Housing Communities v State :: 142 Wn2d 347
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
RCW 59.23.005 as adopted by the Legislature in 1993, gave mobile home park tenants first right of refusal to purchase their mobile home park at such time the owner decided to sell. The statute required the park owner to disclose the price and terms of any pending sale to a third party. Then it granted the tenants thirty days to tender a two percent earnest money. The park owner must then allow the tenants to purchase the property at or below the same price and terms negotiated with the third party.
“The Park Owners believe the Act’s mere existence destroys their right to (1) freely dispose of their property, (2) exclude others, and (3) immediately close the sale of a mobile home park. [They claim] chapter 59.23 RCW allows the State to delay the sale and forcibly substitute the owner’s chosen buyer with a buyer selected by the State.” [At 353] The State contends the statute is a legitimate exercise of its police power. [At 353, 354].
The Court upheld this was a private taking of property for private use in violation of Art. 1, §16 of the Washington State Constitution. The arguments of the majority and dissenting minority center around the legitimate and non-legitimate exercise of police powers. Justice Sanders, in his concurring opinion (374-384) takes issue with both sides. He presents an interesting analysis of the evolution of police powers to the extent that it is now used to build baseball stadiums. “[T]he language of the common law and the vocabulary of our founders has been so radically altered in meaning so as to require new words to express old ideas.” [At 377]. He contends the law was not an exercise of police powers but an “appropriation of interest in private property for the benefit of others.” [At 375].
Justice Talmadge, in his lengthy, emotional dissent (391-431) claimed the whole structure of civil government was at stake; or at least the socialistic elements thereof. “Today the Washington Supreme Court strikes down legislation designed to assist the vulnerable. [At 391]. I fear the majority’s analysis needlessly intrudes on the police power in untold ways affecting everything from social welfare law to public health rules to environmental and land use regulation.” [At 425].
Despite three dissenters, it is encouraging and remarkable the Court gave such a bold ruling on the side of property rights. Maybe Justice Talmadge is right. Maybe this will be the beginning of the unwinding of the socialist thread in Washington State law.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Blankinship, John | |
| pass | Boger, Brent | |
| pass | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| pass | Gossler, Michael | |
| pass | Groen, John M | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Ireland, Faith | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Maurer, William | |
| pass | Overstreet, Stephen | |
| pass | Rivett, Robin | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Spoonemore, Jerry | |
| fail | Armstrong, David | |
| fail | Copsey, Alan | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | McPhee, William Thomas | |
| fail | Morgan, J Dean | |
| fail | Seinfeld, Karen | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Tanaka, Wayne | |
| fail | Thomas, Jerri | |
| fail | Watson, Sandra | |
| fail | Young, Dan |