-� - --- r� IT rL - ADDRESS: o,5_
//a •
SIGN
_NAMG_—.:.
ADDRESS: 3ccf, C-3.
PRINT NAMEh(P, ,�._�'�
SIGN NAME/l.�j//�i. s!rl✓' L^Yi�: �t;!( �'ri I +L r r...1., `' 13ua
PRINT NAM `lCZ_ I C,�C ADDRESS: -l9bD5
-SIGN NAM_ C✓n+a�/ _
I+�
I
PRINT NAME /t'j. F2! '�/zs ADDRESS:
r
�
SICN NMIE 54�
PRINT Nl�NE / LHL LC fJL' / /! S'/cO 1 ADDRESS:,%`o <,CL?.Csa; l�4 ,
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME -� y - 5 y ! ADDRESS:-3`/6-0 S v, z Y,7
SIGN NAME C�
!
PRINT NAME p PF t AnDRESS �i/Q
SIGN NAME K ! �/_'• __ __ c�
PRINT NADIL�
SIGN N_AME
PRINT N57
AML V�R� - .}{O Ult)�KI ADDRESS �q6O n5-
s I cN N E - � c..aj!{� s�•N j„U(S aBl Sia �Sl 930 l _ _
PRINT NAMErp4<+/f2P -O�gaLLj5K ADDRESS: 3c> f1
SIGN NAmr rfl.
PRINT NAME �osePH NE To I- l G r< Y ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME G.� I ADDRESS:
-J /
PRINT NAME PRESS `
LYA/!/7 .BEV E �Sy
SIGNNAh1E nilllr Gy/S
PRINT NAME rr I n�DD�R�F�SS: j14—
SIGN NAME
PRINT NA�1ES
r
---
r* f'T _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM - Sir L./ry o9y/S f� COI '5)3+ o! _
PRINT NAMEADDRESS: 9((x,,0 Sn D ► l58___.
SICN NAME CA QsAO�
PRINT NAME 4y7 /I1� ADDRF.SS:3y_�
_SIGN NAME
- - i
• l I
PRINT NAME,.'-,qYE (� K ADDRESS:, �D _NiGtiP,RA
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: 5 cz -J` -e
R 3461
SIGN NMIEAL,V Z��
PRINT NMIE _ h j AllDRESSStJG,O � i./, _,;�,�,�'ird'Y _
SIGN NAME t :_c_ ,�` } O
PRINT NMr,R
IE �� j
ADDRESS: .? 744
y
s -
SIGN NAME —
V
PRINT NAM F. j ADDRESS: ; c S N%GuET'fJ �t r3y
M�R.y a 3QCN -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMED. Irl. L tr'k� hsr� ADDRESS:
PRINT-NhINtE j3j e—'�' _ nADDRESS
SIGN NA1,1E
- K
PRINT NAME ! `c ADDRESS: /��_
SIGN NA,�t
PRINT N LePJ}
SIGN
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
S
—� cc r c�o z
SIGN NAME
PRINT NM1E ��e /rlN S n -- DDR SfS I 33
SIGN NAIME ,)-A;,nD_h,. S 1,UIS 6I�1S�LIl�
PRINT NAME -onQ �� ADDRESS: 4 �.SP
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAM *C2
_SIc.N� E �t
P:ITN'r 1' ADDRESS:
SIGN
PRINT NMIE ��, N P� -- — ADDRESS: / _R..• .
SIGN NAME ---- --�
PRINT NMIE d . 0-1'
slcN NM�r: :y SQN L01,3 Ob15 o r14- 9j Ni/
J1�f�
a
PRINT NAME Lem j h,5,-k
ADDRESS':3 ? d
SIGN NAME ' --
=z
PRINT NAME `- lGmcnt nc /VIic-ine4. 1 ( ADDRESS: 3�1- n /ti!+ •ti-��- i �� 7—
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEADDRESS:!(
M 0/v r7 �r�,l!' /it �'CH
SIGN NAME ✓ S�� O G H. rj=
- --- ---ADDRESS: 39G0 S•
Ail 3
PRINT NAM E e��0�
SIGN NAME i 11 ! Ct•eLti
PRINT NAME CSA ADDRESS:
$; !//GUE/eA #.3
SIGN NAME !� � C�-•s' SAN LU/S O.B/SPo C14 931fo1
PRINT NAME Inn / ADDRESS c.vr+�Ztt� 7! 7 /
�l^trV//iFRli �; YI=1 Tc�� I 3yGO-S �0
SIGN NAME -
ADDRESS 391 c'...5 _.1� 'Fc'f:RH _.-7Z`_`/.r�
PRINT NAME S t --
SIGN NAME , :et.-�z� SR At l t r S phi C CA
- -:. -- --. -. - --
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
,trA,e� r QAC u
SIGN NAME � 1:ry 3?4;o d 2
PRINT NAME � � ADDRESS: /�G ��/�U 5/'rycr�•Y�
SIGN NAME �� 0
PRINT NAME n�, P Q - _ I ADDRESS �O0-4
SIGN NAME �� ✓ j{{{ r U
PRINT NAME E ADDRL-SS:,3��P� S, 114pee%q.
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME / . c, ?Z'�6
?a r,
ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME } t�1YJ��+ �-
SIGN* NAME _._... - . . .. .-_ '/--
PRINT NAME `-=VCJ-rCli ADDRESS: J�
SIGN NAM( % .. . -. . . .. -- -------- _ -
PRINT N a _S�/ N S e
ADDRESS: 6 0 S
#/
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �y /r! �T//✓� D IV,-- ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
143
i= I
1522 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
under the takings clause only if considera-
John K. YEE, et al., Petitioners tions such as the purpose of the regulation
V. or the extent to which it deprives the owner
of the economic use of the roesug-
gest
u
•}� � CITY OF ESCO�DIDO, CALIFORNIA. property�' -sg"
gest that.the regulation has unfairly sin.
4
No. 90-1947. gled out the property owner to bear burden
Argued Jan. 22, 1992. that should be borne by the public as a
whole. U.S.C.A. Const k^pend. 5.
Decided April 1, 1992.
3. Eminent Domain X20)
i
ac-home ark owners brought The government effects physical tak-
e g ng only where it requires the landowner to
tion and claimed that local rent control submit to the physical occupation of his
ordinance, when Viewed against backdrop land. U.S.C.A.•Corst.Arnend. 5.
of California's Mobilehome Residency Law,
amounted to physical occupation of their 4. Eminent Domain e-2(1.1, 10)
property entitling them to compensation Whether the government floods land-
under the takings clause. The Superior owner's property or does no more than
Court of San Diego County, No. \742268, require landowner to suffer installation of
Don Martinson, J., sustained city's demur- cable, the takings clause reouires compen-
rer to complaint and dismissed the action. sation if the government authorizes com-
a Mobile home park owners appealed. Elev- Pe11ed physical invasion of property.
}: en other cases were consolidated with the U.S.C.4. ConstAmend. 5.
mobile home park owners' case. The Court 5. Eminent Domain x2(1.1)
of Appeal, 224 Cal App.3d 1349, 274 Cal. Landlord and Tenant X200.11
Rptr. 551, affirmed. Petition for certiorari
was filed in eight of the twelvev
cases. The Local rent control ordinance, when.
viewed against backdrop of California Mo-
Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held
that (1) the rent control ordinance did not bilehome Residency Law, which limited the
amount to physical taking d park owners' bases upon which mobile home park own.
property; (2) whether ordinance donated ers could terminate mobile home owner's
tenancy,
park owners' substantive due process did not amount to compensable
rights was not properly before the Su- taking mobile home park owners' pro
reme Court; erty ordinance did not compel park owners
P rt; and (3) whether ordinance to suffer physical occupation of their prop.
constituted regulatory taking was not Prop- em, since owners voluntarily rented their
erly before the Supreme Court
Affirmed. land to the mobile home owners, and noth-
ing on face of regulatory scheme compelled
Justices Blackmun and Souter con- Park owners to continue renting property
curred in the judgment and filed opinions. to tenants. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 5;
West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code §§ .98 et seq.,
t 798.55(a).
1. Eminent Domain 0}2(1)
Where government authorizes physical 6 Federal Courts 0-511
occupation of property, or actually takes Whether statutory procedure for
title to the property, the takings clause changing use of moble home park was in
j ractice "a kind of gauntlet!' that
generally requires compensation. U.S.C.A. P g prevent-
ConstAmend. 5. ed mobile home park owners from chang-
ing the use of their land and terminating
2. Eminent Domain a2(]) mobile home owner's tenancy could not be
Where government merely regulates considered on petition for certiorari which
use of property, compensation is required claimed that local' rent control ordinance,
ATTACHMENT 2* _ 1
YEE v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO CAL.
1523
Che u 112 S.CL 1522 (1992) _ s
when dewed against backdrop of Califor- mobile home park owners of ability to
nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, amount- choose incoming tenants did not mandate 7.
ed to physical occupation of mobile home determination that ordinance amounted to
park owners' property entitling the park compensable physical taking of park own-
owners to compensation under the takings ers' property; because park owners volun-
clause; park owners did not claim to have tardy opened their property to occupation
run that gauntlet U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. by others, park owners could not assert per
5f-West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. se right to compensation based on their _
j7. Eminent Domain X2(1.1) inability to exclude particular individuals.
When landowner decides to rent land U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 5; R'est's Ann.Cal.
Civ.Code § 798 et seq.
to tenants, government may place ceilings
on rents landowner can charge, or require 11. Federal Courts x508
landowner to accept tenants he does not Whether local rent control ordinance
like, without automatically having to pay violated mobile home park owners'substan-
coalpensation under the takings clause. five due process rights could not be con- -'
U.S.CA. ConstAmend. 5. . sidered on petition for certiorari which
claimed that local rent control ordinance,
S. Eminent Domain X20.1) when viewed against backdrop of Califor.
Landlord and Tenant 0=200.11 nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, amount-
Fact that local rent control ordinance, ed to compensable physical taking of mo-
when viewed against backdrop of Califor- bile home park owners' property; owners
nia's Mobilehome Residency Law,transfers did not raise substantive due process claim
wealth from mobile home park owners.to in the state courts, and even if rule against s
incumbent mobile home owners did not addressing questions not raised below were {
mandate determination that local rent con- prudential, adherence to the rule would
trol ordinance amounted to compensable have been appropriate. U.S.CA. Const
physical taking of moble home park ow-n- Amends. 5, 14.
ers'. property; ordinance did not compel
mobile home park owners to suffer physi- 12. Constitutional Law «46(1)
cal occupation of their property. U.S.C.A. Claim bat local rent ordinance,.when
Const.Amend. 5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code viewed against backdrop of California's
§ 798 et seq. Mobilehome Residency Law, amounted to F
regulatory taking was ripe for judicial re-
9. Eminent Domain x2(1.1) view even though mobile home park own-
Allegation that local rent control ordi- ers had not sought rent increases; claim
nance, when dewed against backdrop of amounted to facial challenge to ordinance,
California's Mobilehome Residency Law, and mobile home park owners alleged that
benefited incumbent mobile home owners ordinance did not substantially advance le-
without benefiting future mobile home gitimate state interest no matter how it
owners had nothing to do with whether the was applied. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 5;
ordinance caused compensable physical tak-_ West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq.
ing of mobile home park.owners' property; 33. Federal Courts x508
ordinance did not require mobile home park
owners to submit to the physical occupa• Although it was unclear whether mo-
tion of their land. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. bile home park owners made regulatory
5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. taking argument below in action which as-
serted physical taking challenge to local
10. Eminent Domain 0=20.1) rent control ordinance, regulatory taking
Claim that local rent control ordinance, argument could have been raised on peti- d
when dewed against backdrop of Califor- tion for certiorari; arguments that ordi-
nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, deprived nance constituted taking by physical occu- i
1524 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
pation and by regulation were not separate a park owner may terminate a mobile home
c'.aims,. but, rather, were separate argu- owner's tenancy are limited to, inter alfa,
u ments in support of single claim. U.S.C.4. nonpayment of rent and the park owner's
ConstA.mend. 5. desire to change the use of his land. The
ft 14. Federal Courts x511 park owner may not require the removal of
Once federal claim is properly present- a mobile home when it is sold and may
ed, party can make any argument in sup neither charge a transfer fee .or the sale
port of that claim; parties are not limited nor disapprove a purchaser who is able
to precise arguments they made below, to pay rent Thee state law does not limit
the rent the park owner may charge, but
15. Federal Courts X511 Escondido has a rent control ordinance set-
Whether local rent control ordinance, ting mobile home rents back to their 1950
x-hen viewed against backdrop of Califor- leN'els'and prohibiting rent increases w-ith-
nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, amount- out the City Council's approval. The Supe-
ed to compensable regulatory taking of mo- rior Court dismissed lawsuits filed by peti-
bile home park owners' property could not tioners and others challenging the ordi-
be considered on petition for certiorari nance, rejecting the argument that the or-
which.claimed that ordinance amounted to dinance effected a physical taking by de-
compensable physical taking of owners' priving park Owners of all use and occupan-
property;, regulatory taking question was cy of their property and granting to their
not fairly included in question on which tenants, and their tenants' successors, the
certiorari was granted, and prudence dic- right_to physically permanently occupy a
fated'awaiting case in which issue was use the property. The Court of Appe-_
l fully litigated below. U.S.C.A. Const affirmed.
Amend. 5; U.S.Sup.CtRule 14.1(a), 23 Held:
U.S.C.A. 1. The rent control ordinance does not
I authorize an unwanted physical occupation
Syllabusof petitioners' property and thus does not
The Fifth Amendment's Takings amount to a per se taking. Petitioners'
Clause generally requires just compensa- argument—that the rent control ordinance
tion where the government authorizes a authorizes a physical taking because, cou-
physical' occupation of property. But pled with the state law's restrictions, it
where' the Government merely regulates increases a mobile home's value by giving
the property's use, compensation is re- the homeowner the right to occupy the pad
quired only if considerations such as the indefinitely at a sub-market rent—is unper-
_ regulation's purpose or the extent to which suasive. The government effects a physi-
it deprives the owner of the property's cal taking only where it requires the ]and-
i� econoinic use suggests that the regulation owner to submit to the physical occupation
has unfairly singled out the property owner of his land. Here, petitioners have volun-
to bear a burden that should be borne by tangy rented their ]and to mobile home
the public as a whole. Petitioners, mobile owners and are not required to continue to
home park owners in respondent Escondi- do so by either the City or the State. On
do, California, rent pads of land to mobile their face, the laws at issue merely regu-
home owners. When the homes are sold, late petitioners' use of their land by regu-
the new owners generally continue to rent lating the relationship between landlord
the pads. - Under the California Mobile- and tenant Any transfer of wealth from
home Residency Law,the bases upon which park owners to incumbent mobile home
'The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion reader. See United Stater v.Delroil!amber C
of the Court but has been prepared by the Re. 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 LEa.
j porter of Decisions for the convenience of the 499.
Ii
1
) A0
l;
YEE v. CITY OF ESCO1%DIDO, CAL. 1525
Cite as 112 S.CL Is:2 0492) '.:.
owners in the form of sub-market rent does argument they liked in support of that '
not itself convert regulation into physical claim. Nonetheless, the claim will not be =
invasion. Additional contentions made by considered because, under this Court's
etitioners—that the ordinance benefits Rule 14.1(a), only questions set forth, or
p._
current mobile home owners but not future fairly included, in the petition for certiorari
'ovvriers, who must purchase the homes at are considered. Rule 14.1(a) is prudential,
premiums resulting from the homes' in- but is disregarded only where reasons of
creased value, and that the ordinance.de- urgency or economy suggest the need to
privies petitioners of the ability to choose address the unpresented question in the
their incoming tenants—might have some case under consideration. The Rule pro-
bearing on whether the ordinance causes a vides the respondent with notice of the
regulatory taking, but have nothing to do grounds on which certiorari is sought, thus
with whether it causes a physical taking. relieving him of the expense of unneces- b
Moreover, the finding in Loretto v. Tele- sary litigation on the merits and the burden .y
-prompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 of opposing certiorari on unpresented ques- Y
U.S.419,439, n. 17, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3178, n. tions. It also assists the Court in selecting f
17; 73 LEd.2d 868—that a physical taking the cases in which certiorari will be grant-
-claim cannot be defeated by an argument ed. By forcing the parties to focus on the
that a landlord can avoid a statute's restric- questions the. Court views as particularly
tions by ceasing to rent hisproperty, be- important, the Rule enables the Court to a
cause his ability to rent may not be condi- use its resources efficiently. Petitioners'
tiobed on forfeiting the right to compensa- question presented was whether the lower
tion for a physical occupation—has no rele- court erred in finding no physical taking, ,
vance here,where there has been no physi- and the regulatory taking claim is related s
cal taking. Since petitioners have made no to, but not fairly included in, that question. ;
attempt to change how their land is used, Thus, petitioners must overcome the very
this ease also presents no occasion to con- heavy presumption against consideration of
Sider Whether the statute, as applied, pre the regulatory taking claim, which they
vents them from making a change. Pp. have not done. While that claim is impor- f
1528-1531. tant, lower courts have not reached con-
flicting results on the claim as they have on F
2 Petitioners' claim that the ordi- the physical taking claim. Prudence also a
mance constitutes a denial of substantive dictates awaiting a case in which the issue
due process is not properly before this i
Court because it was not raised below or
was fully litigated below, to have the bene-
Court
fit of developed arguments and]ower court
addressed by the state courts. The.ques-
tion whether this Court's customary refus- opinions squarely addressing the question.
:to consider claims not raised or ad- Thus,the regulatory taking issue should be
al �
]eft for the California courts to address in
dressed below is a jurisdictional or pruden-
tial rule need not be resolved here, because the first instance. Pp. 1531-1534..
even if the rule were prudential, it would 224 Cal.App.3d 1349, 274 Cal.Rptr. 551
be'adhered to in this ease. Pp. 1531-1532. (1990), affirmed. ,.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion
3.' Also improperly before this Court , 3
is petitioners' claim that the ordinance con- of the Court, in which REH>\QL 1ST, CJ.,
stiiutes a regulatory taking. The regula- and WHITE, STEVENS, SCALIA,
tory taking claim is ripe for review; and KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
the fact that it was not raised below does BLACKMUN, J., and SOUTER, J., filed
not mean that it could not be properly
opinions.concurring in the judgment.
"raised before this Court, since once peti-
tioners properly raised a taking claim, they Robert J.Jagiello, Running Springs,Cal.,
could have formulated, in this Court, any for petitioners.
1 -47
-, .
1526 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D.C., for nently in parks; once in piste, only about
respondent one in every hundred mobile homes is ever
moved. Hirsch & Hirsch, Legal—Economic
Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion Analysis .of Rent Controls in a Mobile
of the Court Home Context: Placement Values and Va-
[1,2] The Takings Clause of the Fifth cancy Decontrol, 35 UCLA L.P.ev. 399, 405
Amendment provides: ."[N)or shall private (1988). A mobile home owner typically
property be taken for public use, without rents a plot of land, called a "pad," from
just compensation." Most of our cases in. the owner of a mobile home park. Toe
terpreting the Clause fall within two dis- park owner provides private roads Ai thin
tinct classes. Where the government au- the park, common facilities such as wash-
thorizes a physical occupation of property ing machines or a swimming pool, and of-
(or actually takes title), the Takings Clause ten utilities. The mobile home owner often
generally requires compensation. See, e.g., invests in site-specific improvements such
Loretto a Teleprompter Vanhattan as a driveway, steps, walkways, porches, or
CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 426, 102 S.Ct. landscaping. When the mobile home owT-
3164, 3171, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). But er wishes to move, the mobile home is
where the government merely regulates usually sold in place, and the purchaser
the use of property, compensation is re- continues.to rent the pad on which the
quired only if considerations such as the mobile home is located. -
purpose of the regulation or the extent to In 1978, California enacted its Mobile-
which it deprives the owner of the econom- home Residency Law, Cal.Civ.Code An
is use of the property suggest that the § 798 et seq. (West 1982 and Supp.1991).
regulation has unfairly singled out the The Legislature found "that; because of
property owner to bear a burden that the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the
should be borne by'the public as a whole. potential for damage resulting therefrom,
See,e.g., Penn Central Tramp. Co. v. Neuf the requirements relating to the installa-
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 123-125, 98 S.Ct. tion of mobilehomes, and the cost of land-
2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). The soaping or lot preparation, it is necessary.
first category of cases requires courts to that the owners of mobilehomes occupied
apply a clear rule; .the second necessarily within mobilehome parks be proNided with
entails complex factual assessments of the the unique protection from actual or con-
purposes and economic effects of govern- structive etiiction afforded by the provi-
ment actions. sions of this chapter." § 798.55(a). .
.r Petitioners own mobile home parks in The Mobilehome Residency Law limits
Escondido, California. They contend that a the bases upon which a park owner may
local rent control ordinance, when viewed terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy.
against the backdrop of California's Mobile- These include the nonpayment of rent, the
home Residency Law, amounts to a physi- mobile home owner's violation of law or
cal occupation of their property entitling park rules, and the park ownei s desire to
them to compensation under the fust tate- change the use of his land. § 798.56.
gory of rases discussed above. While a rental agreement is in effect, how-
ever, the park owner generally may not
I require the removal of a mobile home when
The term "mobile home" is somewhat it is sold. § 798.73. The park owner may
misleading. Mobile homes are largely im- neither charge a transfer fee for the sale,
{ mobile as a practical matter, because the § 798.72, nor disapprove of the purchaser,
s cost of moving one-is often a significant provided that the purchaser has the abilit-
fraction of the value of the mobile home to pay the rent, § 798.74. The Mobilehom
;I itself. They are generally placed perma- Residency Law contains a number of other
V
i
i'
YEE v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CAL. 1527
Cite"112 s.CL iszt (192) -
detailed provisions, but none limit the rent control ordinance is unconstitutional, and
the park owner may charge. an injunction barring the ordinance's en-
In the wake of the Mobilehome Residen- forcement. Id, at 54.
cy Law, various communities in California In their opposition to the city's demurrer,
adopted mobilehome rent control ordi- the Yees relied almost entirely on Hall v. _
nances. See Hirsch & Hirsch, supra, at City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1210
408-311. The voters of Escondido did the (CA9 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108
same in 1988 by approving Proposition K,' S.Ct. 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), which
the rent control Ordinance challenged here. had held that a similar mobile home rent
The ordinance sets rents back to their 1986 control ordinance effected a physical taking
levels, and prohibits rent increases without under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan
z-
the approval of. the City Council. Park C4TV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, E
owners may apply to the Council for rent 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). The Yees candidly
increases at any time. The Council must admitted that "in fact, the Hall decision
approve any increases itdetermines to be was used [as] a guide in drafting the
"just, fair and reasonable," after consider- present Complaint" 2 Tr. 318, Points &
ing . the following nonexclusive list of Authorities in Opposition to Demurrer 4.
factors: (1) changes in the Consumer Price The Superior Court nevertheless sustained
Index; (2) the rent charged for comparable the city's demurrer and dismissed the Yees'
mobile home pads in Escondido; (3) the complaint App. to Pet for Cert C-42.
ength of time since the last rent increase; v
(4) the cost of any capital improvements The Yees were not alone. Eleven other
related to the pad or pads at issue; (5) park owners filed similar suits against the
changes in property taxes; (6) changes in city shortly afterwards, and all were dis-
any rent paid by the park owner for the missed. By stipulation, all 12 cases were
land; (7) changes in utility charges; (8) consolidated for appeal; the parties agreed
changes in operating and maintenance ex- that all would be submitted for decision by
pensee; (9) the need for repairs other than the California Court of Appeal on the
for ordinary wear and tear, (10) the briefs and oral argument in the Yee case.
amount and quality of sen-ices provided to The Court of Appeal affirmed, in an opin-
the affected tenant; and (11) any lawful ion primarily devoted to expressing the
existing lease. Ordinance § 4(g), App. 11- court's disagreement with the reasoning of
12. Hall. The court concluded: "Loretto in no
Petitioners John and Irene Yee own the way suggests that the Escondido ordinance
Friendly Hills and Sunset Terrace Mobile authorizes a permanent physical occupation {
Home Parks, both of which are located in of the landlord's property and therefore
the city of Escondido. A few months after constitutes a per se taking." 224 Cal.
the adoption of Escondido's rent control App.3d 1349, 1358,274 Cal.Rptr. 551 (1990).
ordinance, they filed suit in San Diego The California Supreme Court denied re- 3
County Superior Court According to the view. App. to Pet for Cert. B-41.
complaint, "[t]he rent control law has had Eight of the twelve park owners, includ- -
the effect of depriving the plaintiffs of all ing the Yees,joined in a petition for certio-
use and occupancy of [their] real property rari. We granted certiorari, 502 U.S. —,
and granting to the tenants of moble- 112 S.Ct. 294, 116 L.Ed.2d 239 (1991), to
homes presently in The Park,as well as the resolve the conflict between the decision
successors in interest of such tenants, the below and those of two of the federal
fight to physically permanently occupy and Courts of Appeals, in Hall, supra, and
ase the real property of Plaintiff." Id, at . Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barne-
3, 16. The Yeas requested damages of six gat Township Leveling Board, 898 F.2d
million dollars, a declaration that the rent 347 (CA3 1990).
T.
1523 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
j II cases, cannot be squared easily with our
m' 1 Petitioners do not claim that the ordinary cases on physical takings. Tie govern-
ment effects a physical takin only where
rent control statutes regulating housing P g Y
throughout the country violate the Takings it requires the landowner to submit to the
Clause. Brief for Petitioners 7, 10. Cf. physical occupation of his land. "This ele-
Pennell v. San Jose, 455 U.S. 1, 12, n. 6, ment of required acquiescence is at the
108 S.Ct. S49, 858, n. 6, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); heart of the concept of occupation." FCC
Loretto supra 408 U.S. at 440, 102 S.Ct at v. Florida Pourer Corp., "SO U.S. 245, 252,
3178. Instead, their argument is predicat. 107 S.Ct. 1107, 1112, 94 L.Ed.2d 2S2 (1987).
ed on the unusual economic relationship 'Thus whether the government floods a
between park owners and mobile home landowner's property, Pumpelly v. Green
-�
r
R _ L. d. 007 18 _
Ba 3 z11. :66 0 E
owners. Park owmers may no longer _et y Co.,� � ( ),
rents or decide who their tenants will be. or does no more than require the land-
As aresult according to petitioners, any owner to suffer the installation of a cable,
ft reduction in the rent for a mobile home pad Loretto, supra the Takings Clause re
causes a corresponding increase in the val- quires compensation;f the government au-
ii ue of a mobile home, because the mobile thorizes a compelled physical invasion of
home owner now owns, in addition to a property.
mobile home, the right to occupy a pad at a But the. Escondido rent control ordi-
rent below the value that would be set by nonce, even when considered in conjunction
the free market Cf. Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 with the California Mobilehome Residency
UCLA L.Rev., at 425. Because under the Law, authorizes no such thing. Petitioner,
California Mobilehome Residency Law the voluntarily rented their land to mobile
park owner cannot evict a mobile home home owners. At least on the face of the
owner or easily convert the property to regulatory scheme, neither the City nor the
other uses, the argument goes, the mobile State compels petitioners, once they have
home owner is effectively a perpetual ten- rented their property to tenants, to contin-
ant of the park, and the increase in the ue doing so. To the contrary, the Mobile-
mobile home's value thus represents the home Residency Law provides that a park
right to occupy a pad at below-market rentowner who wishes to change-,he use of his
indefinitely. And because the Mobilehome land may evict his tenants, albeit with six
Residency Law permits the mobile home or twelve months notice. Cal.Civ.Code
owner to sell the mobile home in place, the Ann. § 798.56(8). Put bluntly, no govern-
mobile home owner can receive a premium ment has required any physical invasion of
from the purchaser corresponding to this petitioners' property. Petitioners' tenants
j increase in value. The amount of this pre- were invited by petitioners, not forced upon
mium is not limited by the Mobilehome them by the government See Florida
Residency Law or the Escondido ordinance. Power, supra, 480 U.S. at 252-253, 107
As a result, petitioners conclude, the rent S.Ct. at 1112-1113. While the "right to
j control ordinance has transferred a discrete exclude" is doubtless, as petitioners assert,
E interest in land—the right to occupy the "one of the most essential sticks in the
j. land indefinitely at a submarket rent— bundle of rights that are commonly charac-
from the park owner to the mobile home terized as property," Xaiscr Aetra v.
!i owner. Petitioners contend that what has United States, 444 U.S. 164, 1716, 100 S.Ct
been transferred from park owner to mo- 353, 391, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979), we do not
bile home owner is no less than a right of find that right to have been taken from
' physical occupation of the park owner's petitioners on the mere face of the Escondi-
land. do ordinance.
it [3-5] This argument, whsle perhaps [6] Petitioners suggest that the statu
li within the scope of our regulatory taking tory procedure for changing the use of a
l:
L
YEE v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO. CAL. 1529
Cite u 132 S.CL 3522 (1492) f
mobile home park is in practice "a kind of out automatically having to pay compensa-
gauntlet," in that they are not in fact free tion. See also Pruneyard Shopping Cen-
to change the use of their land. Reply ter v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 82-84, 100 S.Ct
Brief for Petitioners 10, n. 16. Because 2035, 2041-2042, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980).
petitioners do not claim to have run that Such forms of regulation are analyzed by
gauntlet, however, this case provides no engaging in the "essentially ad hoc,factual
occasion to consider how the procedure has inquiries" necessary to determine whether
been applied to petitioners' property, and a regulatory taking has occurred. Kaiser
we accordingly confine ourselves to the Aetna, supra, 444 U.S., at 175, 100 S.Ct.,
face of the statute. See Keystone Eitumi- at 390. In the words of Justice Holmes,
nous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. "while property may be regulated to a cell
470, 49395, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1246-12;7, 94 twin extent, if regulation goes too far it will
L.Ed.2d 472(1987)_. A different case would be recognized as a taking." Pennsylvania
be presented were the statute, on its face Coa! Co. a Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43
or as applied, to compel a landowner over S.Ct 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922).
objection to rent his property or to refrain
in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy. [S] Petitioners emphasize that the owners
See Florida Power, supra, 480 U.S., at nonce transfers wealth from park ownners
251-252, n. 6, 107 S.Ct, at 1111-1112, n. 6; to incumbent mobile home owners. Other
see also NoIlan v California Coastal forms of land use regulation, however, can
''mm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 831432, 107 S.Ct also be said to transfer wealth from the ,
.1, 3145-3146, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1981); one who is regulated to another. Ordinary
Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Cal- rent control often transfers wealth from
lahan, 464 U.S. 875, 877, 104 S.Ct 218, landlords to tenants by reducing the land-
219, 78 L.Ed.2d 215 (1983) (REHNQUIST. J., lords'income and the tenants monthly pay-
dissenting). ments, although it does not cause a one-
time transfer of value as occurs with mo-
[71 On their face, the state and local bile homes. Traditional zoning regulations
laws at issue here merely regulate petition- can transfer wealth from those whose av-
ers' use of their land by regulating the tivities are prohibited to their neighbors;
relationship between landlord and tenant when a property owner is barred from min-
"This Court has consistently affirmed that ing coal on his land, for example, the value
States have broad power to regulate Nous- of his property may decline but the value
ing conditions in general and the landlord- of his neighbor's property may rise. The
tenant relationship in particular without mobile home owner's ability to sell the mo-
paving compensation for all economic inju= bile home at a premium may make this
ries that such regulation entails." Loretta, Wealth transfer more risible than in the
458 U.S., at 440, 102 S.Ct, at 3178. See ordinary case, see Epstein, Rent Control
also Florida Power, supra, .480 U.S., at and the Theory of Efficient Regulation, 54
252, 107 S.Ct,at. ("statutes regulating Brooklyn L.Rev. 741, 758-759 (1988), but
the economic relations of landlords and ten the existence of the transfer in itself does
ants are not per se takings"). When a not convert regulation into physical im•a-
landowner decides to rent his land to ten- sion.
ants, the government may place ceilings on
the rents the landowner can charge, see, [9] Petitioners also rely heavily on their
e.g., Pennell, supra, 485 U.S., at 12, n. 6, allegation that the ordinance. benefits in-
108 S.Ct., at 857-858, n. 6, or require the cumbent mobile home owners without ben-
landowner to accept tenants he does not efiting future mobile home owners, who
:e, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. will be forced to purchase mobile homes at
a. United States; 379_ U.S. 241, 261, 65 premiums. Mobile homes, like motor ve-
S.Ct 348, 359, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964), with- hicles, ordinarily decline in value with age.
1 -51
1330 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
J
But the effect of the rent control ordi- ing court would Wish to consider in deter-
nance, coupled with the restrictions on the mining whether the ordinance unjustly im-
park �oct-ner's freedom to reject new ten- poses a burden on petitioners that should
ants is to increase significantlynificant]y the value "be compensated by the government, cath-
of the mobile home. This increased value er than remain[Ing] disproportionately con-
normally benefits only the tenant in ors persons."„
y y posses- centrated on a few e._on_. Penn Cen-
P
sion at the time the rent control is imposed, tral Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438
See Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 UCLA L.Rev., at U.S., at 124, 98 S.Ct., at 2659. But it does
430-431. Petitioners are correct in citing not concert regulation into the unwanted
the existence of this premium as a differ- physical occupation of land. Because they
ence between the alleged effect of the Es- voluntarily open their property to occupa-
condido'ordinance and that of an ordinary tion by others, petitioners cannot assert a
apartment rent control statute. Most per se right to compensation based on their
apartment tenants do not sell anything to inability to exclude particular individuals.
their successors (and are often prohibited See Heart of Atlanta.hotel, Inc. v. United
from_ charging "key money"), so a typical States, 379 U.S., at 261, 85 S.Ct., at 359,
rent control statute will transfer wealth see also iti,'at 259, S5 S.Ct., at 358 ("appel-
from the landlord to the incumbent tenant ]ant has no 'right' to select its guests as it
and all.future tenants. By contrast, peti- sees fit, free from governmental regula-
tioners_. contend that the Escondido ordi- tion"); Prurzeyard Shopping Cc77te
nance transfers wealth only to the incum- Robins, 447 U.S., at 82-84; 100 S.Ct,
bent mobBe home owner. This effect 2041-2042.
might have some bearing on whether the Petitioners' final line of argument rests
ordinance causes a regulatory taking, as it on a footnote in Loretto, in.which we re-
may shed some light on whether there is a jetted the contention that "the landlord
sufficient nexus between the effect of the could avoid the requirements of [the stat-
ordinance and the objectives it is supposed ❑te forcing her to permit cable to be perma-
to advance. See :Pollan t•. California nently placed on her property] by ceasing
Coastal Comm'n, supra, 483 U.S., at 534- to rent the building to tenants." We found
S35, 107 S.Ct., at 3147-3148. But it has this possibility insufficient to defeat a
nothing to do With whether the ordinance physical taking claim,because "a landlord's
causes a physical taking. Whether the ability to rent hisproperty
a � ty may not be
ordinance benefits only current mobile conditioned on his forfeiting the right to
home_owners or all mobile home owners it
11 compensation for a physical occupation."
y; does not require petitioners to submit to Loretto, 458 U.S., at 439, n. 17, 102 S.Ct.,
yi the physical occupation of their land. at 3178 n. 17. Petitioners argue that if
'i [10] The same may be said of petition- they have to leave the mobile home park
ers' contention that the ordinance amounts business in order to avoid the strictures of
to compelled physical occupation because it the Escondido ordinance, their ability to
deprives petitioners of the ability to choose rent their property has in fact been condi-
their incoming tenants.' Again, this effect tioned on such a forfeiture. This argument
may be relevant to a regulatory taking fails at its base, however, because there
argument, as it may be one factor a review- has simply been no compelled physical oc-
jt. Strictly speaking, the Escondido rent control that before the adoption of the ordinance they
ordinance only limits rents Petitioners'inabili. were able to influence a mobilehome owner'$
ty to select their incoming tenants is a product selection of a purchaser by threatening t
of the State's Mobilehome Residency Law, the crease the rent for prospective purchasers
I constitutionality of which has never been at disfavored. To the extent the rent control ordi-
ism in this case. (The State, moreover, has nance deprives petitioners of this type of influ-
never been a parry.) But we understand peti• ence,petitioners'argument is one we must con-
tioners to be making a more subtle argument— sider.
t. -
u:
YEE v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CAL. 1531
=r.
Cite u 112 S.Ct 1522 (1992)
cupation giving rise to a right to compersa- raised or addressed below, and the second
tion ,that petitioners could have forfeited. is not fairly included in the question on =
Had the city required.such an occupation, which we granted.certiorari. -_
of course,petitioners would have a right to
compensation, and the city might then lack .
the power to condition petitioners'ability to [1]] The fees did not include a due
run mobile home parks on their waiver of
this right Cf. T'ollon, 483 U.S., at 537, process claim in their complaint Nor did -
107 S.Ct, at 3148. But because the ordi- petitioners raise a due process claim in the
Court of Appeal. It was not until their $
nance does not effect a physical taking ;n petition for review in the California Su-
the first place, this footnote in Loretto
does not help petitioners. preme Court that petitioners finally riled
a substantive due process claim. But the i
With respect to physical takings, then, California Supreme Court denied discretion-
this case is not far removed from FCC v. ary review. Such a denial, as in this Court, -
Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 107 expresses no view as to the merits. S'ee
S.Ct 1107, 94 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), in which people v. Triggs, 8 Cal.3d SS4, 890-891, 106
the respondent had voluntarily]eased space Cal.Rptr. 408, 412, 506 P.2d 232, 236 (1973).
on its utility poles to a cable television In short, petitioners did not raise a sub-
company for.the installation of cables. The stantive due process. claim in the state
Federal Government, exercising its statu- courts, and no state court has addressed
tory authority to regulate pole attachment such a claim.
- agreements, substantially reduced the an-
nual rent We rejected the respondent's In reviewing the. judgments of state
claim that"it is a taking under Loretto for courts under the jurisdictional grant of 28
a tenant invited to lease at a rent of $7.15 U.S.C. § 1257, the Court has, with very
4o remain at the regulated rent of
SI.-rare exceptions, refused to consider peti- -
Id, 480 U.S., at 252, 107 S.Ct.,at 1112. We tioners' claims that were not raised or ad-
explained that "it is the invitation, not the dressed below. Illinois a Gates, 462 U.S.
rent, that makes the difference. The line 213, 218-220, 103 S.Ct 2317, 2321-2323, 76
..which separates [this case] from Loretto is L.Ed.2d 527 (1953). While we have ex-
the unambiguous distinction between a .., pressed inconsistent views as to whether
lessee and an interloper with a government this Nle is jurisdictional or prudential in
license." Id., at 252-253, 107 S.Ct, at cases arising from state courts, see ibid.,
1112.' The distinction is equally unambig- we need not resolve the question here. (In
nous here. The Escondido rent control or- cases arising from federal courts, the rule
-dinance, even considered against the back- 1s prudential only. See, e.g., Carlson v. '
drop of California's Mobilehome Residency
Green, 446 U.S. 14; 17, n. 2, 100 S.Ct 1468;
Law, does not authorize an unwanted phys- 14 70, n. 2, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980)) Even if
ft
iral occupation of property. the rule were prudential, we would adhere
p petitioners' It i,
is a regulation of petitioners' use of their to it in this case. Because petitioners did s
property, and thus does not amount to a not rise their substantive due process z
claim below, and because the state courts
per se taking. did not address it; we will not consider it
III here.
In this Court, petitioners attempt to chal-
lenge the ordinance on two additional B
grounds.- They argue that it constitutes a [121 As a preliminary matter, we must
denial of substantive due process and a address respondent's assertion that a regu-
regulatory taking. Neither of these claims latory taking claim is unripe because peti-
is properly before us. The first was not tioners have not sought rent increases.
1532 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
C 1. )
t
sr -
While respondent is correct that a claim Bankers Lijef & Ca.ual.g Co. r. C E
regulatory tak- sham 486 U.S. 71 78 n. 2 108 S.Ct. 1645,
that the ordinance effects a ,
� ry
:ng as. applied to Petitioners property 1650 n. 2, 100 L.Ed.2d 62 (1958); G¢,ES,
I i�4i
Would be unripe for this reason, see ]d'il- supra, 462 U.S., at 219-220, 103 S.Ct., at
U.S.li on Cont Re ional Plannin 2322-2323• Deme v. Des Moines 173 tS
cros ,
9 ,
I
Y 9 y
y
Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson 193,. 197-198, 19 S.Ct 379, 380-381, 43
city, 973 U.S. 172, 156-197, 105 S.CL 3108, L.Ed. 665 (1899). Petitioners' arguments
3116-312?; 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), petition- that the ordinance constitutes a taking in
ers mount a facial challenge to the ordi- two different ways, by physical occupation
nonce: They allege in this Court that the and by regulation, are not separate claims.
ordinance does not " 'substantially ad- They are ether separate ¢rgunienis in
Mance;" a " 'legitimate state interest' " no support of a single claim—that the ordi-
mattei how it is applied. See Nollan v. nance:effects an unconstitutional taking.
California Coastal Comm'n, supra, 483 Haring raised a taking claim in the state
U.S., at 534, 107 S.Ct., at 3147; Agins V. courts, therefore, petitioners could have
Tiburon,.447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 S.CL 2138, formulated any argument they liked in sup-
2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (19SO). As this allega- port of that claim here.
tion does not depend on the extent to which
petitioners are deprived of the economic A litigant seeking review in this Court of
use of their particular pieces.of property or a claim properly raised in the lower courts
the anent to which these particular peti- thus_ generally possesses the ability to
tioners are compensated, petitioners' facial frame the question to be decided in
" challenge is ripe. See Keystone Bitumi- way he chooses, without being limitem
nous Coal Assm v. DeBenedictis, 4SO U.S., the manner in which the question was
at 495, 107 S.Ct., at 1247; Agins, supra, framed below. While we have on occasion
447 U.S., at 260, 100 S.Ct., at 2141. rephrased the question presented by a peti-
[131 :We must also reject respondent's tioner, see, e.g., Anlenbrandt v. Richards,
contention that the regulatory taking argu- 502 U.S. —, 112 S.Ct 855, 116 L.Ed.2d
ment is not properly before us because it 764 (1992), or requested the parties to ad-
vas not made below. Itis unclear whether dress an important question of law not
petitioners made this argument below: roused in the petition for certiorari, see,
Portions of their complaint and briefing e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 498 U.S.—, 111
can be'read either to argue a regulatory S.Ct 1031, 112 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1991), by and
taking"or to support their physical taking large it is the petitioner himself who con-
argument For the same reason it is trots the scope of the question presented.
equal-
ly ambiguous whether the Court of Appeal The petitioner can generally frame the
addre_sied the issue. Yet petitioners' regu- question as broadly or as narrowly as he
latory taking argument stands in a posture sees fit.
r different from their substantive due The framing of the question presented
(r process claim. has significant consequences,however, be-
(14]_.
e-
[14]_. Petitioners unquestionably raised a cause under this Court's Rule 14.1(2),
1. takine claim in the stite courts. The ques- "[o]nly the questions set forth in the peti-
tion whether the rent control ordinance tion, or fairly included therein, will be con-
took their property without compensation, sidered by the Court" While "[t]he state-
in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Tak- ment of any question presented will be
li ings Clause, is thus properly before us. deemed to comprise every subsidiary ques-
}� Once a federal claim is properly presented, tion fairly included therein," ibid., we ordi-
;1 a parry can make any argument in support narily do not consider questions out.
of that claim; parties are not limited to the those presented in the petition for cerdc,.
precise_: arguments they made below. ri. See, e.g., Berkemer v. McCarty, 468
11
!j
1A.
�I
YEE v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CAL. 1533
Cite u uZ s.CL 1522 (1"2)
U.S. 420, 443, n. 38, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3152, n. forces the parties to focus on the questions 1
38; 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). This rule is the Court has dewed as particularly impor- I
prudential in nature, but we disregard it tant, thus enabling us to make efficient use
,.only in the most exceptional cases,"Slone of our resources.
v Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481, n. 15, 96 S.Ct [15] We granted certiorari on a single
3037, $046, n. 15, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), question pertaining to the Takings Clause:
where reasons of urgency or of economy •'TA.o federal courts of appeal have held
suggest the need to address the unpresert- that the transfer of a premium value to a
ed question in the case under consideration. departing mobilehome tenant,.representing
Rule. 14.1(a) serves two. important and the value of the right to occupy at a re-
related purposes. First, it provides the re- duced rate under local mobilehome rent
spondent with notice of the grounds upon control ordinances, constitutes] an imper-
which the petitioner is seeking certiorari, missible taking. Was it error for the state =
and enables the respondent to sharpen the appellate court to disregard the rulings and =
arguments as to why certiorari should not hold that there was no taking under the
be granted. Were we routinely to consider fifth and fourteenth amendments?" This _
questions beyond those raised in the peti- was the question presented by petitioners.
tion, the respondent would lack any oppor- pet for Cert i. 1t asks whether the court
Eunity,in advance of litigation on the merits below erred in disagreeing with the hold-
to argue that such questions are not war- ings of.the Courts of Appeals for the Third
thy of review. Where, as is not unusual, and Ninth Circuits in Pinewood Estates of
the decision below involves issues on which Michigan v. Barnegat Township Leveling
the petitioner does not seek certiorari, the Board, 898 F.2d 347 (CA3 1990), and Hall F.
'respondent would face the formidable task v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270
of opposing certiorari on every issue the (CA9 1987), cert denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108
Court might conceivably find present in the S.Ct 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 2$1 (1988). These
case. By forcing the petitioner to choose cases, in turn, held that mobile home ordi-
his questions at the outset, Rule 14.1(2) nances effected physical takings, not regu-
relieves the respondent of the expense of latory takings. Fairly construed, then, pe-
unnecessary litigation on the merits and titioners' question presented is the equiva-
the burden of opposing certiorari on unpre- lent of the question "Did the court below
sented questions. err in finding no physical taking?"
Second, Rule 14.1(a) assists the Court in Whether or not the ordinance effects a
selecting the cases in Which certiorari will regulatory taking is a question-related to
be granted. Last Term alone we received the one petitioners presented, and perhaps
over 5,000 petitions for certiorari, but we complementary to the one petitioners {
have the capacity to decide only a small presented, but it is not "fairly included
fraction of these cases on the merits. To therein." Consideration of whether a regu-
use our resources .most efficiently, we latory taking occurred would not assist in
must grant certiorari only in those cases resolving whether a physical taking oc-
that All] enable us to resolve particularly curred as well; neither of the two ques-
important questions. Were we routinely to tions is subsidiary to the other. Both ".
entertain questions not presented in the might be subsidiary to a question embrac-
petition for certiorari, much of this efficien-- ing both—Was there a taking?—but they j
cy would vanish, as parties who feared an exist side by side, neither encompassing the 3
inability to prevail on the question present- other. Cf. American National Bank & :
ed would be encouraged to fill their limited Trust Co. of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc., 473
briefing space and argument time with dis- U.S. 606, 608, 105 S.Ct. 3291, 3292, 87
cussion of issues other. than the one on L.Ed.2d 437 (1955) (question whether com-
w•hich certiorari was granted. Rule 14.1(a) plaint adequately alleges conduct of racke-
J.
i -
1534 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
teering enterprise is not fairly included in regulatoryy taking issue for the California
question whether statute requires that courts to address in -,he first instance.
plaintiff suffer damn es through defen-
dant's conduct of such an enterprise). IV
Rule 14.1(x) accordingly creates a heavy
7' r
made this observation in Lo
We' r
presumption against our consideration of
euo:
�I
petitioners' claim that the ordinance causes "Our holding today is eery narrow.
a regulatory taking. Petitioners have not Nye affirm the traditional rule that a
overcome that presumption. While the permanent physical occupation of proper-
regulatory taking question is no doubt im- ty is a taking. In such a case, the prop-
portant from an institutional perspective it arty owner entertains a historically root.
j is not as important as the physical taking ed expectation of compensation, and the
question. The lower courts have not character of the invasion is qualitatively
reached conflicting result, so far as we more intrusive than perhaps any other
know, on whether similar mobile home rent categor� of property regulation. We do
control ordinances effect regulatory tak- not, however, question the equally sub-
. ings. They have reached conflicting re- stantial authority upholding a State's
sults over whether such ordinances cause broad power to impose appropriate re-
physical takings; such a conflict is, of strictions upon an owner's use of his
course, a substantial reason for granting . property." 458 U.S., at 441, 102 S.Ct, at
certiorari under this Court's Rule 10. 3179.
Moreover, the conflict is between two We respected this distinction again in
' courts whose jurisdiction includes Califor- Florida Power, where we held that no tak-
nia, the State with the largest population ing occurs under Loretto when a tenant
and one Kith a relatively high percentage invited to lease at one rent remains at a
of the nation's mobile homes. Forum-shop- lower regulated rent Florida Power, 480
ping is thus of particular concern. See U.S., at 252-253, 107 S.Ct, at 1112-1113.
A:ul Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, We continue to observe the distinction to-
948 F.2d 575, 579 (CA9 1991) (mobile home day. Because the Escondido rent control
park owners may file physical taking suit ordinance does not compel a landowner to
in either slate or federal court). Prudence suffer the physical occupation of his prop-
also dictates awaiting a case in which the erty, it does not effect a per se taking
�
issue was fully litigated below, so that we under Loretto. The judgment gment of the Court
will have the benefit of developed argu- of Appeal is accordingly
ments on both sides and lower court opin- Affirmed
ions squarely addressing the question. See
Lytle u Household Manufacturing, Inc.,
494 U.S. 545, 552, n. 3, 110 S.Ct 1331, 1336, Justice BL4,CXMLN, concurring in the
n. 3, 108 LEd.2d 504 (1990) ("Applying our judgment
analysis ... to the facts of a particular I agree with the Court that the Escondi-
case without the benefit of a full record or do Ordinance is not a taking under, this
lower court determinations is not a sensible Court's analysis in Loretto v. Tele-
ri exercise of this Court's discretion"). In prompter .Manhattan CATV Corp., 458
fact, were we to address the issue here, we U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868
1 would apparently be the first court in the (1982). I also conclude that the substantive
nation to determine whether an ordinance due process and regulatory taking claims
like this one effects a regulatory taking. are not properly raised in this Court. For
We will accordingly follow Rule 14.1(a), that reason, I, unlike the Court, do not
and consider only the question petitioners decide whether the regulatory taking claim
l raised in seeking certiorari. We leave the is or is not ripe, or which of petitioners'
JACOBSON v. U.S. 1535 i
Cite m 112 s.CL 1533 (1"2)
arguments would or would not be relevant 1. Criminal Law 0=31(5), 1222
to such a claim. Government may use undercover
agents to enforce the law.
Justice SOU ER,.concurring in the:
2. Criminal Law. a=31(3, 4)
judgment
In their zeal to enforce the law,
I concur in the judgment and would join government. agents may not originate a
the Court's opinion except for its referenc- criminal design, implant in an innocent per-
es
eres to the relevance and significance of peti- son's mind the disposition to commit a crim-
tioners'allegations to a claim of regulatory inal act, and then induce commission of the
taking. crime so that the Government may prose-
cute.
o rur.u,eusml�. 3. Criminal Law c=330, 569
T Where Government has induced indi-
vidual to break the law and defense of
entrapment is at issue, prosecutor must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that defen-
dant was disposed to commit the criminal
Keith JACOBSON, Petitioner : . act prior to fust being approached by
government agents.
UATTED STATES. 4. Criminal Law <�=37(3; S)
Agent deployed to stop traffic in il-
No. 90-1124. legal drugs may offer the opportunity to
buy or sell drugs and, if offer is accepted,
Argued Nov. 6, 1991. make an arrest on the spot or later.
Decided April 6, 1992. 5. Criminal Law C-37(6), 569
Government did not establish that de-
fendant had a predisposition, independent
Defendant was convicted in the United of government action, to receive child"por-
States District Court for the District of nography through the mail where evidence
Nebraska of receiving child pornography showed that he was ready and willing to
through the mail and he appealed. The cominit the offense only after Government _
Court of Appeals for. the Eighth Circuit, 'had engaged in tiro and one-half years of
893 F.2d 999, reversed but,on rehearing en undercover activity consisting of communi-
banc,affirmed 916 F2d 467, and certiorari 'cations from fictitious organizations and
was granted.. The Supreme Court,-Justice persons attempting to convince defendant
White, held that Government did not estab- that he had the right or should have the F
lish that defendant, who had received mail- 'right to engage in behavior proscribed by
ings from the Government purporting to be the law. 'M U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2)(A).
from- organizations asserting individual
rights, was predisposed to commit the of- . 6. Criminal Law 0-347, 569
fense prior to first contact by Government Evidence that defendant had ordered
Reversed = and received,at a time when it was legal to
P:
do•so, two magazines showing nude teen-
Justice O'Connor dissented and filed age boys was of little probative value in
inion in which Chief Justice. Rehnquist establishing his predisposition to receive "
and Justice Kennedy joined, and in which prohibited child pornography through the
Justice _Scalia joined in part mails. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2)(A). r(,
. k
/-S7
DECEIVED
HEH0RANDIIH JU14031992
Orn CF OF
CRY a-C."y
June 1, 1992
To: City Attorney Department
N,obilehome Rent Ccntrol Committee
From: David H. Hirsch, Committee Chairperson and
City Attorney, City of Lompoc
Subject: Post Yee GSHOL Attorney Strike Force meeting
As was indicated at the League Cracker Barrel Session on April 23 ,
1992, a meeting had been calleA by the General Counsel for GSMOL
to discuss life after Yee. At the Cracker Barrel Session I advised
that I would be attending that meeting, and would report to the
Committee afterward. Accordingly, the following are some of the
highlights.
Update on Significant Cases
.At the meeting, which was attended by attorneys handling most of
the major cases, it was reported that new suits were being filed
or threatened in cities throughout the State. Apparently, park
owner attorneys are at various stages of "regrouping" . Some are
reportedly advising their clients to go through the administrative
process of seeking increases, and then bring regulatory taking
lawsuits. others are immediately filing new suits, or reframing
old ones to include regulatory taking challenges. others are
apparently advising their clients that in their view, there is not
much hope in pursuing a regulatory taking theory. Still others are
renewing efforts to force execution of long-term leases which would
be exempt from rent controls.
As far as specific cases, several should. be mentioned. Michelle
Kenyon reported that a Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been
filed w1th U.S. Suprene Ccurt in a_^. =ffcrt to reverse Sierra Lake
Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F. 2d 951 (9th Cir. 1991) , since it
is contrary to the new Supreme Court precedent. set in Yee v. City
of Escondido.
Don Lincoln reports that he is representing several cities in what
he called a "full panoply" of cases. This includes new suits
against Escondido that have been filed on the basis of regulatory
taking. It was noted that in two of these cases park owners are
operating at a loss, so plaintiff 's attorney, Robert Jagiello, may
want to take them "all the way" .
1
ATTACMENT 3 �J 0
Don also has been representing the City of Carpenteria in a Hall-
type taking case, Sandpiper MobileyiIlace v. City of Carpenteria ,
which has been pending before Division 6 of the 2nd Appellate
District for- the last few months. Shortly after Yee was decided,
Mr. Jagiello requested that the Court allow the case to be reargued
on the basis of a regulatory taking challenge. Carpenteria ' s
supplemental brief in response was filed on May Sth, and ccntains
an excellent analysis of our side of the regulatory taking .issue.
While the appellate court may simply sidestep the questicn because
it had not been raised at the trial court, that issue is before
them and there is at least a possibility that they could ccnfrcnt
it. Shelley Browne reported that she also has several cases with
Mr. Jagiello on the other side, that are at various stages in State
and federal court, including the appellate level . He is apparently
also trying to bring regulatory taking challenges into these cases .
Gwen Poindexter reported on- the status of. Azul Pacifico v. City of
Los Anceles. There is currently a Petition. for Rehearing pending
before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As you know, in
discussing vacancy control Judge Kozinski, citing Nollan, did say
that
" . . . The correctness of the city' s decision to • insure
coach owners against unscrupulous landlords in this way
is a legislative question, not a judicial one. . . there
is a sufficient nexus between the challenged provision
and a legitimate justification. "
One concern is that rehearing may be granted. Judge Kozinski could
then potentially rewrite his opinion in some manner that in effect
says, "Opps, I made a mistake - it' s not a physical occupation
taking - it' s a regulatory taking. " While this scenario may not
occur, it is at least a possibility. Those at last week' s meeting
seemed to express considerable concern that Judge Kozinski ' s
ideological motives may cause him to rewrite his opinion in some
manner that will not be favorable to cities. It' s not clear when
the Court will make a decision on the Petition for Rehearing.
There was also considerable discussion regarding the expectation
that major future areas of litigation will be over park ccrversions:
(Shelley Browne indicated 'she currently has a number of park
closure cases pending) and long-term leases. Also, in addition to
actions being brought by tenants to get out of long-tern leases,
some cities are . litigating prospective tenant protection
ordinances. In fact, Jeffrey Epp reported that Escondido had
recently won such a case at the trial court level on the basis of
there being no preemption.
2
Threatened Litigation and SLAMS
Cities that adopted vacancy decontrol based upon threats of
litigation are taking varying approaches as to what to do after
Yee. Some, such as San Jose, Frenont, and San Bernardino, have
immediately adopted new ordinances providing vacancy control.
Others are getting advice from their city attorneys that they
should hold off and see what happens in the regulatory taking cases
that are being brought. At the same time, tenant groups in nany
cities are beginning to bring significant pressure on city councils
to readopt vacancy control. The bottom line is that city councils
are being placed in a very difficult position with respect to how
to proceed after the Yee decision.
In the course of discussing natters, one of the attorneys who
.represents tenants, made an impassioned plea. He urged that GS1�OL
should rally its members and Lise the political process to bring
pressure on cities to readopt vacancy 'control . This suggestion was
balanced by attorneys representing cities who were at the neeting.
It was explained that each city has to make its own decision. This
led to an extensive discussion about how the reality facing cities
is that regardless of the merits, they can expect to be sued by
mobilehome park owners. Threatened litigation is being used quite
effectively as a tactic to discourage cities from adopting
ordinances. One of the attorneys in attendance went so far as to
state that he believed that there was a conscious program to make
it economically unfeasible for cities to have rent control. A
parallel was drawn to "SLAPP" suits, and Don Lincoln suggested a
new acronym: "SLAM" (Strategic Litigation Against Municipalities) .
The result of this discussion was the suggestion that there needed
to be some form of legislative remedy, possibly something along the
lines of prevailing party attorney ' s fees that allow cities to
recover their costs of defending meritless lawsuits. Since legal
challenges to vacancy control are constitutionally based, it would
appear there may be a possible preemption problem. At any rate,
at the meeting it was indicated that this proposal could be brought
to the attention of the City Attorney ' s Department Legislative
Committee. Accordingly, I have recently written the Department's
President, Stave Eckis, to bring this suggestion to.h s attention,
New Law Review Articles
There are two new law review articles that have been published on
the subject of rent control and takings. One is by Ken Baar, and
appears in the Winter 1992 Volume of the Urban Lawyer. This
article is entitled "The Right to Sell the IIn, Imobile Manufactured
Home in Its Rent Controlled Space in the ' Im'mobile Home Park:
Valid Regulation or Unconstitutional Taking?" . The other article
appears in a recent edition of the Southwestern University Law
Review and is entitled "Regulatory Takings Law in the 19901s: The
Death of Rent Control?" . This article was written by R.S. Radford,
3
1�4
an attorney affiliated with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
It might also be noted that the GSMOL has reported that their
amicus brief in Yee, that was prepared by Fran Layton, UC Berkeley
Professor Joseph Sax, and their General Counsel Bruce Stanton, is
going to be published in an upcoming edition of the Loyola Law
Review.
Ken Baar' s Urban Lawyer article and the publication of the GSMOL
brief are significant in that they provide some citable analysis
regarding the problems that vacancy control is seeking to address
(i. e. , the "sunk costs" in the form of the investment of the
tenants, potential abuses, etc. ) . This relates to another matter
discussed at the meeting. There was significant disaaree=ent as
to the wisdom of including "findings" as part of the adoption of
any new ordinance. There was more of a consensus, however, that
it was desirable to at least develop a record when adopting a new
vacancy control ordinance, to better withstand potential regulatory
taking challenges. GSMOL is going to try to create some empirical
information to help in that respect.
Document Bank
At the Cracker Barrel Session it was agreed that the Committee
should create a new "post-Yee" document bank, and otherwise
continue to provide a vehicle through which information can be
coordinated. Accordingly, please remember to send copies of
relevant pleadings and ordinances. In this respect, JoAnne Speers
has suggested that a certain amount of judgment should be used to
only submit documents that are relevant and do not duplicate other
materials (i. e. , those that contain new arguments or other material
that has particular merit) . Also, when submitted, please include
a brief summary so that the League is in a position to better
advise as to what is available.
Confirmation for Mailing List
In order to better manage those that are on the mailing list for
the Committee, at your earliest convenience please complete the
enclosed form confirming that you want to continue to remain on the
list. Copies of this confirmation should be sent to both JoAnne
Speers at the League headquarters in Sacramento and to my office.
4
/ALO
��i�►���i�►��dlillllfilll�lll 0�1°°��►�
II II
City OSAn WIS OBIS
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
❑ D nam ❑ F11October 19, 1992 UcAo p FKDM
AMWZY HU
D DMEI�R
GYct.BuvOlac. ❑ pouCEcx
❑ MGM OM
Q RM DR
TO: 13 Honorable Mayor and City Council �, D>R
FROM: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk
RE: Mobile Home Rent Stabillr
pondence
There was one letter that was inadvertently placed in the "opposition" section that should
have been placed in the"support" section. The letter is from Bruce E. Stanton of Crosby
and Stanton, Attorneys At Law.
I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
DRG:cm
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 0ACIAL ITEM #=
Mobilohomo Commun4
396+0 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN Luis OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543.7113
October 17, 1992
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Re: Additional arguments in Opposition To Proposed Amendments to Rent
Control Ordinance.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Enclosed please find excerpts from a recent Real Estate Appraisal of Creekside
Mobilehome Community. The quotes from the appraisal are provided as additional
factual information from an independent third party with respect to the current
consideration of changes in the rent control ordinance.
In keeping with the most recent Council Agenda Report, item number 1.A. which
suggests:
"Council may therefore wish to defer a decision on reinstituting
vacancy control, and instead attempt to complete a more formal,
"statistically valid" analysis/survey of all mobile home sales in
the last two years, and attempt to document such indicators as
actual space rent before and after sale. This would most
appropriately be completed by an "investigator" independent of the
mobile home owners and the park owners.
The enclosed data may provide insight into the conclusions an independent,
objective observer may reach. We hereby request this information be accepted
and entered into the record.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
COPM T0: RECEIVED
Paul J. Dylewski, CFP ❑'DwolinAcd= ❑
cc: Edwin J. Evans ,�"CAO ❑ FIj.Mx OCT 2 0 1992
Dennis D. Law, Esq. FAYCAO ❑ FIRECHIEFPat Fleming CLII2��DIRNEYORICITY CLERK
/ C. 11 POLICE 01 SAN LUIS OINSPO,CA
O❑ MCMI.TEAM ❑ REC DI1t
i
ANOW
��reeh�5icle
Mobilehoml,Cemmunity
3t)6o SOUTH HIGUF:RA • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/5.13.7113
CREEKSIDE MOBILEHOME COMMUNITY
October 17, 1992
COMMENTS FROM RECENT APPRAISAL REPORT
LOSS OF INCOME COMMENTS
RENT CONTROL COMMENTS
LEASE COMMENTS
Performed by: SCHENBERGER, TAYLOR McCORMICK & JECKER
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 107
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
MAI Appraiser: Gerald C. Taylor
OREA Appraiser *: AGO04113
Appraisal as of April 3, 1992
Page 27:
"If leases are not renewed, the subject would come under rent control
again. This is not likely as the park owner finds long term leases superior to
rent control."
Page 34:
"However, housing availability in the county has a mixed outlook. The
high cost of housing, and the increasing demand from a growing population are
major problems in San Luis Obispo County. The demand for housing is very
recognizable because the county is an attractive place for retirement and
vacation homes.
The price of housing in the county has increased faster than most
household income. The county in not considered a wealthy area. Per Capita
personal income was $15,799 for 1990 compared to the state's average of $19,150.
Part of this low income average is attributable to the high proportion of
retirees in the county, as well as the high number of jobs in lower paying
service industries."
Page 35:
Shows "POPULATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, COUNTY AND CITIES 1980-1001"
Shows the population of the city of San Luis Obispo
in 1980 = 34,150 1990 = 41,958 1991 = 42,600
1
Mobii,haM4 Community
3960 SOUTH HICUERA • SAN L.U15 ()RISFO • CALIFORNIA 93.101 • PHONE 805/543-7113
Paoe 39 - 40: "City of San Luis Obispo Overview"
"Despite water related problems, San Luis Obispo remains an attractive
city and a desirable place to live, work, and vacation. Property values here
have continued to increase at rates faster than the national average. There are
few vacancies of home, apartments, condominiums, . . . . ."
"In the period between 1988 and 1990, property values have escalated at
an unprecedented rate. Annual home price increases averaged 2.1% +- per month
prior to late 1989 and early 1990. A price trough, or slump, occurred in 1990,
which is now recovering with slowly rising prices. Single family dwelling lot
prices in the city hover around $150,000 to $200,000 with very little available
supply.
Pane 40: "Housing Availability, Prices, and Rentals"
"Rentals for one and two bedroom apartments and duplexes range from $500
to $800 per month. Rentals for two and three bedroom homes range from $550 to
$1,000 per month. Sale prices of existing homes are most active in the $200,000
to $300,000 price range. Available housing starts at about $150,000 and goes
over $500,000. "
Page 41:
Recently, . San Luis Obispo was named as "the best small community in the
United States to call home" according to the book by G. Scott Thomas entitled
"The Rating Guide to Life in America's Small Cities."
The strong government and service economy has historically fared well
during national economic fluctuations. This stability is expected to continue
well into the future.
Yet, due largely to growth restrictions mandated by the water shortage,
the city is not capable of meeting the current and future housing and
development demands. Subsequently, higher property and housing prices will
result as was as some relocation to secondary areas."
Page 46: "Leases and Rent Control"
"The subject is under the City of San LUis Obispo Mobilehome Park Rent
Stabilization. Since more than 70% of the tenants are on long-term leases, the
subject park is exempt from rent control. The tenants no on rent control are
on a month to month basis under the same terms as the leases. A new tenant
moving into the park is at this time required to sign a lease. Current leases
are to expire in 1998, so new tenants have the option of sighing leases that
expire in 1998 or in five years."
2
NNE
- -
Mobilshome COMMUMIty
3960 SOUTH HmurRA • SAN Luis Omspo • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113
Page 53: "Description of Improvements"
". . . a new asphalt overlay in 1988 and a seal coat in 1989. a good
quality clubhouse in good condition. The 3,808 square foot clubhouse was
. remodeled in 1989 and was repainted in 1991.
Page 58.
"The subject is impacted economically by rent control, however the owners
have mitigated this impact by having more than 75% of the residents on long term
leases.
The subject is still a viable economic unit, however both leased rents and
rent controlled spaces are below market levels at this time creating economic
depreciation which is reflected in both the income and market approach.
The subject is adversely impacted economically by rent control
Social Consideration
The subject serves a. social benefit to the community by providing the
maximum residential amenities at the lowest cost of ownership"
t
Page 60. "Mobilehome Market"
". . .Also of prime importance is the relatively low cost of a mobilehome
compared to conventional site built housing. . . . This affordability also allows
lower payments to price conscious families.
". . .that a mobilehome in a rental mobilehome community can appreciate.
This appreciation is caused by increasing prices of mobilehomes from dealers and
"Increased utility locational" which is a transfer of some of the site value to
the mobilehome. "Increased utility location" is classed as being similar to a
leasehold estate and/or possessory interest. Even as mobilehome space rents go
up due to inflation, our studies have shown that many mobilehomes tend to
appreciate at, or above, the inflation rate. . . . Appreciation also occurs when
rents are substantially below the market and are expected to remain below
market.
Page 61: {. . . above section continued. . .}
"Development of new mobilehome communities has slowed in the last ten to
15 years due to numerous problems. One of the most recent problems has been
rent control, which is when an inflationary environment actually transfers part
of the ownership rights to the residents at no cost. If rents are artificially
held down, the value of the individual mobilehome goes up. Obviously, a buyer
will pay a premium for guaranteed lower rents. This would not be true if rent
control ordinances and boards properly allowed a fair return on the market value
3
_ ��reel,�5ide
Mobilshomo Community
3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN Luis OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543.7113
of owners' property, plus inflationary increases. In my experience testifying
before mobilehome rent control boards, this is not always the case. Also, most
rent control ordinances are enacted without any consideration to equalization
of market rents. Many times rent control causes inequities because of the lack
of knowledge on the part of public officials.
Another inequity caused by rent control is the fact many mobilehome rental
communities have residents with long term leases at or below market rents.
These residents are exempt from rent control which creates inter and intra-park
rent inequities.
Many cities have, without discretion, rolled back rents to a previous
date, without any regard to the relative market rent position of each park.
These ordinances tend to cause more problems than they solve. These roll back
rents could also be considered inverse condemnation, as they can cause severe
value losses to park owners, at the financial benefit of park residents.
Another current solution to rent control is long term leases. Rather than
rent control by ordinance of the cities and counties, long term leases at
current market rents, in my opinion, appear to be a superior solution to owner-
resident relations in mobilehome parks."
Page 91: "Replacement Cost Estimate and Value Estimate by the Cost Approach"
"The current low rents are a result of on-going "rent Control"`in the city
of San Luis Obispo. The rent stabilization ordinance effectively keeps San Luis
Obispo City mobilehome park rents below proper market levels. The owners
elected to offer long term assumable {leases} with CPI increases and pass-
throughs for some expenses that increase. This was the lessor of two choices
and allowed the owners to get out of the rent control. The leases have varying
expiration dates, however, will probably be renewed if rent control continues.
This creates economic depreciation as the residents know their rents are below
market and would use rent control if they have a choice to keep rents below
market levels. The estimated economic depreciation is 30%, which is well
supported by both the income and market approaches."
Ea119: "Subject Income Overview"
"The subject park has all space rents on leases, with no vacancy. The
current rents are far below market rent levels as the leases were entered into
under rent control by the city. The owner chose leases at below market rents
as a superior alternative to on-going rent control. "
4
_ ��reek�ide
Mobilehome Community
3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN LUIS CIBIsPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543.7113
October 17, 1992
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Re: Creekside Mobilehome Community
Rebuttal to Resident Letters submitted to the Council.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Pursuant to the Council Agenda Report prepared for the council meeting on
10/20/92 please accept and examine the enclosed information. The city has
received several letters from Creekside residents in response to the city's
request for additional information.
We hereby, respectfully, advise the City Council that each and every letter
received from Creekside homeowners contain false and misleading statements. The
purpose of this letter is to address every single issue raised in letters from
Creekside residents. Please allow the facts to speak for themselves.
We feel it would be irresponsible for the council to make decisions based on
purely emotional responses not accompanied by any substantive fact. Park
management and the owner are available to meet with homeowners to address their
concerns. However, they appear to prefer going directly to the City Council or
to communicate through attorneys. It is our position that resident concerns
should be addressed within the community, attempting resolution before making
its way to the City to absorb time and expense. Park management has not been
afforded the opportunity to resolve the issues currently before the Council.
The residents have not acted in good faith.
Creekside management request that the letters from Creekside residents be
considered only in connection with the rebuttal statements contained herein.
The resident letters contain incorrect statements of fact, misunderstandings of
the current ordinance and the State Mobilehome Residency law, as well as
uninformed ideas and opinions lacking in research yet replete with emotions.
It will be incredulous for the City Council to accept these letters at face
value without further investigation of facts; especially in light of a proposed
change in the law. We desire the Council have true, factual information for
such an important decision.
Sincerely,
Creekside Management
THS FOLLOWING ARE REBUTTAL STATEMENTS TO FACTUAL ERRORS
IN LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS OF CREEBSIDE MOBILEHOMB COMMUNITY:
Note: The homeowner's letter will be quoted directly followed
by rebuttal comments.
Home Owner: MARY JO VEITCH:
"We now are on Satellite exclusively and have no programs to go by -
none of the 215 homes were advised of this at all. . ."
Per the terms of the lease the Park is not mandated to advise homeowners
of an improvement to services that will not impact their monthly charges.
"We get no L.A. stations that carry the USC, UCLA, or Dodgers games.
We are also forced to live up to terms of the lease, which we never
signed, but are forced to pay the pass-throughs, which I think are
illegal. Please help us."
A satellite television system was installed to improve the overall
television service for the residents. For years there have been complaints
about the quality of the cable TV service. As a result of the switch to
satellite TV the residents now have superior picture quality, the same number
of channels, channels not offered elsewhere in the city, and most importantly,
a 33% reduction in price! What, pray tell, is there to complain about? The
programming guide is no longer a problem. Residents now have their own
customized programming guide on-screen. Also, there will soon be an in-house
advertising and message screen broadcast to every resident using the system.
There will be a homeowner TV committee to choose channels and make general
decisions regarding the service. There will be two more channels added to the
basic programming package with no additional cost.
There was no requirement to consult the residents for a vote - the
improved service is not a capital improvement being charged as a pass-through
to the residents. Over $80,000 has been spent to improve this service for the
residents - completely at the Owners expense.
We will have the Dodgers next year, and some of the other programming
cited as unavailable. The only sports programming lost in the new system is
that on Prime Ticket. Due to an exclusive contract between Sonic Cable and
Prime Ticket, we have been unable to receive this channel. These exclusive
contracts have recently been the subject of federal legislation = if possible,
we will make every effort to provide the programming.
Questions concerning the above issues are answered daily in the park
office, if Mrs. Veitch had taken the time to call or walk to the office and ask
most of her concerns would be alleviated.
1
Home Owner: MR. RAY NIEMESH:
"It didn't work in our park, as in less than a year, Park Owner Ed
Evans came out with a new lease. He also came out with a third
lease".
After the initial lease offering (and signing) period, when additional
homes sold that were not subject to the lease, many of the new buyers requested
a long-term lease. . . so one was provided. The lease provided new buyers was not
identical to the original lease, however, the differences were minimal.
The law allows us to offer any long term lease we can negotiate or feel
is appropriate in the market. Current Park homeowners have no right to dictate
terms of a lease we might offer to a potential future resident. Quite frankly,
it is not their business. They negotiated and signed their own personal lease,
that should be the extent of their business; keeping in mind the "Prospective
Resident" is not even a resident of the park yet.
New buyers subsequent to the original lease were offered a slightly
different lease. These new buyers requested a long term lease, agreed to and
signed the lease. Creekside is not a monopoly in the city - there are other
places for buyers to buy. If our product is unsatisfactory, no one need buy.
Quoting again. . . :
"He changed the pool hours for October thru March."
In an effort to reduce a pass-through cost to the residents and due to the
enormous cost of heating a large pool during the winter, we do cover the pool
after dark to save energy, and, to assure a stable, warm pool for the seniors
who swim in the morning. Any resident requesting an after-hours swim is
accommodated. The truth is very few people use the pool in the winter. What
impact has the change of the pool hours had?. . . It saves the residents money.
Quoting again. . . :
"We now get channels that aren't worth watching. There's no T.V
Guide or Newspaper guide telling you what programs are on. "
The residents have the same channels provided by Sonic Cable, with seven
exceptions. Of the seven most have been replaced with identical type
programming. We have added stations previously unavailable. See the previous
rebuttal for the answer to the programming guide question. This point is moot
and seems to be complaining for the sake of complaining.
Mr. Niemesh is also misunderstanding his own lease. The lease requires
the owner meet with the residents regarding any change or capital improvement
that results in a pass-through charge. Over $80,000 was spent to improve the
television system and there will be no charge to the residents.-
2
"Ed Evans just wanted lease to get off the back of the City Council"
It was the express intent and desire of the City to see mobilehome owners
sign long term leases. 'The ordinance was written with this in sight. The lease
signed by Mr. Niemesh has provisions that are far better for the homeowner than
the provisions in the rent control ordinance. We ask, if the lease is so
unjust, why did more than 70% of the homeowners sign it? Not to mention, the
homeowners negotiated the provisions. Mr Niemesh's statements are emotional and
spiteful. Also, the owner has met every condition of the lease. The residents
hiring of an attorney was premature and ignored the circumstances encountered
with the contractor in the rebuilding of the jacuzzi structure.
Home Owner: SHIRLEY MARIN:
"I live at Creekside Mobile Park, . . : I did not sign the lease. . .
There was a 2/3 majority, however, that did sign the lease, which
then put me under the terms of the lease since that time."
This is a statement of fact proving we operate under the terms of the
ordinance. Homeowners not under the lease are treated the same as those who
signed the lease - as mandated by the ordinance. Mrs. Marin does not seem to
understand the concept of a 2/3 majority signing the lease. Was the lease so
terrible that 67% of the homeowners decided to sign it? Or, were so many people
effectively coerced into signing a lease harmful to themselves? I think not.
"I am subject to all rent and utility increases that occur within
the park, and have to pay the increases as all the other park
residents do. There are "pass through" charges that have been added
to the monthly rents on top of the CPI increases that have occurred
each year within the park."
Who does Mrs. Marin wish pay her customary costs of living. Everyone,
everywhere pays rent and utilities. Does she actually want her neighbors to pay
her bills? The "pass through" charges are in accordance with the lease
negotiated by the residents. Again, the pass through charges in the lease are
identical to those allowed under the ordinance.
"I have no protection, being under the terms of the lease, against
changes also that have been added to the park. Recently a TV
satellite system was installed at the park central area, with
compulsory service to each mobilehome in the park. There was not
a vote taken by park residents for this recent change. The lease
states that any changes to occur that affect residents of the park
will be up for a "park vote" of all residents and the park owner."
3
Protection against what? Is this protection against the decisions of the
owner to save the homeowners money?. . . this is illogical. The satellite
television issues have been dealt with previously, please see the rebuttal to
the first homeowner letter. Regarding "compulsory service"; The satellite
television system is entirely optional to every resident - no aspect is
compulsory. Also, again, a vote was not required for a "no cost" improvement
to a resident service.
Home Owner: LORENE WOOSTER:
"However, if the exemptions "F" and "G" are not removed at the same
time, the people who did not sign the lease will be persecuted even
more."
There has yet to surface any evidence of "persecution" of the homeowners.
Every effort is made to provide a beautiful, functioning community for the
homeowners. Creekside has won two "Obispo Beautiful" awards in the last 10
years. Eliminating the exemption provision of the ordinance seems to be added
as an aside. . . "by the way, and while you're at it why don't you get rid of the
exemption to!"
Home Owner: CAROL GARCIA•
"Mobile home owners must depend on our City Council to protect our
rights. We can not afford more expensive housing.
"Any issue effecting us is fought by wealthy Park Owners who hire
expensive lawyers to represent them. They are not effected by
recession as they receive full income whether homes are occupied or
not: they do not have to pay for upkeep such as painting, new roofs,
carpet, cleanup or yard work as other property owners who have
rental property."
Do mobile homeowners have special rights not afforded the rest of the
residents of San Luis Obispo? Do these special rights include exemption from
paying the basic cost of living? Economic cost of living and the relative value
of housing in the city is not under the control of the owner of the park. He
operates in the same economic environment as all other homeowners in our
economy. It is not the job of private business to correct and control the
economic fluctuations of an entire city.
It is interesting to note that no more than 35% of the residents of
Creekside are senior citizens. Changing laws that impact far more people than
such a small minority is not sound policy. There is a much bigger economic
picture creating these circumstances. . . one can not ask the individual business
owner to subsidize the lifestyles of a special interest minority.
4
The comment regarding paying for upkeep is false, misleading and a gross
mis-statement of fact - a good example of the conceptual misunderstandings
underpinning the issues before the Council. First, we do not own the residents
house. . why should we pay for its upkeep? We own the land and we do pay for its
upkeep. . . Mrs. Garcia watched us dig-up, repair and repave the street directly
in front of her house. . . how can she make such statements? Who does she think
pays for the upkeep of the clubhouse, pool, television system, landscaping,
parks, utility systems, and management for their community?
Regarding "our lawsuit". . . the residents think they are pursuing a
lawsuit. There exists specific arbitration proceedings specified and agreed to
in the lease which are being ignored. The "lawsuit is based on their claim that
Pass-through charges are illegal. As far as Creekside knows no lawsuit has been
filed. Any lawsuit that would be filed would be immediately thrown out of court
due to the specific arbitration provisions in the lease. To date no request for
arbitration, or package of complaints has been brought to the park for attempted
resolution. Resident are submitting to the city bills for attorneys. . . it
appears they can afford attorneys should they choose to.
Again this displays the conceptual misunderstandings held by a small group
of residents.
"He has since added two (2) more leases for the Park without any
home owner negotiations as required under lease #1. I feel he is
determined to charge home owners for his every expense and make 100%
profit. Since he resides in the Los Angeles area his income does
not benefit San Luis Obispo. Contractors from his area are brought
up for work in our park."
The original lease negotiated with the homeowners created a lease they
wanted to, or were willing to sign. Homeowners are not subject to any
subsequent lease and have no legal right to demand a say in negotiations between
the park and a potential future tenant.
The remainder of the above quote is obviously emotional, opinionated, and
untrue. We question whose expenses she claims we make them pay. The current
ordinance and lease state clearly who pays what expenses. The question remains,
whose community is this? Is a private property owner required to subsidize the
living expenses of a small special interest minority?
Regarding contractors brought in to work in the park. Most of the gross
income of the park is spent in the city of San Luis Obispo. Property taxes and
local vendors are two examples. In the past 10 years we have used 2 out of town
vendors, and for good reasons. The streets and driveways were done by Bostick
because they were most capable of providing the quality of service the community
demanded. The satellite television system was installed by our own satellite
engineer because it was most cost effective.
It is important to point out the city itself does not always use local
contractors - they use the lowest bid. Why should we not be afforded the same
opportunity?
5
Home Owner: LSOLA RUBOTTOM:
"This letter is in response to your instructions to the tenants to
come up with documentation that proves rents have increased too much
and that sales of mobilehomes have been affected by the difference
in the rent of the seller and a new mobilehome owner."
Could it be said there is a pre-disposition to a conclusion not yet reached by
the city-council? To date there are no facts to support the above claim, yet,
the conclusion seems already draw by the residents. We question the motivation
when opinion is considerably swayed before investigation of the facts provide
a responsible conclusion.
"This is unrealistic to put the burden of proof on the tenants. "
If I recall, it is the homeowners who are making the claim. The owner did not
initiate the current action.
"Secondly it is very intimidating for a tenant to submit a copy of
his lease; especially when they have signed the lease that says it
can't be recorded."
Please help. . . what does this mean? We suggest if it has no meaning its roots
are in emotions.
"There is so much in this lease that is illegal. In Ref 4.1 of the
Mobilehome Lease Agreement the park owner has asked them to sign a
lease that by-passes 798.17 of the State Mobilehome Residency Law."
First of all, we want on record that slanderous, potentially illegal
comments such as the above should be looked down upon by the City Council.
Whether there is potential legal recourse against Mrs. Rubottom remains at
issue.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Rubottom does not interpret the code accurately. The
section she cites does not apply to potential buyers who are not yet residents
of the park. Any existing homeowner who negotiated a lease had the option to
reject it, as does any new 'potential' homeowner. Also, the existence of the
in-force leases, by the ordinance, exempts the park from the rent control
ordinance.
"The park owner expects the tenants to pay him interest when he uses
his own money to improve his own park, . . ."
Again, we ask, whose community is it? We are not spending "our" money on
anything we get beneficial enjoyment of. The provisions related to pass-through
charges of capital improvement items are well spelled out in the lease and are
6
controlled by the current ordinance. Remember, the residents negotiated this
lease. Of particular note, the president of the GSMOL stated in writing the
Creekside lease was one of the most advantageous lease for homeowners she had .
ever seen. A copy of this letter is submitted for the Council's review.
"I have contacted Real Estate Agents that have lost sales because
of an increase in rents at the time of sale."
Please submit the factual evidence to support this claim. Neither we nor the
city has yet been privilege to such data.
"The first lease, dated 6-15-88 is a revised addition of the lease
that was considered for approval and this was the lease that
supposedly gained approval from the majority of the . tenants in
Creekside, although this was never documented."
This is an outright false and misleading statement. We will submit a letter
dated 5/17/90 to document the falsity of the above statement. Approval of the
lease by the Creekside Homeowners Association is a well established fact.
"The state "Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance" #798.19 states
"no rental agreement shall waive the rights of the mobilehome owner
and if it does the agreement is void." All through this new lease
this applies all the way from ."Annual Rent Adjustments to illegal
pass throughs."
The lease in question makes no mention of a homeowners' need to waive any rights
afforded him/her under the law. And again, we revisit the issue Of illegal pass
through charges - the statement is incorrect in its entirety.
"The State law also says any lease over 5 years is null and void."
In Reference to 4.1, it is illegal to require a new owner to accept
the same Lease. They are also signing to circumvent the State
Mobilehome Residency Law #798.17."
Please provide the state section supporting this claim. The law states there
can be no automatic renewal. With respect to section 798.17, we agree this may
need some clarification. However, there is currently nothing in the law that
says a potential new resident (one that does not yet live in the park) can not
be required to sign a lease governing there relationship upon entering the Park
as a homeowner.
"All I ask is you read the enclosed Lease, which has never been
approved by the majority of the people in the park. The lease that
is now being offered new tenants and notice particularly the parts
that are illegal according to the State Mobilehome Residency Law."
7
fsigh. .) Again, Mrs. Rubottom's emotional underpinnings have no basis in
fact. Secondarily, is this resident an attorney capable of making judgments,
and/or passing on the legality of our leases? Each resident has the opportunity
to reject signing their name to any piece of paper representing a contract. The
residents have approved of the lease which they helped draft. Each resident is
governed by a lease they themselves signed. They have no business concerning
themselves with leases someone else may agree to sign. They have no place in,
and need not be consulted on any subsequent leases being offered in the park.
Prudent business practices and operation of the law offers the needed
protection.
"I strongly believe it is a conflict of interest for a park owner
to buy and sell mobilehomes in his own park. It leaves a strong
incentive to cause tenants to move. The greater the turnover of
tenants, the more commission the park owner makes."
Why should the residents be afforded a first right of refusal to buy the
park from the owner, and yet the owner shouldn't be allowed to buy his land back
from the residents? The commission comment is shortsighted. Any commission
generated by the real estate sale of a home would be greatly exceeded by the
cost to purchase the home. What incentive exists for the owner to buy his own
land over and over again?
If the residents were to purchase the land under their homes at fair
market value their 'mortgage' payments would exceed the current monthly rents.
If they can not afford the current rent and expenses why would they want to buy
the park and have higher payments? The logical inconsistencies of this
argument are obvious.
Home Owner: DOROTHY LIGHTHART:
Of particular interest is the identical nature of this letter with the one
that follows from Mary C. Bach. I/we respectfully submit the possibility these
letter were solicited by a small group of people potentially preying on the lack
of understanding potentially present with some of our senior residents.
Home Owner: MARY C. BACH:
Refer to above comments.
8
we could not sign the present lese As there were items
contained herein that did not serve our best interests. Our only
recourse is the courts. . ."
Again, the ordinance protects residents making a decision against signing
the lease (created by their own homeowners association) by mandating that these
residents be treated the same as those under lease. We question why any
recourse is necessary.
1. Vacancy decontrol has affected sales in Creekside to the
extent that we see more mobilehomes sitting empty. (mobilehome
owners are not supposed to sublease, while the Park Owner owns
several rentals around the Park. ) Also, there are Mobilehome owners
wanting to sell who have been unable to do so because of the
increased sales rental. Some of them have had their homes
advertised for over a year."
Currently the residents have offered no factual data to support the
contention that decontrol has had any impact on the sales of mobilehomes. We
have submitted factual data to the City that proves that sales have remained
very steady, if not increasing. The existence of rent control and the long term
lease have had a positive effect on the sales prices and no negative impact on
the ability to sell a home in the park.
We will not be blamed for the ills of the economy. The entire housing
market in California is dreadfully weak. Why should this not be of major impact
to the sales of mobilehomes. To blame park operations and lease provisions for
an overall economic recession/slowdown is unreasonable.
Of particular interest is the fact that we currently have 12 homes for
sale in the park; of those, 11 are on the lease. If sales are slow it has
nothing to do with not being under the lease. There simply is no evidence.
Homes sell or do not sell regardless of the lease or space rent circumstances.
Park policy allows subleasing in the case of hardship. There currently
are 5 homes allowed to sublet due to hardship. The reason being, we should not
allow investors to come into the park and buy homes for rental. There needs to
be controls to place resident homeowners in the community. We make every effort
to work with the homeowner in any difficult situation. We currently have
residents who were able to buy homes outside the park. They have been allowed
to turn their mobilehome into a rental.
"2. This ordinance provides little protection for the tenants
since it leans so heavily in favor of the Park Owner."
Please reference the letter from the President of the GSMOL stating, in writing,
the obvious fairness of the lease signed by the residents. Let us not forget
it was a resident committee that negotiated the provisions of the lease. Were
9
they all collectively coerced into a bad deal? The city requested . that such
collective measures be taken encouraging long term leases. This was
accomplished and it is working. Let's not let a few bad apples ruin the whole
pie.
"These remarks do not mean that we believe the Park Owner should not
have a fair return on his investment. We have lived here at
Creekside for 20 years, and have seen our rent increase from $65 to
$263.57. Even with inflation, we believe that to be a more than
substantial increase."
Does the resident really know what a "fair return" on investment is? Can
he define this for us and the city. If studied, one will find, due to the
existence of the rent control ordinance, no investor would purchase Creekside
without close to a 30% downward adjustment in fair market value to create a
economically viable return to support the investment decision. A recent
appraisal by the firm of Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick & Jecker, in no
uncertain terms stated the rents at Creekside were far below current fair market
rents. There does not currently exist a fair return on the fair market value
of Creekside. Rent control has made it impossible to reap a fair return.
Home Owner: ROBERT SOUTHER:
Mr. Southers letter is a restatement of most of the issues addressed
above. Please notice he makes numerous references to "inequities" and "illegal
means" yet he forwards absolutely no evidence to support these claims. The
supposed 'evidence' he does provide has already been shown to be a
misunderstanding of the law or an illogical position or misstatement of fact.
Of particular note again, is the fact that Ed Evans took it upon himself
to submit the lease negotiated with the homeowners to the president of GSMOL.
She responded in writing that our lease was one of the best for the residents
she had ever had the opportunity of reviewing. Please, what more need be said?!
Rome Owner• WARD SPENCER•
Mr. Spencer points out the increase in water and sewer charges to the
residents. What he fails to recognize (or remember) is the city raised its
sewer fees to the residents from $3 per space to $9 per space. This is a 300%
increase.
We respectfully submit that the city itself understands the realities of
increased costs and the necessity that every resident of the city pay their fair
share. Some of our resident complaints need to be directed to the city directly
and not made part of an issue affecting the park owner.
We also submit that Mr. Spencer seems, quite unaware of fair market rents
10
the lowest space rental rates of any other coastal city. Should Mr. Spencer be
unhappy with his situation he has the right .to go elsewhere. Sadly, though, he
would find the situation to be considerably worse anywhere he might look.
Fair market rents have been kept artificially low in San Luis Obispo. .
should additional special treatment be awarded to this small, privileged,
special interest group? To what extent must the city continue to suffer to
subsidize such a group at the expense of the other citizens of the city? Mr.
Spencer needs to consider these issues.
11
4
GOLDEN STATE MOBILHOME OWNERS LEAGUE, INC.
G11021 MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD.GARDEN GROVE.CALIFORNIA
P O.BOX 8 76.GARUEN DROVE CALIFORNIA 92642
M (714)826.4071 1-800.422.4471
O April 28 , 1988
L
-A to MAS=kltbt.. RECEIVED << ;I J 2 1988
Edwin J. Evans
EPM Developments
1055-B Ortega Way
Placentia, CA 92670
Dear Ed :
Please do not think that I am dragging my heels or ignoring
your regest for comments . I have reviewed your lease. There
are some areas that I would , of course from a resident ' s point
of view, like to discuss - one being the uninsured losses and
raising the rent to the maximum once during any extension.
I do not consider that any of this is vital and on the whole
you are offering one of the better leases that I have had the
opportunity to review.
I am now waiting for a copy, which I should have the first
part of this coming week , of the proposed rent ordinance in
San Luis Obispo. I would like to have the opportunity to review
that ordinance and compare the differences to the residents
vs their opportunity to sign your lease. I believe following
receipt and review of the rent control I should be able to
provide you with . a good comparision and perhaps it can be used
as a foundation for discussion with residents in your park .
Ed, I hope all of this can be done in time so that the results
will be of benefit to you. I will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Marie L. Malone
President
MLM:gbt
��►�� �������iii��►�►IIII�III{h���� ���i�i ► Ihll city of sAn hues oBispo '
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
May 17, 1990
Mr. Raymond Niemesh
President, Creekside Homeowners Ass'n.
3960 South Higuera
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Niemesh:
I am writing to let you know that Creekside Mobile Home Community has fully complied
with Section 5.44.040, Mobile home Park Owner Exemptions under Section 5.44.030 of
the Mobiie Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In your letter to us dated February 5,
you asked whether the provisions of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance
applied to tenants who had not signed lease agreements at Creekside Mobile Home
Community. Section 5.44.030 states that the provisions of the Ordinance do not apply
to tenancies in mobile home parks in which at least 66.67 percent of the spaces are
governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year. As such, the provisions
of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance would not apply to those residents at
Creekside Mobile Home Community who are on month to month agreements.
If you have further questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Alison Lloyd,
Administrative Ana st
c. Pat Fleming
Y
AL\niemesh