Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/199583857F3d781_1730
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 02:39:13
Document Index: 555074494

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 1367', '§ 2201', '§ 1331', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24']

57 F.3d 781 (1995) | HOECK v. CITY OF PORTLAND | Leagle.com
57 F.3d 781 (1995)
Citing Case 57 F.3d 781 (1995)
Hans HOECK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Argued and Submitted November 1, 1994.
As Amended July 10, 1995.
Hoeck was the owner of the Bridgeport Hotel, a vacant six-story building located in Portland, Oregon. During 1984 and 1985, Hoeck made plans to renovate the Bridgeport and to add four additional stories, converting it into a ten-story office building. After obtaining a financial commitment from a lender and a building permit from the City, Hoeck commenced the renovation project. However, shortly after the project began, the City suspended construction pending a further review of his plan. About six months later, Hoeck was permitted to recommence work. Shortly thereafter, on March 6, 1986, Hoeck's financing was discontinued due to the insolvency of his lender, and he was never able to obtain replacement financing. Hoeck expended substantial sums — approximately $1 million — in connection with the project.
More than three years later, on May 15, 1989, the City took its first action against the Bridgeport. On that date, pursuant to the Portland City Code ("PCC"), the Bureau of Buildings filed a complaint with the Code Hearings Officer ("CHO") pursuant to authorization under PCC §§ 24.55.250 and 24.55.300: It alleged that the Bridgeport was an "abandoned" structure in violation of PCC § 24.15.020. Under the PCC, an abandoned structure is defined as "a structure that has been vacant for a period in excess of six months, or any period less than six months when a vacant structure or portion thereof constitutes an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public." PCC § 24.15.020. The complaint also alleged that the Bridgeport was a dangerous structure under PCC § 24.15.060.
Administrative hearings were held before the CHO on five occasions. During the course of these hearings, the City submitted evidence that the Bridgeport was attracting transients and drug users, contained substantial amounts of debris, and had numerous structural flaws due to its incomplete state. By the time the last hearing was held on October 4, 1991, the Bridgeport was no longer classified as a "dangerous" building. It had been secured with steel shutters, was structurally sound, and not in danger of collapse. Nevertheless, the CHO ordered the Bridgeport demolished on the grounds that it was an "abandoned" structure under PCC § 24.15.020.1 The CHO's supplemental order, issued on October 4, 1991, further stated:
"[W]e may affirm `on any basis fairly supported by the record.'" Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 564 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Clark County, 755 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1985)).
The Supreme Court has set forth the general rule that "[w]here a particular Amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of "substantive due process," must be the guide for analyzing these claims.'" Albright v. Oliver, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 807, 813, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). At first blush, the substantive due process claim would appear to be precluded by a more specific claim based on the Takings Clause. However, in Sinaloa Lake Owners Association v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398, 1408-09 n. 10 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990), we held that Graham does not bar a companion substantive due process claim alleging that "the government has used its power in an abusive, irrational or malicious way." Id. at 1408-09 n. 10; see also Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300, 1303 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that substantive due process claim is not subject to exhaustion requirement of taking claim). Thus, we must determine whether Hoeck's section 1983 claim falls within the Sinaloa exception to Graham.
District courts have discretion to hear pendent state claims where there is a substantial federal claim arising out of a common nucleus of operative fact. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). This is a "doctrine of flexibility, designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). The court must weigh "considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants; if these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims." Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. However, "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." Id. If "state issues substantially predominate, ... the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to state tribunals." Id., 383 at 726-27, 86 S.Ct. at 1139.
Hoeck's other claim is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and seeks a declaration that he is not liable for the demolition costs because the demolition was in violation of his substantive due process rights. He asserts that jurisdiction is proper here based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The nature of declaratory relief often makes the inquiry into the propriety of jurisdiction difficult. Accordingly, because we find the merits of this claim insubstantial, see Part II of the Discussion, we decline to resolve the jurisdictional question in this case. Lee v. City of Beaumont, 12 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir.1993); Clow v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 948 F.2d 614, 616 n. 2 (9th Cir.1991) ("[W]here an appeal presents difficult jurisdictional questions, we may forego the resolution of these issues if the merits of the appeal are insubstantial.").
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we must determine whether a reasonable jury could find that the City's action was "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); see also Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1261-63, amended, (9th Cir.1994). Substantive due process provides considerable protection for fundamental rights. Albright v. Oliver, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 807, 812, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). Here, however, because the plaintiff's claim is not based on a fundamental right, "we do not require that the government's action actually advance its stated purposes, but merely look to see whether the government could have had a legitimate reason for acting as it did." Halverson, 42 F.3d at 1262 (quoting Wedges/Ledges of California, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56, 66 (9th Cir.1994)) (emphasis in original); see also Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 193, 130 L.Ed.2d 125 (1994).
We agree with the district court that the City's demolition of the plaintiff's vacant building had a rational basis. The City had ample authority under the Portland City Code to abate abandoned buildings. See PCC § 24.44.250(h)(1) ("Abandoned structures as defined in this Chapter shall be abated pursuant to the provisions of Sections 24.55.250 or 24.55.300."). We also agree with the district court that the City could rationally conclude that there is "a greater danger to the public from unoccupied substandard buildings than from occupied ones." Shaffer v. City of Winston, 33 Or.App. 391, 576 P.2d 823, 824 (1978). Indeed, even the plaintiff acknowledges that the defendant had the authority, under its police power, to raze the Bridgeport. Finally, because Oregon state law provides a procedure for pursuing compensation through an inverse condemnation, there is nothing clearly arbitrary and unreasonable about the City's failure sua sponte to pay compensation. Halverson, 42 F.3d at 1262-63.
We conclude that as matter of law, no reasonable jury could find that the City has acted in an clearly arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs substantive due process claim.
II. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Article I, section 18 of the Oregon Constitution provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use ... without compensation." "The basic thrust of this constitutional provision is generally the same as the `takings' provision of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution." Ferguson v. City of Mill City, 120 Or.App. 210, 852 P.2d 205, 213 (1993) (citing Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or. 254, 656 P.2d 306, 310 n. 5 (1982); Cereghino v. State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d 694 (1962)). Oregon law is identical to Fifth Amendment "physical" takings law. Id. Thus, while Oregon law ultimately controls, we rely to some extent on federal takings law to resolve Hoeck's state inverse condemnation claim.
An otherwise valid exercise of the police power constitutes a taking for which compensation is due if the owner suffers a permanent, physical occupation of the property. Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2900, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427-28, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3171-72, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166, 20 L.Ed. 557 (1871); Ferguson, 852 P.2d at 207. Physical invasions have been found where the government interferes with the owner's "right to exclude." See, e.g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S.Ct. 383, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979) (public access to pond); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987) (public easement to beach); Loretto, 458 U.S. at 427-28, 102 S.Ct. at 3171-72 (installation of cable); Pumpelly, 80 U.S. at 166 (flooding); Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 315 Or. 57, 843 P.2d 400 (1992) (one-time flooding). However, the state may enter property to enforce a valid land-use regulation and destroy the offending property. This does not amount to a physical occupation even where the government's activity has a permanent effect. See Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 278, 48 S.Ct. 246, 247, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928) (permitting state entomologist to enter property and destroy diseased trees without affecting a taking); see also Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16, 18-19, 25 L.Ed. 980 (1880) (denying compensation to owners whose houses were destroyed to prevent spread of fire); Shaffer, 576 P.2d at 824-25 (finding that city may enter to demolish substandard vacant building without compensating owner).
Applying these rules to the case at hand, we hold that the City's demolition of the Bridgeport is not a regulatory taking under Oregon law. As Shaffer, 576 P.2d at 825, and Willard, 550 P.2d at 458-59, demonstrate, the City acts well within the scope of its police power by removing abandoned structures. Furthermore, the demolition did not deprive Hoeck of all economically beneficial use of his property. See Dodd, 855 P.2d at 616. Hoeck argues that the demolition completely destroyed his building — an indisputable claim. However, the lot remains and is suitable for appropriate development. Finally, the regulation has not interfered with Hoeck's reasonable, investment-backed expectations. See id. Under the law at the time Hoeck took title, he had no right to use his property to maintain an abandoned structure. Lucas, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2895; PCC § 24.55.100; PCC § 24.55.250(h)(1); PCC § 24.55.300. Therefore, even if Hoeck's property interest is narrowed to include only his building, he suffered no taking of an existing property interest and no interference with his reasonable expectations.
FootNotes 1. The Portland City Code provides that abandoned or dangerous structures may be abated pursuant to PCC §§ 24.55.250 and 24.55.300, the latter of which empowers the CHO to order demolition.
2. In Count 1 of his complaint, Hoeck alleges as follows:
• the initial notice of hearing failed to inform Hoeck that the City sought to demolish the Bridgeport Hotel solely because it was unoccupied, and
• Schatzer [the CHO] lacked authority under the Ordinance to order the demolition of the Bridgeport Hotel solely because it was unoccupied.
Complaint ¶¶ 29-30.