When analyzing potential liability for a regulatory takings claim, most land use and eminent domain attorneys immediately look to the three-prong test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104. Those three factors include:
- the economic impact of the regulation;
- the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations; and
- the character of the government's regulation.
Unfortunately, it's much easier said than done. Practitioners and courts alike have struggled ...
We've been following the Ninth Circuit Guggenheim case for more than a year. That Court's change in its holding between the initial decision by a three-judge panel and the subsequent en banc decision, coupled with the considerable attention the decision received, led many to think the case was ripe for Supreme Court review.
Today, we learned that the Supreme Court denied the owner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, meaning the en banc Court's decision will stand. (As a reminder, that opinion held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance did not constitute a taking, despite the ...
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 ...
We've covered the Guggenheim v. City of Goleta regulatory takings case pretty exhaustively, most recently noting there is a pending petition for Supreme Court review. While we wait for the fateful decision as to whether the Supreme Court will take up the Guggenheim case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued another mobilehome rent control regulatory takings decision in Colony Cove Properties v. City of Carson. Like the 9th Circuit's en banc decision in Guggenheim, the park owner's regulatory takings claim was unsuccessful.
The owner in Colony Cove
We thought it was over in 2009 when the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance constituted a taking.
We thought it was over in late 2010 when an en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled the other way, holding that the property owner failed to establish the "investment-backed expectations" necessary to establish a takings claim under Penn Central.
Now, we're not sure if it's ever going to be over. Apparently, Dan Guggenheim has decided to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, so there may yet be more drama for the long-playing battle between the Guggenheims and the ...
We've reported on a number of rent control regulatory takings claims making their way through the court system, most notably the Guggenheim v. City of Goleta case. Apparently, some cities and counties are fed up with the onslaught of challenges to their rent control ordinances, and they're looking for a way to recoup the attorneys' fees they expend in preserving the ordinances.
According to an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Monning researching bill to address rent control lawsuits," Assemblyman Bill Monning looks to address this concern by considering a bill ...
One of the cases we've been following the entire year is Guggenheim v. City of Goleta. The case involves a challenge to the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance for mobile homes. The owner claimed that the ordinance had the effect of transferring the vast majority (as much as 90 percent) of the property's value to the tenants, constituting a taking.
Last September, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier District Court decision, holding that Goleta's ordinance constituted a taking, and it remanded the case for a trial on the amount of compensation the owner should be ...
For anyone looking to spend more time on eminent domain issues, there are two upcoming events you may want to consider.
- For those looking for a one-day commitment, I recommend the IRWA, Chapter 1 2010 Fall Education Seminar, which is taking place on October 26 at the Quiet Cannon in Montebello. I don't have the full list of speakers yet, but it's always a good event, and my partner, David Graeler, is Chair again this year. I'll be talking about the interrelationship between goodwill and the Relocation Act, using the recent Casasola opinion as a jumping off point (look for a post about ...
Last fall, we told you about a key rent control / takings decision, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, in which the Ninth Circuit held that a rent control ordinance consituted a taking. In March, we reported that the Ninth Circuit had ordered an en banc hearing of the Guggenheim case.
Yesterday, the Court held the en banc hearing, and while it may be some time before the Court issues its opinion, the hearing itself may provide some good insights about what may happen (and what it may mean in the larger context of regulatory takings claims).
Very generally speaking, the Court was critical of ...
Last week, my colleague Rick Rayl blogged about the Ninth Circuit's issuing an order granting an en banc hearing of the Guggenheim case involving the City of Goleta's mobile home park rent control ordinance. If anyone is interested in a more in-depth analysis of the issues of that case, how the en banc process works, how politics come into play, and how the Ninth Circuit may ultimately come out on the regulatory takings issue, Rick and I prepared a more in-depth article that addresses those issues. The article, "9th Circuit Revisits 2009 Trailer Park Opinion," was published in the Daily ...
Last fall, we reported on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, a regulatory takings case that generated considerable interest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance constituted a taking and ordered the City to pay just compensation to the owner of a mobile home park.
The Court concluded that the ordinance crossed the line because it had the effect of transferring as much as 90 percent of the property's value from the owner to the mobile home park's tenants. The holding was significant not only because the ...
Typically, regulatory takings litigation generates a lot of noise and gnashing of teeth but, at the end of the day, rarely are government agencies bitten with an order that they pay compensation. However, a new opinion from the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (Sept. 28, 2009, Case No. 06-56306), demonstrates that regulatory takings litigation can have teeth. In Guggenheim, the 9th Circuit holds that the city of Goleta's rent control ordinance on mobile home parks went too far and that the city will have to pay the park's owners just compensation ...
California Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain in California. We cover all aspects of eminent domain in California, including condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts, and report on all major California eminent domain conferences and seminars.
Stay ConnectedRSS Feed
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- Court Decisions
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- New Legislation
- Public Agency Law
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take