Eva Crawford Assignment 30-31, Problem 1 Legal Issues: 1. Does the governments action constitute a taking? a.

Is this a permanent or impermanent action? b. What options are open to the landlords? 2. What public good is being served by this action? 3. What if any is the expected economic impact? 4. What protection is extended to the plaintiff under the 5th and 14th amendment? Relevant Rules of Law: 1. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. (Loretto) 2. N.Y. Law provides that a property owner must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon his property. (Loretto) 3. Regulation does not have an excessive economic impact upon appellant when measured against her aggregate property rights, and that it does not interfere with any reasonsonable investment-backed expectations. (Loretto) 4. Permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve. (Loretto) 5. The court has often held substantial regulation of an owners use of his property where deemed necessary to promote the public interest. (Loretto) 6. The court emphasized that the servitude took the land owners right to exclude, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. (Loretto) 7. When the character of the governmental action, is a permanent physical occupation of property, our cases uniformly have found a taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner. (Loretto) 8. Restatement: the permanent physical occupation of property forever denies the owner any power to control the use of this property; he not only cannot exclude others, but also can make no non-possessory use of the property. (Loretto) 9. States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails. (Loretto and Yee) 10.Factors that must be determined by statute: a. Changes in the consumer price index b. The rent charged for comparable mobile home pads in Escondido c. The length of time since the last rent increase d. The cost of any capital improvements related to the pad or pads at issue e. Changes for property taxes f. Changes in any rent paid by the park owner for the land g. Changes in utility charges h. Changes in operating and maintenance expenses i. The need for repairs other than for ordinary wear and tear j. The amount and quality of services provided to the affected tenant. k. Any lawful existing lease. (Yee)

11.The government affects a physical taking only where it requires the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. (Yee) Analysis: Under the Fifth Amendment, the government is prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Here the citys ordinance provides that if the property owners cannot net an annual return of at least 8 percent, they can apply and pay less for an exemption to the newly enacted law. Under the courts opinion in Yee, the government affects a physical taking only where it requires the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. Here the city is not occupying the land; they are requiring owners to improve conditions and setting a rate for a reasonable rental value. Because the landowners are not losing the right to possession, and the rental value would guarantee at least an 8 percent return, limiting the loss in value to the owners it is not likely that a taking will be found. Under Yee and Loretto, States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails. Here the city if regulating conditions to promote the public good of habitability in rental homes. Because this good is no only a clear public good but it is also covered under common law, the city is well within their legal limits. Conclusion: In my opinion, it is clear that this is not only valid but it is legal. The best option is to work with the options that have been provided and purchase the exemption. The rules stated above clearly illustrate that no taking has occurred and that the city was acting for the public good.

Eva Crawford Assignment 30-31, Problem 2 Legal Issues: 1. Is there a taking? 2. Did the trial judge rule properly? 3. Does notice affect the outcome of the case? 4. What damages if any should be allowed? 5. What is the proper test to determine the value? a. Bright line, and valuable use is not a taking? b. Reasonable expectations? Relevant Rules of Law: 1. One fact of consideration in determining such limits is the extent of the diminution. ( Pennsylvania) 2. The rights of the public in a street purchased or laid out by eminent domain are those that it has paid for. (Pennsylvania) 3. A restriction, though imposed for a public purpose, will not be lawful, unless the restriction is an appropriate means to the public end. (Pennsylvania) 4. One factor for consideration in determining whether the limits of police power have been exceeded is the extent of the resulting diminution in value (Pennsylvania, dissent) 5. Private property cannot be taken for public use, without just compensation (Penn Central, Tahoe) 6. The Fifth Amendment guarantee is designed to bar Government from forcing some people along to bear public burdens, which, in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. (Penn Central) 7. Whether a particular restriction will be rendered invalid by the Governments failure to pay for any losses proximately caused by it depends largely upon the particular circumstances in that case. (Penn Central) 8. Factors of determination: a. Economic impact of the regulation on the claimant b. The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations. c. Character of the government action (Penn Central, and Palazzolo, Tahoe) 9. Government may execute laws or programs that adversely affect recognized economic values. (Penn Central) 10.States and cities may enact land use restrictions or controls to enhance the quality of live by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic features of a city. (Penn Central) 11.Protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced; the governments power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits. (Penn Central) 12.Two categories of regulatory action:

a. The first encompass regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical invasion of his property, in general compensation is required. b. Regulations that denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. (Penn Central) 13.A purchaser or a successive titleholder like petitioner is deemed to have notice of an earlier-enacted restriction and is barred from claiming that it affects a taking. (Palazzolo) 14.The right to improve property is subject to the reasonable exercise of state authority, including the enforcement of valid zoning the land-use restrictions. (Palazzolo) Analysis: Under Pennsylvania, a restriction, though imposed for a public purpose, will not be lawful, unless the restriction is an appropriate means to the public end. Here the citys intention is not clear, in their efforts to increase the lot sizes for single family homes. Because the reasonable assertion would be that they were attempting to create a less crowded area, however since there is no definite conclusion and no true public purpose is clear the city would need to provide clear evidence. Under Tahoe the factors of determination are, one economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, and two the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations character of the government action . Here the plaintiff is effectively losing the value she expected by cutting her profits in half. She has no interest or knowledge in developing the property as the zoning has now required. The government actions clearly show that they had the intent to trick the plaintiff into purchasing the property and thus the bad faith efforts will affect the outcome of the appellate ruling. Under a general rule and constitutional protections the city is responsible for providing compensation when they have exceeded police power. Conclusion: In my opinion the appellate court is not likely to reverse the ruling. Based on the facts as presented and the actions taken by city officials. Had the city openly admitted to the change in zoning laws the outcome would have been different.