Laurel Park Community, LLC v. City of Tumwater
698 F.3d 1180
9th Cir.2012Background
- Tumwater enacted two ordinances creating a Manufactured Home Park (MHP) zone to preserve existing parks by restricting uses.
- Six parks are designated or excluded; Laurel Park, Tumwater Mobile Estates, Velkommen, Eagles Landing, Western Plaza, and Thunderbird Villa are included; three unnamed small parks and Allimor Carriage Estates are excluded.
- Plaintiffs are Laurel Park Community, LLC; Tumwater Estates Investors; Velkommen Mobile Park, LLC; and Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington, seeking relief from facial constitutional challenges.
- The ordinances limit permitted, conditional, and exception uses within the MHP zone, ostensibly to preserve affordable manufactured housing while allowing diverse uses under a safety valve,
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; on de novo review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying Penn Central regulatory takings framework and Washington law for due process and spot zoning claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal takings analysis applied | Plaintiffs claim regulatory taking under Penn Central | Regulation does not go too far; economic impact minimal | Facial Penn Central takings claim rejected |
| State takings under Washington Constitution | Ordinances deprive owners of fundamental property rights | No substantial deprivation of property rights; not a taking | Ordinances do not constitute a taking under Washington Constitution |
| State substantive due process | Ordinances are unduly oppressive and violate due process | Regulation is reasonably tailored and legitimate, not oppressive | Ordinances do not violate Washington substantive due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (central takings framework: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of regulation)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings require ad hoc factual inquiry under Penn Central)
- Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (assumed facial Penn Central challenge; first two factors are primary)
- Manufactured Housing Cmtys. of Wash. v. State, 13 P.3d 183 (Wash. 2000) (Washington Supreme Court on rights of park owners; right of first refusal context)
- Guimont v. City of Seattle, 854 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1993) (fundamental attributes of ownership; relocation/relief assessment not unduly oppressive)
- Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 787 P.2d 907 (Wash. 1990) (due process analysis factors for regulatory burdens)
- Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 829 P.2d 765 (Wash. 1992) (due process/oppressive regulatory burden in specific cases)