Court Opinion

ID: 9773995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:06:07.89448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:00.530011
License: Public Domain

*517BATTAGLIA, J.,
dissenting in which BELL, C.J., and MURPHY, J., join.
I respectfully dissent. The majority erroneously concludes that the rent control ordinance at issue in this case furthers a legitimate governmental purpose and, thus, does not violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.1 I disagree with that contention, for reasons that follow, and consequently, would reverse with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the Appellants, Alan Tyler, et al.
As the majority explains, it is well-settled that Article 24 contains an implied equal protection guarantee, despite the fact that its text contains no explicit language pertaining to equal protection. Majority op. at 499-500, 3 A.3d at 434-35; Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 410 Md. 326, 340 n. 15, 978 A.2d 702, 710 n. 15 (2009); Verzi v. Balt. Cnty., 333 Md. 411, 417, 635 A.2d 967, 969-70 (1994); Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 353, 601 A.2d 102, 107 (1992). See also Atty. Gen. v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683, 704 n. 8, 426 A.2d 929, 941 n. 8 (1981) (explaining that the Supreme Court has reached a similar result in interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment). I further agree with the majority (and both parties) that the rational basis test applies to the instant case, because “neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right or interest is implicated,” and thus, heightened scrutiny does not apply. Id. at 706-07, 426 A.2d at 942.
Under rational basis review, a statute is presumed constitutional, and a party alleging otherwise must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statute either does not further a legitimate state interest, Verzi, 333 Md. at 418, 427, 635 A.2d at 970, 975, or that “the means chosen by the legislative body are ‘wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.’ ” Waldron, 289 Md. at 707, 426 A.2d at 942, quoting *518McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393, 399 (1961); accord Lonaconing, 410 Md. at 343, 978 A.2d at 711-12 (“Furthermore, ‘the party attacking [a statutory classification] must show by clear and convincing evidence that it does not rest upon any rational basis but is essentially arbitrary.’”) (quoting Md. Dep’t of Transp. v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 409, 474 A.2d 191, 199 (1984)). Nevertheless, our cases demonstrate that rational basis review is not “ ‘toothless.’ ” Waldron, 289 Md. at 710, 426 A.2d at 944, quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2764, 49 L.Ed.2d 651, 664 (1976).
In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683, 426 A.2d 929, we applied the rational basis test to invalidate a statute that prohibited retired judges from practicing law if they accepted their pensions. We cited approvingly to Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251, 183 A. 534 (1936), in which our predecessors invalidated, on equal protection grounds, “a statute which purported to license and regulate paperhangers in Baltimore City while failing to include paperhangers elsewhere within its coverage.” Waldron, 289 Md. at 718, 426 A.2d at 948. We said that, “ ‘except for revenue,’ ” the State “ ‘may not annex any burdensome conditions on the common callings of life or the right of the individual to engage therein, unless such regulation is required for the protection of the public health, safety, or morals.’ ” Id. at 720, 426 A.2d at 949, quoting Dasch, 170 Md. at 268, 183 A. at 541. We further explained that where the State exercised its police powers to impose such a regulation, “ ‘any classification, adopted for the purposes of the regulatory measure, must be reasonable, uniform in its operation within the class, and based upon some legitimate principle of public policy.’ ” Id. (emphasis added in Waldron).
Likewise, in Kirsch v. Prince George’s County, 331 Md. 89, 626 A.2d 372 (1993), we held that a so-called “mini-dorm” zoning ordinance violated equal protection. The ordinance, enacted by Prince George’s County, but apparently intended to combat a perceived problem concerning noise, litter, and parking in neighborhoods surrounding the University of Mary*519land at College Park,2 id. at 105-06, 626 A.2d at 380, defined a “mini-dormitory” as:
“An off-campus residence, located in a building that is, or was originally constructed as a one-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling which houses at least three (3), but not more than five (5), individuals, all or part of whom are unrelated to one another by blood, adoption or marriage and who are registered full-time or part-time students at an institution of higher learning.”
Id. at 93, 626 A.2d at 373-74, quoting Prince George’s County Code (1990), Section 27-107.1(a) (150.1) (emphasis omitted). Because no suspect class or fundamental right was implicated, we applied the rational basis test. Kirsch, 331 Md. at 104, 626 A.2d at 379. We, nevertheless, held that the zoning ordinance was not rationally related to its stated “objective of clearing residential neighborhoods of noise, litter, and parking congestion.” Id. at 106, 626 A.2d at 380. We reasoned that differentiating “between permissible residential tenant classes by creating more strenuous zoning requirements for some and less for others based solely on the occupation which the tenant pursues away from that residence [was] that sort of arbitrary classification forbidden under our constitutions.” Id. See also id. at 104-05, 626 A.2d at 379-80 (collecting cases where we applied the rational basis test to invalidate statutes regulating occupations, because the classification schemes were essentially arbitrary).
In Verzi v. Baltimore County, 333 Md. 411, 635 A.2d 967, we determined that a county ordinance mandating that a licensed tow operator maintain a place of business within that county as a precondition for eligibility to be called by police *520for towing vehicles disabled by accidents, violated equal protection. We could “find no rational basis for the distinction between in-county and out-of-county [tow operators],” and thus we were “led to the ‘more reasonable and probable view ... that [the classification] was intended to confer the monopoly of a profitable business upon residents of the town.’ ” Id. at 427, 635 A.2d at 974, quoting Mayor & City Council of Havre de Grace v. Johnson, 143 Md. 601, 608, 123 A. 65, 67 (1923).
In the case at bar, we are faced with a classification of landlords: “favored” landlords, commercial enterprises that operate multi-occupant and high-rise apartment complexes; and “disfavored” landlords, primarily individuals who own single-family houses and rent them to students attending the University of Maryland at College Park. The openly-acknowledged purpose of the classification scheme is to depress rents that “disfavored” landlords can charge, so that the “favored” landlords are placed in a more advantageous position. The hope is that the single-family homeowners, unable to charge sufficient rents to cover their expenses, will cease their endeavors, thereby creating a decrease in the supply of “disfavored” rental units. This “engineered” rental housing shortage will then result in more “favored” apartment units in the City of College Park, built by commercial entrepreneurs.
What is striking about this scheme is that nowhere does it address the needs or interests of renters, nor does it protect the otherwise appropriate use of private property. Rather, the College Park rent control ordinance is intended to penalize a “disfavored” class of landlords, for the benefit of two other groups: a “favored” class of commercial landlords, whose bottom line will fatten through elimination of a competitor; and owner-occupants of single-family houses in the neighborhoods adjacent to the University, who do not rent their dwellings, and anticipate rising home prices (or perhaps greater quality of life) through elimination of the rental market for single-family houses.
Undoubtedly some renters, those fortunate enough to be able to continue occupying the rent-controlled housing, likely *521also will benefit in the short term by paying below-market rents, but the ordinance does not appear to countenance this result. The ultimate result of the ordinance appears likely to be higher rents, on average, than would otherwise prevail in its absence, because the clear purpose and likely effect will be to create an artificial shortage of the least expensive rental units, while encouraging profiteering by the operators of the most expensive units.
I also would point out that the City’s assertion that the “disfavored” rental properties are to blame for the lion’s share of code enforcement problems has little or no evidentiary support in the record. Although it may be sufficient to hypothesize any reasonably conceivable state of facts tending to support a statutory classification scheme, Montgomery Cnty. v. Fields Road Corp., 282 Md. 575, 580, 386 A.2d 344, 347 (1978) (“ ‘When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed.’ ”) (quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369, 377 (1911)), such a presumption still must be reasonable. In my view, if code enforcement is a problem, the simple answer would be to enforce the housing code. In any event, any step short of closing down the University would be unlikely to ameliorate the problem, because the concerns raised by the City are caused, ultimately, by the students themselves.
Finally, without addressing Tyler’s contention that the rent control ordinance is confiscatory, the “review” process also raises due process concerns. College Park Code Section 127-7 authorizes the Rent Stabilization Board to grant “individual rent ceiling adjustment[s]” when persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence “that such adjustments are necessary to provide the landlord with a fair return on investment.” Code Section 127-8 authorizes the Board to grant “temporary exemption[s]” in cases of “extreme financial hardship because of mortgage or financial obligations related to the property incurred before the effective date of [the Ordinance].” Each of *522these sections provides the Board with what amounts to unbridled discretion to determine what constitutes a fair return on investment or what constitutes an extreme financial hardship. Permitting the Board to apply such amorphous standards is tantamount to granting the Board legal authority to act arbitrarily and capriciously.
Admittedly, the statutory scheme may stifle the ability of private homeowners to rent their dwellings to college students, which is its purpose. This does not mean, however, that the rational basis test is satisfied. Rather, it is the purpose itself, I would submit, that is illegitimate.
To diminish the capacity of private homeowners to rent their properties through a deliberate scheme to squeeze rents below that required for maintenance and a fair operating profit, in favor of commercial vendors not similarly constrained, absent a legitimate public benefit, is to permit the government to act as a henchman for high rise owners, not a steward of the public interest. There is no reasonable argument that leasing one’s house to a tenant is against the public interest or should be legally disfavored in any way. See, e.g., Simard v. White, 383 Md. 257, 269 n. 11, 859 A.2d 168, 175 n. 11 (2004) (warning against assaults on property rights “ ‘carried out in the name of “common good,” an elastic concept, defined by those whose interests it serves’ ”) (quoting Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom 225 (1999)). Consequently, there is no legitimate public purpose furthered by the City rent-control ordinance in the present case, but rather, a private benefit conferred on a class that may be favored in the political realm. As in Verzi, I can “find no rational basis for the distinction between [high-rise landlords] and [landlords renting out single-family houses],” and thus am “led to the more reasonable and probable view ... that [the classification] was intended to confer the monopoly of a profitable business upon [favored interests].” 333 Md. at 427, 635 A.2d at 974 (internal quotation marks omitted). I respectfully dissent.
Chief Judge BELL and Judge MURPHY have authorized me to state that they join in this opinion.

. Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides:
That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land.

. The City of College Park does not possess zoning authority. See Md.Code (1957, 2003 Repl.Vol.), Art. 28, § 7-103(b) (stating, in relevant part, that a municipal corporation within the Maryland-Washington Regional District “is not authorized, by means of an amendment to its charter or otherwise, to exercise any of the powers relating to planning, subdivision control, or zoning granted by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission or the County Council of Prince George’s County”).