Garneau v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 18 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. C94-914R.,C94-914R.
• Parties: Faye and Edward GARNEAU, Robert Klepinger, Nicolas Fedan, Richard Ju and Triad Development, Inc., a Washington corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Defendant, and The Tenants Union, a Washington non-profit corporation, on behalf of itself and other persons similarly situated, Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

897 F. Supp. 1318

Faye and Edward GARNEAU, Robert Klepinger, Nicolas Fedan, Richard Ju and Triad Development, Inc., a Washington corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Defendant and The Tenants Union, a Washington non-profit corporation, on behalf of itself and other persons similarly situated, Defendant-Intervenor.

No. C94-914R.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington.

August 18, 1995.

Eric Hultman, Dann, Radder, Williamson & Meacham, Seattle, WA, for plaintiffs.

Judith Barbour, Sandra Watson, Seattle City Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for defendants.

Steve Fredrickson, David Girard, Evergreen Legal Services, Seattle, WA, for intervenors.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.¹ Having reviewed the documents filed in support and in opposition to the motions, and being fully advised, this court finds and rules as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs² brought suit against the City of Seattle challenging SMC 22.210.010 et seq. (Ord. No. 115141), the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (the "TRAO") and RCW 59.18.440. Defendant, the City of Seattle ("the City") has moved for summary judgment, requesting that the court determine the facial constitutionality of RCW 59.18.440 and the TRAO. The Tenants Union, a Washington non-profit corporation, as a defendant-intervenor in this matter, has joined in the City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting that the court declare the TRAO unconstitutional.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), the court previously certified plaintiff and defendant classes in this matter. 10/7/94 Order. The plaintiff class is defined as follows:

For purposes of determining the facial constitutionality of RCW 59.18.440, all past, present and future owners of residential property in jurisdictions that are required to develop a comprehensive plan under RCW 36.70A.040(1) and who are, have been, or may in the future be subject to an ordinance adopted pursuant to RCW 59.18.440 requiring such owners to provide reasonable relocation assistance to low-income tenants.

For purposes of determining the constitutionality of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, Ordinance 115141, or any successor thereto, all past, present and future owners of residential property who have in the past or may in the future be required to provide cash relocation assistance to low-income tenants under the terms of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, Ordinance 115141, or any successor thereto.

10/7/94 Order, at 3.

The court has defined the defendant class as follows:

For the purpose of determining the constitutionality of RCW 59.18.440 and Seattle's Tenant Relocation Ordinance, a class consisting of all low-income tenants who have in the past or may in the future be displaced by demolition, substantial rehabilitation, change of use, or removal of use restrictions of their dwelling unit and who have in the past or may in the future be declared eligible for an owner payment of cash relocation assistance under the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, Ordinance No. 115141, or any successor thereto.

Id. This order shall apply to the plaintiff and defendant classes as certified in this court's October 7, 1994 order.

A. RCW 59.18.440

In 1990, the Washington State Legislature adopted RCW 59.18.440 as part of the Growth Management Act. RCW 59.18.440 authorizes certain local jurisdictions: to require, after reasonable notice to the public and a public hearing, property owners to provide their portion of reasonable relocation assistance to low-income tenants upon the demolition, substantial rehabilitation whether due to code enforcement or any other reason, or change of use of residential property, or upon the removal of use restrictions in an assisted-housing development....

RCW 59.18.440(1).

In enacting RCW 59.18.440, the state legislature identified the need to encourage economic opportunity for all Washington citizens and to promote the availability of affordable housing as well as to preserve existing housing stock. Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 17, § 2(4) and (5). Plaintiffs do not dispute that these are legitimate government purposes.

B. The City of Seattle's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance

SMC 22.210.010 et seq., the TRAO, requires landlords to pay cash relocation assistance to low-income³ tenants they intend to displace by redeveloping their property. Specifically, the TRAO provides that:

Low-income tenants who are displaced by demolition, change of use, substantial rehabilitation, or removal of use restrictions and who comply with the requirements of the TRAO, shall be paid a relocation assistance payment in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000.00)....

SMC 22.210.130(A).

Under the TRAO, the owner of the dwelling unit:

is responsible for payment of one-half (½) of the total amount of relocation assistance due to eligible tenants pursuant to the TRAO. The City is responsible for payment of the remaining one-half (½) of the relocation assistance.

SMC 22.210.110(A).

Within five days of receiving notice of tenant eligibility, the owner of a dwelling must provide the Director of the Department of Construction and Land Use with the owner's portion of the relocation assistance to be paid to eligible tenants. SMC 22.210.110(B). After eligible tenants are paid the relocation assistance, any money remaining of the owner's deposit is returned "thirty (30) days after final unappealed decisions regarding eligibility of all tenants of the affected units, ..." SMC 22.210.130(F).

C. Public Hearings Prior to Enactment of the TRAO

Pursuant to RCW 59.18.440(1), the Seattle City Council held a public hearing on June 7, 1990 concerning the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (the "TRAO"). Approximately 30 citizens testified in favor of the ordinance. No one testified against the proposed ordinance. The TRAO was also discussed at two other open, public meetings: the May 22, 1990 meeting of the Housing and Human Services Committee and the full Seattle City Council meeting on June 12, 1990.

On July 2, 1990 the City enacted the TRAO. The parties have stipulated that the "TRAO conforms to the requirements of RCW 59.18.440."⁴ Stip. of Fact 2.

The parties have stipulated to the following concerning testimony given at the June 7, 1990 public hearing:

One of the purposes of the hearing was to receive testimony regarding the relocation expenses that displaced tenants might reasonably incur. At the June 7, 1990 public hearing, Karen White, an employee of the Department of Construction and Land Use ("DCLU"), the agency designated to administer the TRAO, testified regarding the results of an informal study she had conducted regarding the average costs of relocating for displaced tenants, using the cost categories provided in RCW 59.18.440. Ms. White called 3 or 4 local moving companies to determine the average cost of moving a household from a 1-bedroom apartment to some other location in Seattle. She referred to a monthly report published by a local realty company, Cain and Scott, to learn the average rent in Seattle, to use in determining first and last months' rent costs. She also contacted a local real estate analyst who had recently completed a study of the typical amount required for damage and security deposits by local landlords. She also contacted the local utility companies to determine typical connection fees and deposits....

Stip. of Fact 4.

Karen White testified that the various moving costs, on average, totalled $2191.00. Stip. of Fact 4.

D. The Motions Before the Court

The defendant City of Seattle and defendant-intervenor the Tenant Union seek a declaratory judgment holding that RCW 59.18.440 and the TRAO are facially constitutional.⁵ Specifically, they ask the court to declare that neither RCW 59.18.440 nor the TRAO: 1) violate the substantive due process protections of the state and federal constitutions; 2) violate the guarantees of equal protection under the state and federal constitutions; 3) take property in violation of the state or federal constitutions; or 4) violate Article VII, § 1 of the Washington State Constitution which requires property taxes to be uniform and imposed for public purposes.

Plaintiffs have cross-moved for summary judgment, seeking declaratory relief holding the TRAO unconstitutional, facially and as applied to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also seek a refund of any amounts paid pursuant to the TRAO.

Plaintiffs' claims, including their as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the TRAO, were dismissed on March 7, 1995 in response to plaintiffs' agreement that such dismissal was the appropriate sanction for plaintiffs' refusal to provide discovery as ordered by the court. See March 7, 1995 Order; February 22, 1995 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel. Therefore, defendants' motion to strike any arguments concerning plaintiffs' as-applied challenge is GRANTED.⁶ The court will resolve the facial challenge in the context of defendants' motion for summary judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A grant of summary judgment is appropriate if it appears, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Assn., 809 F.2d 626, 630-631 (9th Cir.1987); Lew v. Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir.1985). The facts necessary to determine the facial constitutionality of RCW 59.18.440 and the TRAO are undisputed. Therefore, the court finds this matter is appropriate for summary judgment.

B. Substantive Due Process

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

to

...