Amicus Curiae Brief — Guggenheim v. City of Goleta

rame Court, U.S

No. 10-1125 ~ EILED

|

| emcee ULL

Hn The | OFFICE OF THE CLERK |

Supreme Court of the Anited States

On Petition For Writ Of Certiora!

‘he United States Court Of Appe

For The Ninth Circuit

BRIEF, AMICUS CURIAE, OF CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, IN SUPPOR

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JUNE BABIRACKI BAI

Vice President and Gener

525 South Virgil Avenu

Los Angeles, Californ:

(213) 739-8200

t\uneb@car.oreg

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAEL, CAI

FORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

IDENTITY AND INTERES!

CUS CURIAE

CASE SUMMARY

GOLETA’S ORDINANCE GIVES THI

LAND VALUE OF THE GUGGEN

HEIM’S PROPERTY TO THE COACH

OWNERS WHEN THEY SELL THEIR

UNIT

GOLETA’S ORDINANCE INTERFERE

WITH INVESTMENT BACKED EXPE‘

[TATIONS OF MOBILE HOME PARI

OWNERS

GOLETA’S ORDINANCE VIOLATE

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS BI

CAUSE IT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE USI

OF THE GOVERNMENT’S' POLICE

POWER IT DOES NOT CONTRO

HOUSING COSTS

CONFISCATORY REN’ CONTRO

SHOULD BE TREATED AS A FACIA]

TAKING AS A MATTER PUBL]

POLICY

if ¢

|

é r

’ yf }

r

ATT ‘oO

tT

hile Mar |

1é, f {I d

'

f ~ j

a Dace f f

Fy

; s

Werner 4. Hirsclt

Kconomu Analyst Of Rent Control >a Me

bile Home Context Placem«e ret \ ; ‘

VACaAMc, By

Qe c>)

LUIS Departme

De velopment Ite

’

Control pvp 10(19

Cari OF LM

ASSOCIATION OF REALT

ORT OF PETITIONERS

raviin

THE

THE

mee

GUGGE

COACH

II? TIN

AING@ UE 2

IVES THE LAN

NHELUWS PROP

OWNERS WHI

V. GOLETA’S ORDINANCE INTERFERES

WITH INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTA-

TIONS OF MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS

In the seminal case of Penn Central Transporta

tion Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), this

Court identified certain factors that need to be con-

sidered to determine whether a regulatory taking has

occurred. Penn Central regulatory taking analysis

requires the Court to consider the “economic impact

of the regulation on the claimant, and particularly,

the extent to which the regulation has interfered with

distinct investment backed expectations.” Lingle

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538-539 (2005

citing Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124.

In the present case, the district court credited

reports indicating that Goleta’s rent control ordinance

required the Guggenheims to rent the entire mobile

home park at about an 80% discount below market

rates, and 90% of the sale price of mobile homes in

the park had been transferred to the incumbent

tenants. Even though this finding is particular to this

specific property, studies indicate that such redistri-

bution by restrictive mobile home rent control ordi

nances is fairly standard. See, e.g., Kenneth Barr, The

Right to Sell the “Im” mobile Manufactured Home in

Its Rent Controlled Space in the “Im” mobile Home

Park: Valid Regulation of Unconstitutional Taking?,

24 Urs. Law. 157 (1992); Werner Z. Hirsch and Joel

G. Hirsch, Legal-Economic Analysis of Rent Controls

;

in a Mobile Home Context: Placement Values and

Vacancy Decontrol, 35 UCLA L. Rev. 399 (1988

ne legal stream of nt income would yield

theory that rent control might someday

id, either because of a change of mind by the munic

ipality or court action.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta,

06-56306, 2010 WL 5174984 at *5 (9th Cir

2010) (en banc). Such speculation by tl

unreasonable

No.

Dec. 22.

ruggenheims would not have

been

GOLETA’S ORDINANCE VIOLATES SUB-

STANTIVE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE IT

IS AN ILLEGITIMATE USE OF THE GOV-

ERNMENT’S POLICE POWER: IT DOES

NOT CONTROL HOUSING COSTS

transfer has no valid

it is

The raw wealth

Lilt

irpose. While it keeps land rents low, i

esigned to control the ultimate cost of housing

it achieve that end. As stated by the dissent,’

decides the substantive due

ection claims by citing rent

Goleta ordinance is

it process

nd equal pz

ontrol cases. But, the

ot a rent control law for the simple re

hat it is not designed to — nor does it — con

rol rents. It does not just miss the mark bes

ause of unintended consequences _ or

inefficient administration. Its very structurs

was designed and intended not to provid

but to transfer wealtl

using rent control.

: i 2

ONFISCATORY RENT CONTROL SHOU!

BE TREATED AS A FACIAL TAKING AS

MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY

|

Al

i

TI Star

) tor ” ] roy

SIGQCTatvl i )

| ,

FivcI< nl 2 | Or |

yi 5

ited 4 | rulat il I

. rr4 | | ] F T" Sie ‘on

ONCceptl penind e faking _iau

A . 4 | | &. f of

\mendment LO tne ». Constitution

. ; 11

property shall not { taken TOI DUDII

i r .

z ry

Ist compensatlio LE 4

I [ e maa

ical ¢ upatiol Opel

| Y

1d erulal mise '

[ co It) n Uf ALIUVUILS ans CUUdaAYI t

4 |

ng Ww tne i i tn { Alt

i | |

> i rié i if