California Property Rights Journal

Any dolts for a volt?

Mark Alpert — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:22:14 +0000

Our federal government “invested” billons of dollars in GM with the understanding that GM would be developing the volt. Way back in February, the Obama administration touted its goal of a millon electric cars on the road by 2015. With all manner of government support, the volt has been a tremendous failure, as noted by Columnist Eric Peters at EricPetersAuto.com. His description of the Volt is priceless. “… a $41,000 “economy” car that costs as much to buy as a fully loaded BMW 3-Series but which can’t match the day-to-day performance of a $15,000 Toyota Corolla.” When government confiscates private property, it typically does so with the assumption that it has a use for the property that better serves the greater good. When these government supported debacles fail, they are not abandoned, but must be “rescued.” If the green industry cannot succeed on its own, let it fail.

California Tax Plan Foiled By the Law of Unintended Consequences

Mark Alpert — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:43:39 +0000

The controversial California state budget signed by Governor Brown included 200 million dollars in expected revenue from a new tax of internet sales in California. As a result, Amazon immediately terminated its relationship with all of its California affilliates, preventing the collection of tax and actually resulting in a reduction of income (and thus income tax) to California. Of course, this tax is not a land use regulation, but it is a great illustration of the law of unintended consequences. Even regulations which have their desired effect have the tendency to result in other unintended negative consequences. These negative consequences then lead to more regulation and more unintended consequences. California’s internet tax is a useful lesson, as we rarely see the unintended consequences of regulation so quickly and directly.

Guggenheim Reply Brief

Mark Alpert — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:26:15 +0000

The Reply in support of Guggenheim’s cert. petition was filed on Friday. The basic point the brief makes is that the City has attempted to re-write the Ninth Circuit’s decision, rather than attempt to defend it on the merits. We expect to hear some time in June. Click below to see the brief. I am cautiously optimistic, but cert. review is always an uphill battle.

Guggenheim Cert Reply Brief AS FILED

City of Goleta’s Opposition Brief

Mark Alpert — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:26:47 +0000

Well, we received the brief of the City of Goleta in opposition to the petition for cert. Here it is.Goleta Supreme Court Brief in Opp The City’s lead argument is that the majority panel did apply the three prong balancing test contemplated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Penn Central decision. In other words, the City is saying the panel did not base its decision only on the fact that the property owner purchased the property subject to regulation. The argument is a strained reading of the substance of the case, but I suppose is a better strategy that arguing the one factor test that panel actually applied was correct–a result that rejects prior supreme court precedent.

Guggenheim Cert. Petition filed

Mark Alpert — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:44:42 +0000

The Petition for Cert. in Guggenheim v. Goleta was filed Friday March 11, 2011. Guggenheim Cert. Petition [AS FILED]

In my view, it compellingly makes the case the 9th Circuit disregarded prior Supreme Court authority. I look forward to the City’s brief, which I will post on this site as well.

9th Circuit En Banc Panel Reverses–Supreme Court Cert. Petition To Follow

Mark Alpert — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:40:44 +0000

Those of you who follow property rights are likely aware of the En Banc decision of the 9th Circuit in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, which effectively reversed the three judge panel decision finding that the City of Goleta’s adoption of mobilehome rent control caused a taking. We think the decision was wrongly decided, but that is not surprising since we represent Dan Guggeneheim. The dissent joined by three judges does an excellent job identifying the flaws in the majority decision–so I won’t write about them on this blog. I will say I am very surprised that the majority decided the case in a way that seems to directly reject U.S. Supreme Court guidance.

We are happy to announce that Dan Guggenheim has made the decision to file a cert petition. We are thrilled that Dan has been able to retain former Solicitor General Ted Olson and his appellate team at Gibson, Dunn to lead the effort along with myself and Rob Coldren at HKC.

Another Example of “Political Science”?

Mark Alpert — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:27:15 +0000

I was a political science major in college. We learned about various forms of government and political philosophies. I am starting to wonder whether our universities have developed a whole new discipline of “political science”: The study of how to influence political policy by manipulating science. The credibility of the global warming movement was undercut by the discovery of errors and downright fraud from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) reports. It is hardly a coincidence that the “errors” almost inevitably overstate the risk of harm. The latest example of ”political science” is the pollution level estimates of the California Air Resources Board, which over-estimated air pollution by 340 percent. These over-estimates were used by the Air Resources Board in developing regulations for the “landmark” Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. In my view, the entire global climate change movement is driven by politics and money and hurts the credibility of all science.

The Impact of the Guggenheim Decision

Mark Alpert — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:53:21 +0000

I have been asked to speak at the the 12^th Annual Eminent Domain Conference on October 28, 2010 sponsored by CLE International on the topic of the “Effects of Guggenheim on Takings.” The program is geared toward practicing attorneys and land use professionals. If you would like more information, or a copy of the program outline, please email me at malpert@hkclaw.com

Are Property Rights the Solution to Land Use Problems?

Mark Alpert — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:12:46 +0000

That is the argument I make in the soon to be published article in the WMA Reporter. Rather than spending billions on wasteful goverment programs, the government should just stay out of the way and let the free market work.

City of Los Angeles Set to Block CPI Increases Under Rent Control

Mark Alpert — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:21:35 +0000

On May 7th, the City of Los Angeles took the first of two votes necessary to adopt a moratorium on the annual CPI adjustments for properties under rent control, according to the LA Times. The justification for the decision is that renters suffering under difficult economic times cannot afford to have their rents increased to keep up with inflation. This justification for harsher rent controls is dubious, at best. Landlords are not responsible for the recessions. The cost of what is essentially a poverty program (which requires no income qualification) should not be imposed on them. If the City Council votes to confirm the decision, I hope a property owner will decide to file suit to challenge the moratorium.