SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Filed 8/9/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. |
A108924
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 406692)
|
Story continue from Part II …….
3. Takings Clause Analysis
In the matter before us, the Ordinance did not effect a permanent appropriation of real property or an ouster therefrom. Nor did it involve a physical invasion of real property. Furthermore, as appellants stipulated, the Ordinance did not deprive them of all beneficial economic use of their residential rental properties.[1] Appellants have not established a per se taking. (See Lingle, supra, 125 S.Ct. at p. 2081.)
Thus, we turn to the multifactor test as set forth in Penn Central, supra, 438 U.S. 104. Under that test, three primary factors determine whether a regulation has effected a taking: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the plaintiff; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the plaintiff's investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action, including whether there has been a physical invasion or merely an adjustment of the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. (Id. at p. 124.)
a. Economic impact
Appellants' evidence of the Ordinance's economic impact was that, during a 16‑month period, the bank and money market accounts in which they placed their tenants' security deposits paid interest at a rate of less than 5 percent. Despite this evidence, the trial court found that the Ordinance did not result in a net negative economic impact for appellants, because â€
