San Telmo Associates v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 16 April 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 52978-7,52978-7 |
Citation | 108 Wn.2d 20,735 P.2d 673 |
Parties | SAN TELMO ASSOCIATES, et al., Respondents. v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Appellant. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Douglas N. Jewett, Seattle City Atty., James E. Fearn, Jr., Asst. Seattle, for appellant.
Foster, Pepper & Riviera, G. Richard Hill, Michael K. Vaska, Seattle, for respondents.
Stephen Fredrickson, Evergreen Legal Services, Janis P. Bianchi, Katherine R. McFaul, Susan J. Taoka, Barbara Wechsler, Seattle, amici curiae for appellant.
Before the court en banc.
The City of Seattle challenges a trial court's order invalidating a Seattle ordinance restricting the demolition of low income housing. We affirm the trial court as we believe the ordinance imposes an unconstitutional tax on a limited number of property owners.
In recent years, the supply of low income housing has steadily decreased in the Seattle downtown region. Seattle Municipal Code section 22.210.020(A)(2). The City has attempted to halt this trend by passing ordinances restricting the right of owners of low income housing to convert this residential property to nonresidential use. In 1980, the City adopted an ordinance which imposed a fee on low income housing owners if they attempted such a conversion. In 1983, however, San Telmo Associates, a limited partnership, successfully challenged this ordinance in King County Superior The City did not appeal the Superior Court ruling, and instead, enacted current SMC § 22.210 (hereinafter the Housing Preservation Ordinance) encompassing the same subject matter. This ordinance differs slightly from the invalidated ordinance. The current ordinance requires that in most cases, if an owner decides to demolish low income residential housing units and convert the property to nonresidential use, the owner must obtain a housing demolition license. SMC § 22.210.050. This license will be granted only if the owner gives the current tenants relocation notice and assistance and replaces a specified percentage of the low income housing with other suitable housing. SMC § 22.210.050(C) & (D). In lieu of providing replacement housing, the owner is given the option to contribute to the low income housing replacement fund. SMC § 22.210.120(A)(4).
Court as an invalid tax pursuant to RCW 82.02.020.
San Telmo, and another limited partnership, Twelve Hundred Five Associates, challenge this ordinance. San Telmo formerly owned some low income housing in downtown Seattle. After successfully challenging the first housing ordinance, it sold the property by a real estate contract to Twelve Hundred Five Associates. Both limited partnerships bring this action to invalidate the second ordinance. Both San Telmo and the City moved for summary judgment, and the King County trial court granted San Telmo's motion and denied the City's motion. The City appeals here.
San Telmo argues that because the first Housing Preservation Ordinance and the second ordinance are virtually identical, and the City failed to appeal the order invalidating the first ordinance, the City should be precluded from arguing for the validity of the second ordinance. San Telmo, in essence, is arguing that the City is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue.
RCW 82.02.020 precludes cities from levying "any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect ... on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land." Furthermore, while Const. art. 7, § 9 and Const. art. 11, § 12 authorize the Legislature to grant municipalities the power under certain conditions to levy taxes, there must be a specific legislative pronouncement allowing for the tax in order for the tax to be valid. Carkonen v. Williams, 76 Wash.2d 617, 627, 458 P.2d 280 (1969); Ivy Club Investors Partnership v. Kennewick, 40 Wash.App. 524, 699 P.2d 782, review denied, 104 Wash.2d 1006 (1985). Thus, the central focus of our inquiry is whether the new Housing Preservation Ordinance is a tax.
San Telmo claims that the ordinance imposes a tax because in order to demolish his low income housing, the owner must either make a "contribution" in cash to the low income housing replacement fund, or replace the low income housing with other suitable housing. Either option the owner selects requires a large expenditure of money for the public good, which San Telmo characterizes as a tax.
The City, to the contrary, claims that the ordinance's requirement that the low income housing sought to be The question of whether an ordinance is best described as a regulation or a tax is not a novel question. Recently, this court in Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cy., 97 Wash.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982) set forth a test which both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. City of Seattle
...this court held the housing replacement provisions of HPO-2 invalid as an unauthorized tax under RCW 82.02.020. San Telmo Assocs. v. Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 20, 735 P.2d 673 (1987). This court noted that HPO-2 differed materially from HPO-1:There is no indication that the City attempted to ado......
-
Guimont v. Clarke
...upon this determination. Instead, it noted that since the HPO had already been held to be an invalid tax in San Telmo Associates v. Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 20, 735 P.2d 673 (1987), the HPO was not a valid police power regulation at all. It Certainly, a regulatory scheme which is later determin......
-
Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel
...... N.J. Const. (1947), Art. IV, § VI, par. 1; see also Atlantic City Casino Hotel v. Casino Control Com'n., 203 N.J.Super. 230, 236, 496 A.2d ... Id. at 386-387. In San Telmo Associates v. City of Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 20, 735 P.2d 673, 675 (1987), ......
-
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 62304-0
...we affirmed the King County Superior Court, and the City ceased enforcing the ordinance against Sintra. San Telmo Assocs. v. City of Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 20, 735 P.2d 673 (1987). [935 P.2d 577] ANALYSIS A. Substantive Due Process and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 The majority upholds the trial court's d......