Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!In a 2-1 decision on Monday, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — citing a passage from John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charlie portraying mobile homes as anything but mobile — ruled a Goleta mobile home park rent-control ordinance to be unconstitutional.
An effort to protect mobile home park tenants from inordinately high rents, the ordinance was established by Santa Barbara County in 1979. After it was renewed in 2002 by the newly incorporated City of Goleta, the ordinance was challenged by Daniel and Susan Guggenheim, who purchased Rancho Mobile Home Park in Goleta in 1997 after a one-year statute of limitations had originally prevented them from doing so. “The dissent says the Guggenheims knew they were buying a park with rent control. They paid a rent-controlled park price for it,” said James Ballantine, an attorney representing Rancho’s tenants. The majority decision, however, found that the ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking from the Guggenheims, giving them entitlement to compensation, the amount of which has not yet been specified.
The case, which has been enmeshed in legal proceedings, was remanded back to the District Court, and Circuit Court judges have ordered that the amount of compensation due the Guggenheims be determined. It is as yet unclear what the impact of the decision will be on Rancho’s tenants and upon the City of Goleta, which may be on the hook for recompensing the park owners. City attorney Tim Giles is currently reviewing the 75-page decision and is expected to make a report to the City Council next Tuesday.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
WTH? The county's had a functioning mobile home park rent control ordinance for decades, after which Goleta's ordinance was patterned, and all of a sudden Goleta's ordinance is unconstitutional?
We're just beginning to "experience" the court-packing done by Bush and his fellow travelers at the federal level, and a string of Republican governors at the state level. Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride for years to come.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this the same type of thinking that allowed AIG to bring down the world economy?
Is this the same type of thinking that allows the city to tow cars to towing yards and the towing lot owners to charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get your car back, which means poor people have lost their cars violating the constitutional mandate against no taking property without compensation?
Is the same type of thinking that says "a man can do with his property what he wants" means that tenants can be summarily kicked out of their residence, one at a time or a whole building without even knowing who the owner is as in Goleta a few years ago?
Is this the far right folks idea of noblese oblige ala Old George I?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Bird (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment