1998 AGN JUN 16 I01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

City Council Meeting of June 16, 1998 Rent Control Ordinance Page 3 In this case, it appears that Lake Cadena wishes to file suit in the federal courts. If it challenges the Chapter 15.48 based upon the United States Constitution, it can do so. Because of the Ninth Circuit decision in Richardson and the Supreme Court's indication that there could be a regulatory taking in a case with facts similar to Colton's mobilehome law, it is likely that a federal court will find Chapter 15.48 to be unconstitutional. The City of Colton's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not contain a decontrol provision for sublease situations. Consequently, Lake Cadena argues that Colton's Municipal Code fails to substantially advance a legitimate public interest of creating affordable housing because the mobilehome owners, as lessors, will charge a "premium" in the rents charged to lessees while the mobilehome owners will be able to continue enjoying lowered rents pursuant to the rent control laws. Hence, the sublease tenants will not benefit from the rent control. The courts will probably determine that "premium" rents charged to sublessees to be regulatory takings since there may be a question as to "whether there is a sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives [of providing affordable housing] it is supposed to advance. (Yee, supra, 503 U.S. at 527). The proposed ordinance amending Chapter 15.48 of the Colton Municipal Code provides a vacancy decontrol provision. This amendment is being presented to address the concerns of Lake Cadena and constitutionality of Colton's mobilehome law pursuant to the Richardson decision. In sum, the ordinance states that when a vacancy occurs, the space rent becomes exempt from the previously charged space rent. Instead, the rent on the space will be prospectively controlled. Vacancy has been defined to encompass the following situations: 1.) When a subsequent tenant has the right to move his or her mobilehome onto a vacant space; 2.) When a subsequent owner of a mobilehome left in place has the right to move into the mobilehome; or 3.) When a sublessee tenant has the right to move into the mobilehome, unless the exemption would abrogate a contractual or leasehold relationship between the mobilehome owner and the mobilehome park owner. ALTERNATIVES: By not taking aciton, the City's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance remains vulnerable to constitutional challenge.