Laserfiche WebLink
r. Ornstein <br />age 10 <br />tenants in a hardship position, the purpose may be found <br />legitimate. If the facts upon which the classification is based <br />could reasonably be believed to be true by the legislators, a <br />court would defer to the legislature in its choice of <br />classification. Finally, the classification of manufactured home <br />park owners may arguably be rationally related to the purpose of <br />the statute, if that purpose is to protect manufactured home <br />owners in a hardship position. <br />III. THE BLOOMINGTON ORDINANCE <br />You inquire whether the provisions of the Bloomington <br />ordinance are within the authority provided by Minn. Stat <br />S 327C.095, subd. 4. For the following reasons, we conclude <br />that, on its face, the ordinance is within the scope of authority <br />of the statute. Words and phrases in statutes and ordinances <br />should be construed according to their common and approved usage. <br />Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (1988); Standafer v. First Nat'l Bank of <br />Minneapolis, 236 Minn. 123, 52 N.W.2d 718.(1952). The provision <br />for additional compensation refers to other parties. This <br />provision falls after the provision for relocation costs from the <br />park owner. This indicates that the additional compensation may <br />be required only of someone other than the park owner.. <br />Next, the party paying such additional compensation must be <br />involved in the park closing. Logically, the purchaser of a <br />manufactured home park who plans to convert its use is involved <br />with the park closing. <br />The reference to additional compensation comes after the <br />provision for reasonable relocation costs in the preceding <br />paragraphs. Therefore, it follows from the common usage of the <br />term additional that this refers to compensation beyond <br />relocation costs. <br />The purpose of the provision for additional compensation is <br />stated in the text of subdivision 4. That purpose is "to <br />mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon <br />the residents." Minn. Stat. § 327C.095, subd. 4. <br />Each of the above points is arguably clear from the express <br />language of the statute. What is not expressly clear from this. <br />provision is how far beyond reasonable relocation costs the <br />additional compensation may go, keeping in mind its expressly <br />stated purpose. In other words, the real question here is <br />whether the requirement in the ordinance that the purchaser of a <br />