![]() The rent control ordinance does not authorize an unwanted physical occupation of petitioners' property and thus does not amount to a per se taking. The Superior Court dismissed lawsuits filed by petitioners and others challenging the ordinance, rejecting the argument that the ordinance effected a physical taking by depriving park owners of all use and occupancy of their property and granting to their tenants, and their tenants' successors, the right to physically permanently occupy and use the property. The state law does not limit the rent the park owner may charge, but Escondido has a rent control ordinance setting mobile home rents back to their 1986 levels and prohibiting rent increases without the city council's approval. The park owner may not require the removal of a mobile home when it is sold and may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale nor disapprove of a purchaser who is able to pay rent. Under the California Mobilehome Residency Law, the bases upon which a park owner may terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy are limited to, inter alia, nonpayment of rent and the park owner's desire to change the use of his land. When the homes are sold, the new owners generally continue to rent the pads. Petitioners, mobile home park owners in respondent Escondido, California, rent pads of land to mobile home owners. ![]() But where the government merely regulates the property's use, compensation is required only if considerations such as the regulation's purpose or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the property's economic use suggests that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause generally requires just compensation where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property. Argued January 22, 1992-Decided April 1, 1992 CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIAĬERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT The motion is granted to the extent of declaring that the statute represents a reasonable and, therefore, justifiable exercise of the police power of the State.YEE ET AL. It is further urged that the proper measure of compensation is the 5% Of Teleprompter's gross revenues that was customarily paid to landlords before the adoption of the statute. Plaintiff argues that the virtually free installation of cable TV components on private property authorized by the statute amounts to an uncompensated trespass and condemnation of property that constitute a "taking" without due process. (The Commission has, to date, made only nominal awards of $1.00 and has effectively ruled that it will continue to make such awards absent a showing by a landlord that greater damages are attributable to the installation of cable TV components.) Also at issue is whether Executive Law, section 828(1)(b) purports to authorize Teleprompter to place equipment on the premises of one landlord to service the tenants of another building farther removed from the source of transmission. The challenged statute, essentially, bars landlords from interfering with the installation of cable television facilities upon their property and limits payment for such use of the property to the amount awarded by the Commission on cable television. Defendant City of New York and the remaining defendants (Teleprompter) move by separate motions (Nos. ![]() 94) in this class action instituted by plaintiff Jean Loretto, formerly the owner of residential premises located at 303 West 105 th Street (ownership was recently transferred to a corporation wholly owned by plaintiff) seeks to test the constitutionality of section 828 of the Executive Law, which became effective on January 1, 1973. Motions # 89, 90, 91 and 94 on the calendar of Novemare consolidated for disposition. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York City, for defendant City of New York. Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey, New York City, for defendants Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I. ![]() 415 N.Y.S.2d 180 98 Misc.2d 944 Jean LORETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |