11/21/2023 0 Comments Loretto v teleprompter![]() ![]() The state law does not limit the rent the park owner may charge, but Escondido has a rent control ordinance setting mobile home rents back to their 1986 levels and prohibiting rent increases without the city council's approval. The park owner may not require the removal of a mobile home when it is sold and may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale nor disapprove of a purchaser who is able to pay rent. Under the California Mobilehome Residency Law, the bases upon which a park owner may terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy are limited to, inter alia, nonpayment of rent and the park owner's desire to change the use of his land. When the homes are sold, the new owners generally continue to rent the pads. Petitioners, mobile home park owners in respondent Escondido, California, rent pads of land to mobile home owners. But where the government merely regulates the property's use, compensation is required only if considerations such as the regulation's purpose or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the property's economic use suggests that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause generally requires just compensation where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property. Argued January 22, 1992-Decided April 1, 1992 CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIAĬERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT The previous owner had granted appellees Teleprompter Corp.YEE ET AL. ![]() 2 * Appellant Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building located at 303 West 105th Street, New York City, in 1971. ![]() Because we conclude that such a physical occupation of property is a taking, we reverse. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that this appropriation does not amount to a taking. In this case, the cable installation occupied portions of appellant's roof and the side of her building. New York law provides that a landlord must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon his property. 1 This case presents the question whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's property authorized by government constitutes a "taking" of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. analysis governing a State's power to require landlords to comply with building codes. The New York statute does not purport to give the Physical occupation of one type of property but not another is no less a physical occupation. The fact that the New York statute applies only to buildings used as rental property does not make it simply a regulation of the use of real property. There is no constitutional difference between a crossover and noncrossover installation, since portions of the installation necessary for both types of install ation permanently appropriated appellant's property. (c) Here, the cable installation on appellant's building constituted a taking under the traditional physical occupation test, since it involved a direct physical attachment of plates, boxes, wires, bolts, and screws to the building, completely occupying space immediately above and upon the roof and along the building's exterior wall. And constitutional protection for the rights of private property cannot be made to depend on the size of the area permanently occupied. Of property, since the owner may have no control over the timing, extent, or nature of the invasion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |