Opinion ID: 1162670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applying Presbytery to This Case.

Text: [8] Applying the Presbytery analysis to this case, we begin with the threshold analysis, as the plaintiffs contend a taking occurred. The HPO regulated the demolition and removal from the market of housing units by landowners. Enforcement of the HPO did not destroy any fundamental rights of property ownership and did not constitute a permanent invasion of the property. We conclude, however, that the ordinance did go beyond preventing a harm, and required landowners to provide a public benefit in requiring property owners to pay a fee or replace rental units lost before removing units or demolishing them. We have on an earlier occasion stated that the burden of providing this public benefit was one best borne by the community rather than by individuals: [T]he City may not constitutionally pass on the social costs of the development of the downtown Seattle area to current owners of low income housing. The problem must be shared by the entire city, and those who plan to develop their property from low income housing to other uses cannot be penalized by being required to provide more housing. San Telmo Assocs. v. Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 20, 25, 735 P.2d 673 (1987). Having applied the threshold test, we conclude that this case is not beyond a taking challenge. We would distinguish our threshold determination in this case, however, from that which may result when the development of a particular piece of property would cause direct harm to the environment, such as the destruction of an irreplaceable wetland or shoreline ecosystem. We therefore engage in a takings analysis and thus ask first whether the HPO advanced any legitimate state interests. Presbytery, at 333. The City persuasively contends that the housing replacement and tenant assistance provisions were substantially related to preserving low income housing and assisting tenants experiencing relocation hardships. We conclude the ordinance did advance legitimate state interests in the general welfare of the citizens of Seattle in attempting to preserve rental housing stock and assist low income tenants, and therefore was not a per se taking. Presbytery, at 333. Since the ordinance did advance legitimate state interests, it is necessary to look further and determine whether the Robinsons' challenge is facial or as applied. Presbytery, at 333. [9] The Robinsons' complaint contends the HPO was facially invalid and constituted a taking of whatever property to which it was applied, and therefore is a facial challenge. We therefore do not engage in an as applied analysis. In the case of a facial challenge, a taking will be found only if the landowner shows the regulation denied all economically viable use of any regulated property. Presbytery, at 333-34. The Robinsons do not provide adequate basis for such an allegation, nor could they make this relatively rare showing, as the record indicates persons successfully developed some properties after paying the HPO license fees. We therefore hold the Robinsons' taking claim fails the Presbytery test for determining a challenged regulation is on its face a taking. However, we may still proceed to analyze the Robinsons' claim that the City deprived them of substantive due process through enforcement of the HPO. The substantive due process analysis affords a different state law remedy and is independently undertaken. Presbytery, at 329. Even if a regulation is not a taking, it must nevertheless pass the 3-prong due process test for reasonableness. Presbytery, at 330. This court has observed that many challenges to land use regulations will most appropriately be analyzed under a due process formula rather than under a `taking' formula. Presbytery, at 332-33. Applying the substantive due process analysis to this case, we ask first whether the HPO was aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; second, whether the means used are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; and third, whether the HPO was unduly oppressive. Presbytery, at 330. The HPO had a legitimate public purpose and employed reasonable means to achieve it; we therefore conclude the HPO satisfies the first two prongs of the due process test for reasonableness. However, as this court has previously noted, [t]he third inquiry will usually be the difficult and determinative one. Presbytery, at 331. In the third inquiry, we ask whether the HPO was unduly oppressive and conclude that it was. We are assisted by the following nonexclusive factors previously adopted by this court in balancing the interests of the City against those of the owners of property regulated by the HPO: On the public's side, the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the owner's land contributes to it, the degree to which the proposed regulation solves it and the feasibility of less oppressive solutions would all be relevant. On the owner's side, the amount and percentage of value loss, the extent of remaining uses, past, present and future uses, temporary or permanent nature of the regulation, the extent to which the owner should have anticipated such regulation and how feasible it is for the owner to alter present or currently planned uses. Presbytery, at 331 (citing Stoebuck, San Diego Gas: Problems, Pitfalls and a Better Way, 25 Wash. U.J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 3, 33 (1983)). We review these nonexclusive factors in balancing the City's interests against the Robinsons. The public problem of homelessness is certainly serious. The extent to which an owner's land or property particularly contributes to a public problem may in certain instances be determinative, such as in some environmental protection cases. However this factor is not particularly crucial in this action because these urban properties already have multiple potential uses. The problems of homelessness and a lack of low income housing in Seattle are in part a function of how all Seattle landowners are using their property. We further conclude that both the feasibility of less harsh means of achieving the City's purpose and the permanence of the nonzoning regulation in controlling the type of use of the landowner's property militate against the City. This court has already said of the HPO that solving the problem of the decrease in affordable rental housing in the city of Seattle is a burden to be shouldered commonly and not imposed on individual property owners. San Telmo, 108 Wn.2d at 25. We hold the HPO to be an unduly oppressive, and thus unreasonable, regulation. It therefore violated the rights of the Robinsons to substantive due process under our holding in Presbytery, at 331-32. [10, 11] If an ordinance unduly oppresses a property owner and is struck down as violative of due process, then the law of this State provides a remedy of invalidation. Presbytery, at 331-32. The ordinance in this case, the HPO, has already been invalidated on other grounds. However, as a substantive due process violation is a deprivation of a federal constitutional right, the Robinsons may also be entitled to seek a damages remedy under federal statutes. Along with the vast majority of federal courts, we recognize that denial of a building permit ... may give rise to a substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C.  1983. R/L Assocs., at 412. The plaintiffs' state law remedies are at this point complemented by the resort to 42 U.S.C.  1983; federal relief in this instance picks up where state relief leaves off. Property rights, in addition to personal liberties, are within the protection of 42 U.S.C.  1983. Gibson v. Seattle (Wash.) Dep't of Police, 472 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir.1973). What must be proved by a section 1983 plaintiff may involve more than is necessary for establishing a right to relief under Presbytery. In many cases this means that burdens will be more difficult, but also that additional remedies will be available in section 1983 cases. Before venturing further, we wish to reemphasize that [m]ere regulation on the use of land has never constituted a `taking' or a violation of due process under federal or state law. Presbytery, at 327. In the exercise of the police power regarding property use, such as in zoning and building permit requirements, government may legitimately impose many types of restrictions or development conditions on a landowner. An inexhaustive sampling of regulations would include building height, setbacks from the street, requirements for streets and access, dedication of easements for the public use, and creation of parks or green space in residential developments, and many environmental regulations. Impositions of these conditions, regulations, or restrictions are not per se violative of substantive due process or the taking clause.