Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 45 No Mobilehome Owner/Legal Owner shall be required to remove his or her Mobilehome and no Resident shall be required to vacate a Mobilehome until all of the following has occurred: (A) The Park Owner has given at least two (2) years notice of termination of tenancy, which may be reduced to no less than 180 days' notice of closure required by California Civil Code section 798.56 upon agreement of Park Owner and two-thirds (%) of Park Residents over the age of 18; (B) That the applicable termination of tenancy notice of either two years or six (6) month period has elapsed; (C) The Planning Commission has issued a decision approving the closure is final; and (D) The Park Owner has provided the relocation assistance required by the authorized City of Santa Ana official as a condition of Change of Use. O. Expiration and Extension of Approval of Change of Use. Change of Use approvals shall expire one (1) year after the date they are issued. The City Council, or its designee, may upon request, grant extensions of time based on a showing that good faith progress has been made toward fulfilling the conditions of approval or some intervening event not the fault of the Park Owner has prevented timely compliance with the conditions of approval. There are numerous other provisions which deal with the conversion of a mobilehome park. Interestingly, this particular proposal for mobile home park rent control law is actually two subjects in one, a practice forbidden with regard to state-wide legislation. That is because to substantive areas of law into measures to be accomplished then intertwined the validity of each in each other. The likelihood of severability in the event that any of the objectives is deemed unenforceable is a significant gamble by the legislature, as the courts are more likely to believe, where to matters of significant substance are addressed in a single piece of legislation, that they are to be interrelated in shall not exist or coexist separate from one another. In other words, if any one of the provisions is held unenforceable, the likelihood of strong that all will be held unenforceable. This is why in most jurisdictions that still enforce mandatory (old-fashioned) rent control laws in the "lockstep" Stalinesque tradition, provide separate measures. One set of standards for protecting against excessive rent adjustments, and the other to deal with the constitutional right of closure and cessation of use. When both are intertwined, the volume and confusion level becomes excessively exacerbated. Some 80+ pages of text will be difficult for the ordinary citizen to digest without the employment of attorneys or skilled personnel. A city may do well to contour the scope of its objectives to an understandable proportion. On the substantive side, value -based relocation assistance is unconstitutional. Despite the passage of recent law to take the value of the property in the nature of leasehold premiums and award that value to departing tenants, the constitutional responsibility of the legislator is to protect all citizens, and to avoid the practice of majoritarian faction which pits one group of citizens against a relatively helpless minority. In this instance, the property owner is a minority interest subject to a majoritarian faction that has more voting strength. -45-