LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A local resident and a group of mobile home park owners are seeking to have a judge decide whether senior mobile home park rent control initiatives set to go on the ballot in the county and city of Lakeport this year are legal.
Kerry Smith, daughter of a county park owner, and the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association filed for a writ of mandate on Jan. 21 in the case Smith et al. v. Chapman, et al.
They're taking action against a county initiative – which the Board of Supervisors in December voted to place on the June ballot – and a city measure, approved by the Lakeport City Council last September for this coming November's municipal election, that were sponsored by the local “Save Our Seniors” group.
The two initiatives differ slightly in language. The city measure defines senior parks as those where at least 80 percent of the homes have at least one person age 65 or older, while the county initiative's definition requires that 80 percent of the homes in a senior park have at least one person over age 55.
Both would roll rents back to those in place on Jan. 1, 2012, and require that rent increases be tied to rises in Social Security benefits.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development reports that there are about 100 mobile home and RV parks in all of Lake County. So far, it's not been determined how many of those would be affected by the initiatives if they were approved.
Lakeport resident Nelson Strasser, a member of Save Our Seniors who helped spearhead the rent control efforts, wrote the Lakeport initiative and collected signatures, also has been named a real party of interest and served in the case.
Strasser told Lake County News on Tuesday that he hadn't yet seen the suit and didn't want to make comment until he had.
“The whole point of this is to have the court look at this to determine if it is violative of law,” said County Counsel Anita Grant.
If that's the court's findings, it could then direct both the county and city to take the initiatives off the June and November ballots, respectively, according to Grant.
Lakeport City Clerk Janel Chapman and county Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley are named in their official capacities in the suit.
In the case of Fridley, Grant said she has no authority to make a decision on whether to allow the initiative to remain on the ballots. Rather, only a judge can make that decision and tell the local officials whether the measures can remain on the ballot.
Grant said the elections code is written in such a way as to give the registrar no choices in which measures go on the ballot and those which don't, which is an effort to prevent partisanship from interfering in the initiative process.
Charles Bell Jr. of the Sacramento law firm Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, is representing the mobile home park owners.
Bell, who also is general counsel to the California Republican Party, and his firm specialize “in providing legal counsel to proponents and opponents of state and local initiatives and referenda, including drafting and analysis, advice regarding qualification, campaign related legal issues and post-election matters,” according to the firm's Web site.
Bell said the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association is an informal group and Smith is a community member who is allowed to pursue the action under election law.
The suit, he said, is focusing on the constitutional issues of violation of due process and an illegal taking. There also are state preemption issues that come into play, Bell added.
“The initiative is really poorly crafted and doesn't provide any mechanisms that are required by numerous court cases to assure that there's opportunity for a process to ensure a fair return on investment,” said Bell, noting that his firm has been successful in challenging similar initiatives.
If the initiatives are deemed clearly unconstitutional, the courts may remove them from the ballot, Bell explained. If they're less clear, they're often left to go before voters.
In the cases of the local initiatives, Bell noted, “We think we have a good argument” that they're unconstitutional.
Park owners take action
Doug Johnson, a regional representative of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, had warned the Lakeport City Council last year that it could expect litigation over its measure, and sent the Board of Supervisors a December letter calling the county initiative “grossly defective” and flawed by constitutional shortcomings, including a violation of due process.
Johnson told Lake County News that the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association is not a party to the suit, but added, “A lot of our members contributed to supporting the suit.”
Johnson said the initiatives, if passed, would harm the park owners.
“We respect the electoral process,” and believe everyone has the right to author an initiative, said Johnson, adding the parks owners also have property rights and the right for redress in court.
The association was contacted by park owners concerned about the initiatives, he said. “We work for the park owners. We work for our members. And one of our jobs is to protect property rights.”
Johnson said the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association was a “self-forming” group of park owners in the city and county, with many of its members having been among those who responded to a previous rent control push several years ago.
In September 2008 the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling for rent stabilization for all of the county’s mobile home residents, with the agreement – which Johnson said was accepted by about 75 percent of county park owners – calling for a maximum rental increase of between 3 and 7 percent at a time.
He's not sure of how many park owners continue to offer that memorandum of understanding, but he said he believes it's a high number.
Concerns over constitutionality
Interim Lakeport City Attorney David Ruderman has suggested to the council during its consideration of the city measure last September that the city of Lakeport could ask a court to set aside the initiative, which he predicted would be the focus of litigation.
Ruderman said he believed the city measure would be invalidated by a court because it constitutes a regulatory taking and is preempted by state law.
Grant, in her discussion with the Board of Supervisors in December, held that the board really had only two choices – accept the measure as a county ordinance without changes or put it before voters.
She also had pointed out that the county measure might not survive judicial scrutiny, and that the board could direct her to seek a writ of mandate to challenge the initiative's legality, an option which the board ultimately chose not to pursue.
Grant also advised the board at that time that appellate and state courts have been divided on when it's best to review such measures – before or after elections.
She told Lake County News that courts often are hesitant to intrude in the democratic process.
But if there are bad laws, she added, “It’s kind of hard to let those pass.”
Grant said she doesn't recollect legal action being taken against a ballot initiative in Lake County previously.
With the county measure currently set to appear on the June 3 primary ballot, Bell said he's pursuing an expedited court schedule, meaning the county, city and other parties named will have less than the normal 30 days to respond.
Bell said his firm has reached out to the city and county to see if they can reach an agreement and stipulation regarding the accelerated briefing and arguments schedule.
He said the goal is to have a hearing early in March, before the county ballot materials go to print.
Grant said she was working on the county's response to the suit, and had been awaiting direction from the board on Tuesday, when the matter was to be discussed in closed session.
After the meeting, she said the board took no reportable action out of closed session, and she'll be moving forward with a response. She said she will agree to an expedited – but “reasonable” – briefing schedule.
The Lakeport City Council also took no action out of its closed session discussion on the suit Tuesday evening.
Ruderman told Lake County News after the meeting that he, too, would support the expedited briefing schedule in the case.
Strasser does not have to file any paperwork in the case, Bell said, but he will have a right to speak in court on the matter.
Johnson said that, statewide, there are 110 mobile home park rent control ordinances currently in force. Of those, only 15 were enacted by initiative, with the rest passed by local councils or boards.
He said 381 of 481 cities and 48 of 58 counties don't have rent control ordinances.
As for preelection review of such rent control ordinances, as is now set to happen in Lake County, “I don't think I've seen that in quite a while,” Johnson said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.