Eminent Domain Report

We reported earlier this week about the Ninth Circuit's March 12 order to hold an en banc hearing of its decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta.  The case involves a regulatory takings challenge to the City's rent control ordinance involving mobile home parks. 

On March 15, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District (San Diego) issued its opinion in MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee (March 15, 2010, Case No. D053345).  The court rejected plaintiff's regulatory takings claim involving a City of Santee rent control ordinance, concluding that the as applied challenge was unripe and the facial challenge was stale.  This outcome is not surprising; in fact, one of the things that made the initial Guggenheim opinion significant was that the Court navigated its way through the various timeliness arguments and actually reached the merits. 

The MHC Financing case generated an interesting opinion, and it probably deserves a more elaborate analysis.  But (1) the opinion is really long -- about 50 pages, and (2) another eminent domain blogger, Robert Thomas of the inversecondemnation.com blog has already written a pretty nice summary of the case.  If you want more details, read the opinion -- or just read Mr. Thomas' "cliff notes" version.