# Amicus Curiae Brief — Guggenheim v. City of Goleta

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1014%3A05

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2011
- **Citation:** 563 U.S. 988

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1014%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.