03-05-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

residents, violates the taking clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. 2. Whether Minn. Stat. 9 327C.095 (1988). violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. 3. Whether Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 (1988) authorizes a municipality to require a party other than the park owner to pay to a resident of the park the estimated market value of the manufactured home if the resident cannot relocate to another park and has tendered title. to the home. 4. Whether an ordinance such as Bloomington City ordinance No. 89-57 violates the taking clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. As you have previously discussed with Assistant Attorney General Ken Raschke, this office does not generally opine as to the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances. Op. Atty. Gen. 629-a, May 9, 1975; See Minn. Stat. S 555.11 (1988). However, I hope that the following discussion may be helpful to you. I. THE TAKING CLAUSES. Minn. Stat. S 327C.095, subd. 4, provides in part: Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the -change, the governing body may - require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for their reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another manufactured home park within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The governing body of the municipality may also require that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents. You have asked whether Minn. Stat. (1988), violates the taking clauses of States Constitutions. As noted above, § 327C.095, subd. 4 the Minnesota and United this office does not