Laserfiche WebLink
04/20/95 09:03 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT -* 93379310 N0.458 P010 <br /> . <br /> J <br /> Mr. Ornstein, <br /> Page 9 <br /> en ell v. it of Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 849 (1988) <br /> (statutes regulating landlord-tenant relationships are not per-se <br /> takings) . On the other hand, overall, the ad hoc factual <br /> inquiries engaged in by the courts make it difficult to predict <br /> whether a court would uphold Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 . The <br /> particular circumstances involved would. be important to the <br /> analysis. • - <br /> II. EQUAL PROTECTION. <br /> Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 is a general economic regulation. In <br /> the area of business legislation, courts generally are more <br /> • <br /> deferential to the judgma�tof �sor <br /> elegislature. <br /> classifi.cations.does <br /> not touch upon fundame rghto this <br /> Consequently, the <br /> rotect on clausereview <br /> wouldpbectheerational case <br /> under the equal p <br /> relationship test. Pennell, 108 S. Ct. at 858. The inquiry <br /> tion <br /> becomes whether the legislative and$otheralandlords} fisSsumedly <br /> between mobile home park <br /> rationally rela -�ttv <br /> oachievement <br /> of legitimate <br /> e.govern449 ment 456, <br /> purposes . innte <br /> 101 S. Ct. 715, 723 ( 1981) . <br /> In kannsil, the Supreme Court found that a rent control <br /> statute served the lei8S8ateSpecifically,se st of such protecting <br /> snwere <br /> tenants . 108 S.Ct. at with relatively <br /> intended to protect, among other things, "persons <br /> fixed and limited incomes, consumers, wage 'earner. , •. . from <br /> quoting <br /> undue impairment of their standard of living.64 S. Ct. 641, 646 <br /> Bow es vwi <br /> . llina <br /> g m, 321 U.S. 503, 513 n.9r <br /> n.9 ( 1944) . The ,court .decided that it was rational foran thehrentr <br /> e rent <br /> control law to treat some �anntsrdwhendn ifferently <br /> timate purpose of <br /> ased <br /> or not they had hardship t tenants. Id. at 859 . <br /> the law was to protect hardship <br /> The mobile home park owneonsh�chdthehave <br /> classificationf�.showi.ng <br /> that "the legislative facts be conceived to be true by <br /> apparently based could not reasonably 101 S. <br /> the governmental decision-maker. " Clot40 Ur_Ana• 93rjame 1 1, <br /> Ct. , <br /> S. <br /> Ct. at 724, quoting vanct v. Bradly, <br /> Ct. , 939, 950 (1979) . They also would have to establish the <br /> statute' s unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith ar. <br /> it of w to na, 439 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) . <br /> Of course, the inquiry would depend on the facts behind the <br /> statute. Clearly, its purpose is essential to the <br /> tana otic. If, <br /> as in Fennell, Minn. Stat. 5 3270.095 is designed <br />