Lawsuit challenges demand as unconstitutional taking of private property
The city of Palo Alto, California, wants a court to dismiss a lawsuit opposing its demand that the family owners of a mobile home park pay some $8 million for permission to close it down!
Lawyers for the park owners say they are just asking for the “courthouse doors [to] remain open for people, like the Jissers, to make their case when the government wrongfully takes their property.”
As WND reported, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed the case on behalf of the owners of the Buena Vista mobile home park. The owners want to close their business, but with a local median housing price of $2.46 million, the city demands that the tenants be compensated so they can find another place to live.
“No one should be forced to carry on a business that they want to close,” said PLF Attorney Larry Salzman in a statement. “The city is treating the Jissers as an ATM to solve a problem they didn’t cause – the lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto. That’s not just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
See an explanation of the case: http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/city-squeezes-family-in-court-for-8m-to-close-business/#ooid=A3eHF5eDqUrY5s6Fdi55pi7OI31lb9CY
Lawyers for the park owners say they are just asking for the “courthouse doors [to] remain open for people, like the Jissers, to make their case when the government wrongfully takes their property.”
As WND reported, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed the case on behalf of the owners of the Buena Vista mobile home park. The owners want to close their business, but with a local median housing price of $2.46 million, the city demands that the tenants be compensated so they can find another place to live.
“No one should be forced to carry on a business that they want to close,” said PLF Attorney Larry Salzman in a statement. “The city is treating the Jissers as an ATM to solve a problem they didn’t cause – the lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto. That’s not just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
See an explanation of the case: http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/city-squeezes-family-in-court-for-8m-to-close-business/#ooid=A3eHF5eDqUrY5s6Fdi55pi7OI31lb9CY
Salzman, in a blog post, explained the family's patriarch, Tim Jisser, is retiring and so the family wants out of the business. "The city says the money is needed so that the tenants can get expensive alternative housing in the area; in effect, the city is holding the Jissers uniquely responsible for solving the city's severe housing affordability problem. That's not just wrong, it's unconstitutional."
He said that instead of answering the Jissers' complaint, the city "has done what governments typically do: it's trying to avoid judgment by asking the court to toss out the case. The city's motion to dismiss doesn't deny that the city is commanding a payment of $8 million, or that it won't grant the Jissers a permit unless they pay it," he said. 'It just says the case shouldn't be heard by a judge yet; or that it's too late to hear it; or that it should be heard by a state judge instead of a federal judge. In short, the city has said anything and everything it can say in an attempted retreat from actually defending what it is in fact doing to the Jissers."
When the case was filed, it alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment limitations on taking private property for public use. It also alleges violation of a California law prohibiting conditions on the closure of mobile home parks that "exceed the reasonable costs of relocation" of a park’s tenants, the claim said.
The family moved to the U.S. in the 1970s and purchased the site in 1986. Their son, Joe, who manages the site said in a statement released by PLF: "My parents came here as immigrants with nothing and built a successful business. They were pursuing the American dream. But now the city is trampling on the promise of freedom that drew them to this land."
He said his family "has worked hard for 30 years to provide safe and affordable housing here. Now we're told by the city that providing that service is not enough, that we have to pay a staggering amount of money just to close our business," he said. "It's not fair for the city to force us to pay our tenants millions of dollars as the price of my parents' retirement."
A statement emailed to WND from the city was attributed to Palo Alto Attorney Molly Stump. "We are confident that the city followed both state law and the process that is set out in our own municipal ordinance related to the closing of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park," she said. "There is no merit to these claims."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/city-squeezes-family-in-court-for-8m-to-close-business/
He said that instead of answering the Jissers' complaint, the city "has done what governments typically do: it's trying to avoid judgment by asking the court to toss out the case. The city's motion to dismiss doesn't deny that the city is commanding a payment of $8 million, or that it won't grant the Jissers a permit unless they pay it," he said. 'It just says the case shouldn't be heard by a judge yet; or that it's too late to hear it; or that it should be heard by a state judge instead of a federal judge. In short, the city has said anything and everything it can say in an attempted retreat from actually defending what it is in fact doing to the Jissers."
When the case was filed, it alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment limitations on taking private property for public use. It also alleges violation of a California law prohibiting conditions on the closure of mobile home parks that "exceed the reasonable costs of relocation" of a park’s tenants, the claim said.
The family moved to the U.S. in the 1970s and purchased the site in 1986. Their son, Joe, who manages the site said in a statement released by PLF: "My parents came here as immigrants with nothing and built a successful business. They were pursuing the American dream. But now the city is trampling on the promise of freedom that drew them to this land."
He said his family "has worked hard for 30 years to provide safe and affordable housing here. Now we're told by the city that providing that service is not enough, that we have to pay a staggering amount of money just to close our business," he said. "It's not fair for the city to force us to pay our tenants millions of dollars as the price of my parents' retirement."
A statement emailed to WND from the city was attributed to Palo Alto Attorney Molly Stump. "We are confident that the city followed both state law and the process that is set out in our own municipal ordinance related to the closing of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park," she said. "There is no merit to these claims."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/city-squeezes-family-in-court-for-8m-to-close-business/
2 comments:
The City of Palo Alto 'Corporation' should
either reach into their hidden CAFR account and
purchase vacant land to create a substitute
mobile home park, or
To do it in an 'energy' efficient way, the city
could put all new units with two floor
plans, on the land of a new facility.
If the existing mobile homes are approaching
thirty years old, it would not be unreasonable
to consider their remaining 'effectual'
years of utility and substitute them
with improved versions.
The city could pay the individual owners
something toward newer mobile homes, since
each has been paying annual registration fees
to the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
Weasels in government probably won't even
consider such creative simplicity.
They would rather shirk any moral responsibility
to the people. In this case the 'property tax'
paying mobile home park owners.
The final and easiest solution is for the
land to be appraised, and for the city to
buy the park and pay the Jisser family.
The residents stay put, all is well, except
the Jisser's have to sell their unit, or 'a'
unit for the next park manager.
Mobile home parks have always been on
the non-conforming end of the real estate
spectrum.
Why does none of these nobodies never ever mention the CAFR 1 account?
Post a Comment