Rent Control in Mobile Parks

I believe your editorial “Rent Control Made Simpler” (April 4) to be misleading.

In fact, what actually happened in the case was that the court rejected the physical taking challenge because owners rent their property voluntarily, and are under no statutory compulsion to continue rental operation. Although the court found no physical taking and upheld the California court’s decision, important constitutional questions have been reserved for another day, including 1) regulatory taking theories under Nollan and Penn Central and 2) the possibility that legislation compelling owners to rent their property may effect a physical taking.

The court sidestepped substantive due process and regulatory taking issues.

The court’s ruling on the Yee case was only one decision on a fairly narrow issue, which resulted in leaving open many important constitutional questions concerning closure, conversion and regulatory takings, among other things.

In spite of this decision, mobile home park owner organizations remain committed to pursuing constructive solutions on issues of importance to owners, residents, the housing industry and the public.

VICKIE TALLEY, Executive Director

Manufactured Housing Educational Trust

Anaheim