CORRESPONDENCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Although only a legitimate governmental interest is required, in this unprecedented public health crisis, the City of Santa Ana has a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its people. Indeed, local governments have perhaps no more compelling interest than that in preserving the lives of their constituents. This health and safety interest applies to preventing exposure to COVID-19 now by preventing displacement, as well as to preventing the need for families to choose between rent or buying basic necessities through the duration of the crisis and to keeping tenants housed after the crisis is over. The City Council also has a compelling interest in preventing the crisis from having a disparate impact on people of color and undocumented workers, who as explained previously, have been hit hardest financially by the crisis. Moreover, in the context of a local emergency, the City Council has even greater authority to enact measures necessary for public health that may restrict property rights.10 More specifically, egitimately [curtail] a constitutionally -protected right "when a local governments can "l community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, and its safety and welfare are threatened."11 California cities have relied on this power to enact curfews that curtail the public's right to travel during the riots that created a safety risk for people who did exercise that right." Likewise, now that the shelter in place order has left many tenants, both residential and commercial, without any income whatsoever, allowing an increase in rent would gravely harm the health and safety of the residents and businesses in Santa Ana. Thus, the rent freeze in place is closely related to these interests. The rent freeze has helped to relieve the feelings of tenants who fear that they may be forced to pay an exorbitant rent increase or break the shelter -in -place order to work to afford necessities, such as shelter. The City of Santa Ana has, therefore, acted in accordance with its authority under its emergency police powers. A temporary rent freeze does not violate the Takings Clause The City's regulation of property in this context will constitute a taking of such property only if it is found to be "functionally equivalent" to a direct appropriation or ouster under the "essentially ad hoc" fact -specific inquiry described in the Penn Central case.13 A temporary rent freeze, such as the one present in Executive Order No. 2-2020 should not have any long-term economic impact on the values of the rental properties, since any such impact would evaporate the moment the freeze was lifted. Moreover, a temporary restriction on increasing rents would not defeat the investment -backed expectations of affected property owners. It is also the type of "public program" that a Penn Central analysis would unlikely deem a taking. A tem or rent freeze is not unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause A temporary rent freeze, such as Executive Order No. 2-2020, is also not an unconstitutional interference with existing contracts. The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits only "a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. Even a substantial impairment maybe upheld if the state has a "significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation. ° See In re Juan C, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093,1100 (1994) " Id. 12 Id. 13 Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at p. 124. 14 Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411 (1983). '5 Id., United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1(1977) (holding that the elimination of unforeseen windfall profits is a legitimate state interest.) 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 11,