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.
Posted by: Mark Alpert | April 14, 2011
City of Goleta’s Opposition Brief
Comments Off
Posted in Current Decisions, Rent Control
Posted by: Mark Alpert | March 14, 2011
Guggenheim Cert. Petition filed
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.
Comments Off
Posted in Current Decisions, Rent Control
Posted by: Mark Alpert | February 2, 2011
9th Circuit En Banc Panel Reverses–Supreme Court Cert. Petition To Follow
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.
Comments Off
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by: Mark Alpert | October 8, 2010
Another Example of “Political Science”?
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.
Comments Off
Posted in Current Events, Regulation Nightmares, Uncategorized
Posted by: Mark Alpert | August 18, 2010
The Impact of the Guggenheim Decision
I have been asked to speak at the the 12th 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
Comments Off
Posted in Current Events
