for carson harper village along with richard close who's here with me on the writ of mandate issues the court has any questions about those things the court threw out holmes said something that i think is relevant here and that is there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact and there is one obvious fact in california and that is after rent control hearing a property owner cannot file an inverse condemnation claim that is the obvious fact in fact that you go before the if you win the writ of mandate then you go back to this administrative process where they are supposed to correct the found defect and then they through that process you have the opportunity to set your rants adjustment to recapture the amount of the under compensation the alleged taking if you will opinions are long california supreme court has enormous opinions and there's obviously a lot of thought of the california supreme court given to this process and a lot of discussion as to why they think this process is the best way to go in an allocation between the judicial and the administrative processes and you're saying that under or what's under takings law that isn't an adequate remedy therefore we have to consider that there is no adequate state remedy and now it's right to proceed under the u s supreme court decision of williamson versus hamilton bank there has to be let me read the quot the problem with that is that invalid seeing these issues the california supreme court has given no door for a park owner to go into or a landlord to go into to bring a claim about his inverse condemnation fine if you look at the decision and the reasoning of the california supreme court one of the principle reasoning points is that a reasonable and fair rate of return is a range of rights it's not one specific land but it is a board then those disclosed the hearing closed the hearing to all testimony this particular rent board has no provision to call witnesses no provision to cross examine no provision to do any of the things that one would have in a normal condemnation proceeding the rent workflow to the proceeding and deliberates and in that deliberation takes the rent that the applicant has and drops it down in this case to fourteen dollars and some change there's no evidence or ability to cross examine during this proceeding whether a vat fourteen dollars is still in the range look how they said to begin with right now they said it to begin with the now we're looking at the now we're looking at the process in limited to the four corners of the record and the record is the applicants application the closed hearing no cross examination no ability to call witnesses a twenty minute presentation and a ten minute rebuttal finding for the first time what the testimony will be given in a narrative form by the opposition and then the rent for taking the matter back both in the public hearing in deliberating in setting rooms where there's no opportunity to thirty dollars a month not the two hundred forty and i found at that point you can argue that you have been under a conference that is based on all the evidence if you put forward right not an not really your honor what you can do is you can go  and the argument is not whether you have received just compensation the argument in the cases that have been struck me cited as a string of of lawsuits in the park owner arguments over whether or not the red ford followed the government taking which is from pensacola by the government as i look at these arrangements even with the rent review whatever never in a position where there is any government compensation paid assuming that there is a finding of a take it is that that at the early on in the process and in tears if i could just jump through the process real quickly  go to the rent board you get a determination from the rent board if you go to the court on a writ of mandate for whatever reason the risk is granted you may not you know they didn't follow the ordinance correctly or they misinterpreted some provision no other rule in the united states where those people the public who are receiving the benefit of the regulatory action in essence have to pay for that i mean this is like saying that the regulation of coca cola is such to public utility regulation other words there is a commission in effect that reviews race and so forth and that process goes along and there is an opportunity for review in terms of whether there's any violation of hope pursers natural hope natural no franchise given to this group but also in the public utilities arena you're regulating an entire state and the state has an interest in not bankrupting if you will even though we've seen problems in their utility we have is we have a very local provincial groups to the city council hiring or people unlike the public utilities commission that have a panoply of regulatory expertise in this area but the issue that the u s supreme court has has got in his to be addressed by these very capable people is is the amounts of fish and the landlord may reasonably be expected understanding that you're saying that because of the system that was standing with all of the talk and the supreme court case of the california supreme court cases about the process evolving you know way that you will your clients will get well let me go back to what mr holmes said there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact you never get a trial you never get a trial on whether e g if you maintain financial integrity you can attract of the rents in other areas it's saturated spectrum which and you never get a chance to cross examine any of that information you hear that information in a narrative form if there is a range of rents that are fair and reasonable and just compensation if you come in at your level and without any evidence to support that you are maintaining financial integrity and all the other elements the risks of sad and you never get a chance to have a trial on whether or not that decision the final result is a fair and reasonable return to you because rent ordinances variable by city or is there sort of a master ordinance that they're all different there's one hundred  ten mobile home park rent control ordinances in the states one hundred ten different counties and states they're all different some of them are clones of others some have variants depending on local politics the point i'm making here is  the obvious fact is you never get through a trial on what is the net result of this decision now proving a regulatory taking is not an easy process you know it's not something that is easily done in a courtroom with all the evidence and everything else but what i'm saying is there are two things i'm saying number one the trial process you never get a trial or if you do you get to put in as part of your application for the of increase of the evidence that you believe would show what is required to get a fair rate of return you get yes you get to put it on what you very part of the record you get to put in and again it's a range of rants but you get to put density that this is what you need to compensate you for your expenses to maintain financial integrity etc and what happens is just the rent board then makes the decision substantially refusing that amount based on a narrative that you cannot cross examine or anything you cannot call witnesses to rebut that information that information is given to the board by tenants and whoever wants to get up and speak and make any unfounded statement they want and i there is evidence to support that decision you lose without ever getting a chance to prove through cross examination and all of that but you have not got enough money to attract capital and maintain financial vacating the decisions we're sending you back for another hearing and then the board gives you a thousand dollars you would have a problem well then what you have to do is to you have to be compensated for the loss this process may take a fourteen dollars a few months later we filed a supplemental application saying look you have already as a matter of law that we did not get a fair rate of return in one nine hundred ninety nine by fourteen dollars we are now seeking a that's up here also your honor we have and the city attorney in who filed the application and the city attorney said we would use the process your application california law does not allow any application for regulatory lag and so that if you follow the rules you can follow the rules and still take property you can follow the rules of development the rules all the rules can be followed the coastal commission rules can be followed it still may result in a taking of property and all we're saying is the court in california doesn't give us a chance to plead an inverse condemnation fine they only give us a chance to challenge whether the regulations whether it's a taking or not and we say that's an inadequate remedy but even if you were lucky enough to win that then the courts in california go on to say if you win that and you were denied just compensation then you should get a ring you should not get money from the have to get a rep to the right patrol board to follow the procedures and give you in your view now having one last step have them adjusted upward to what you think to be a fair rate of return but they don't do it ok now where you've gone through those series of hurdles now what are your remedies under state law you have now had eight second hearing in front of the round board and now you take a second you just keep going back under the cabin are just yes it was the same as when when agassi versus to the wrong with the law in california the only thing you had was a writ of mandate remedy which would invalidate the decision and send you back and it was referred to by the pund rights in the first place is found by the court you have another hearing they would do whatever they want you could take another one you could never get a court resolution that says this is what happened this i is there any case where a landlord has to actually succeed in doing that  well as you're describing i mean your description of this process and counsel for person harbor are diametrically opposed he's told us there's absolutely no opportunity for you learn in verse condemnation or in california supreme court opinions as your understanding that they're referring to the same process really you can't school reform gets through a trial on whether you got a fair rate of return on that that is that is correct and i would three is referenced on v h h ten twenty five it is the contemplation of that reference that that is a case that would be brought possibly in the california courts or rent control board go through the cabin hearing adjustment come out dissatisfied at that point they could then go back to the trial court either under we change or restriction or a new action and they could combine back i think is what rinehart was driving at this is the cycle contemplate that you go through once and one of your options as to come back may be mandated or voluntary i'm not sure which come back to the trial the text of the local ordinance or is adequate under the conventional principles of takings under the u s constitution you would be a question  good to hang your hat on if we look at calvin on cavanaugh with a case where he filed a wrist this is a normal procedure for how you review these things he filed a risky one now he didn't get a trial on  condemnation he got a trial on the rest anyone and the court said well the decision was a taking based on whatever his argument was that was affirmed by the court of appeal after that was completed the supreme court denied review after that was completed he did what you have to do you must first win the respect before you can file the universe and so the second action was the inverse kind of nation client the california supreme court got a hold of it and they said well we've looked at the written record and we don't think that's  hundred eighty three and the trial court determined that the rents were then x instead of y and awarded quite a few hundred thousand dollars in damages that went up to the california supreme court and the california supreme court said understood too maybe overly simplistic way that this way gala land was squaring as you say the two processes with the with the cabin i need for a cabin i just meant you had to show rule that would impose on a review in court the impossible task of science finding somewhere in the penumbra of the constitution if you will a genetic particular apartment in a particular building should have rance of four or seven forty fair return on investment for the park owner the board shall consider the following factors and any guidelines adopted by the city council as well as any other relevant evidence and making its determination and no one factor shall be termed determining our application goes in four  hundred dollars there's a range of brands that are reasonable it drops it down to something else there is no evidence there's no way we can cross examine whether that he taints financial integrity compensates the investors for the risk they will soon and all of the other