Quick Update on Guggenheim Case
We've been following the Guggenheim case for more than a year now, and in the last week or so, there have been a number of developments. As a quick recap, this decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance - which had the effect of transferring the vast majority of a mobile home park's value from the park owner to the tenants - did not constitute a taking. The decision followed an earlier decision by a different panel of the same court, in which the court held that the ordinance did qualify as a taking.
Not surprisingly, the owner then sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cert Petition is now pending, and the stack of amicus briefs on the case has been growing rapidly. I could take the time to summarize them, but fortunately for me, someone else has already done it. Here are some links to Robert Thomas' inversecondemnation.com blog from the last week:
- Takings Claims Run With The Land, a post summarizing a brief by the National Association of Home Builders in support of the Guggenheims' Petition;
- No "Expiration Date" On The Takings Clause, a post summarizing a brief filed by the Cato Institute in in support of the Guggenheims' Petition;
- Ninth Circuit "Did Violence" To Penn Central Test, a post summarizing the brief Mr. Thomas filed and another brief filed by Equity Lifestyle Partners, both in support of the Petition;
- Ninth Circuit Applied All Penn Central Factors, a post summarizing the brief filed by the City in opposition to the Guggenheims' Petition.
Aside from these posts, the blog contains a detailed resource page about the Guggenheim case, with links (at least as of the date of this post) to nine amicus briefs in support of the Guggenheims and three amicus briefs in support of the City.
Nice work, Robert (and thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to keep track of all of this myself).
We'll let you know when the Supreme Court makes its decision.
