Pennell v. City of San Jose
| Decision Date | 24 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-753,86-753 |
| Citation | 108 S.Ct. 849,485 U.S. 1,99 L.Ed.2d 1 |
| Parties | Richard PENNELL and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association, Appellants v. CITY OF SAN JOSE and City Council of San Jose |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Under a San Jose, Cal., rent control ordinance (Ordinance), a landlord may automatically raise the annual rent of a tenant in possession by as much as eight percent, but if a tenant objects to a higher increase, a hearing is required to determine whether the landlord's proposed increase is "reasonable under the circumstances," and the hearing officer is directed to consider specified factors, including "the hardship to a tenant." Appellants, an individual landlord and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association (Association), which represents owners and lessors of real property located in San Jose, filed a state-court action seeking a declaration that the Ordinance, particularly the "tenant hardship" provision, is facially invalid under the Federal Constitution. The court entered judgment on the pleadings in appellants' favor, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. However, the California Supreme Court reversed, rejecting appellants' arguments under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Held:
1. Appellants have standing to challenge the Ordinance's constitutionality, even though they did not allege that either the individual appellant or appellant Association's members have "hardship tenants" who might trigger the Ordinance's hearing process, or that they have been or will be aggrieved by a hearing officer's determination that a certain proposed rent increase is unreasonable on the ground of tenant hardship. When standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, all material allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and the complaint must be construed in favor of the complaining party. Appellants alleged that their properties are subject to the Ordinance, and stated at oral argument that the Association represents "most of the residential unit owners in the city and [has] many hardship tenants." Thus, the likelihood of enforcement of the Ordinance, with the concomitant probability that a rent will be reduced below what the landlord would otherwise be able to obtain, is a sufficient threat of actual injury to satisfy Art. III's requirement that a plaintiff who challenges a law must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the law's operation or enforcement. Pp. 6-8.
2. Appellants' contention that application of the Ordinance's tenant hardship provision violates the Takings Clause—since reducing, because of tenant hardship, what would otherwise be a "reasonable" rent under the other, objective factors specified in the Ordinance relating to the landlord's costs or the rental market's condition, accomplishes a taking and transfer of the landlord's property to individual hardship tenants—is premature. There is no evidence that the tenant hardship provision has in fact ever been relied upon by a hearing officer to reduce a rent below the figure it would have been set at on the basis of the other specified factors. In addition, the Ordinance does not require that a hearing officer in fact reduce a proposed rent increase on grounds of tenant hardship, but only makes it mandatory that tenant hardship be considered. In takings cases, the constitutionality of laws should not be decided except in an actual factual setting that makes such a decision necessary. Pp. 8-11.
3. The mere provision in the Ordinance that a hearing officer may consider the tenant's hardship in finally fixing a reasonable rent does not render the Ordinance facially invalid under the Due Process Clause. The Ordinance's purpose of preventing unreasonable rent increases caused by the city's housing shortage is a legitimate exercise of appellees' police powers. Moreover, there is no merit to appellants' argument that it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant for appellees to attempt to accomplish the additional goal of reducing the burden of housing costs on low-income tenants by requiring that "hardship to a tenant" be considered in determining the amount of excess rent increase that is "reasonable under the circumstances." The protection of consumer welfare is a legitimate and rational goal of price or rate regulation. The Ordinance's scheme represents a rational attempt to accommodate the conflicting interests of protecting tenants from burdensome rent increases while at the same time ensuring that landlords are guaranteed a fair return on their investment. Pp. 11-14.
4. The Ordinance, on its face, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Its classification scheme is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of protecting tenants. It is not irrational for the Ordinance to treat landlords differently on the basis of whether or not they have hardship tenants. Pp. 14-15.
42 Cal.3d 365, 228 Cal.Rptr. 726, 721 P.2d 1111 (1986), affirmed.
KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Harry D. Miller, Oakland, Cal., for appellants.
Joan R. Gallo, San Jose, Cal., for appellees.
This case involves a challenge to a rent control ordinance enacted by the city of San Jose, California, that allows a hearing officer to consider, among other factors, the "hardship to a tenant" when determining whether to approve a rent increase proposed by a landlord. Appellants Richard Pennell and the Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association sued in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County seeking a declaration that the ordinance, in particular the "tenant hardship" provisions, are "facially unconstitutional and therefore . . . illegal and void." The Superior Court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellants, sustaining their claim that the tenant hardship provisions violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this judgment, 154 Cal.App.3d 1019, 201 Cal.Rptr. 728 (1984), but the Supreme Court of California reversed, 42 Cal.3d 365, 228 Cal.Rptr. 726, 721 P.2d 1111 (1986), each by a divided vote. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected appellants' arguments under the Takings Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; the dissenters in that court thought that the tenant hardship provisions were a "forced subsidy imposed on the landlord" in violation of the Takings Clause. Id., at 377, 228 Cal.Rptr., at 734, 721 P.2d, at 1119. On appellants' appeal to this Court we postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction, 480 U.S. 905, 107 S.Ct. 1346, 94 L.Ed.2d 517 (1987), and now having heard oral argument we affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of California.
The city of San Jose enacted its rent control ordinance (Ordinance) in 1979 with the stated purpose of
San Jose Municipal Ordinance 19696, § 5701.2.1
At the heart of the Ordinance is a mechanism for determining the amount by which landlords subject to its provisions may increase the annual rent which they charge their tenants. A landlord is automatically entitled to raise the rent of a tenant in possession 2 by as much as eight percent; if a tenant objects to an increase greater than eight percent, a hearing is required before a "Mediation Hearing Officer" to determine whether the landlord's proposed increase is "reasonable under the circumstances." The Ordinance sets forth a number of factors to be considered by the hearing officer in making this determination, including "the hardship to a tenant." § 5703.28(c)(7). Because appellants concentrate their attack on the consideration of this factor, we set forth the relevant provision of the Ordinance in full:
If either a tenant or a landlord is dissatisfied with the decision of the hearing officer, the Ordinance provides for binding arbitration. A landlord who attempts to charge or who receives rent in excess of the maximum rent established as provided in the Ordinance is subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Before we turn to the merits of appellants' contentions we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stennett v. Miller
...basis review, courts will uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. ( Pennell v. San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1.) Laws may be challenged both as written (a facial challenge) and as applied. ( Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 ......
-
Weir v. Newsom
...are not regulatory takings. See id. ; MHC Fin. Ltd. , 714 F.3d 1118 ; Yee , 503 U.S. 519, 112 S.Ct. 1522 ; Pennell v. City of San Jose , 485 U.S. 1, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) ; Block v. Hirsh , 256 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 458, 65 L.Ed. 865 (1921).2. The Nollan / Dolan Test for Condition......
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
...allegations in the complaint, and construe ... the complaint in favor of the complaining party." Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 17, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (internal quotes omitted). The standing inquiry is somewhat relaxed in the First Amendment context. "In several ca......
-
Daliberti v. Republic of Iraq
...F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313-14, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993); Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988). The court simply examines the statute to see "if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of tre......
-
Table of Cases
...Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978), 545, 941, 961, 969-85 Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988), 1224 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981), 7......
-
Future prospects for mining and public land management: the federal 'retention-disposal' policy enters the twenty-first century.
...the condition that landowners allow an easement for public beach access violated the Takings Clause); see also Pinnell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting in part) (viewing the Takings Clause as requiring a direct nexus between the property owners' activiti......
-
The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amensments
...Separating Questions of Advancement, Relationship, and Burden, 28 U. Richmond L. Rev. 1279, 1281 (1994). [44] Id. at 1281. [45] Id. [46] 485 U.S. 1, 11 [47] 505 U.S. 1, 10-14 (1992). [48] 488 U.S. 336, 3434-46 (1989). [49] 110 F. Supp. 2d 658, 662-64 (E.D. Tenn. 2000), aff'd, 312 F.3d 220 (......
-
Palazzolo, Lucas, and Penn Central: the Need for Pragmatism, Symbolism, and Ad Hoc Balancing
...Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (holding that a rent control ordinance for mobile home parks was not a taking); Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988) (holding that a taking claim was premature, but noting that rent control was not necessarily a taking); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manha......