Posted on 04/18/2021 1:40:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, you and your spouse are living in a medium-sized middle American community and after coming into a little extra money you decided you want to do some planning for your retirement. You come across an investment opportunity in a cosmopolitan city in another state — a six-unit apartment building where you can purchase a co-ownership interest with a plan to move into that building when you retire. The purchase agreement includes a provision that the co-owners will convert the six-unit building into separately owned condominium units by a specified date, and you and your spouse will obtain the right to own and occupy one of those condominium units.
At the time you invest you are still living and working in a different city and state, and the unit that will eventually be yours to occupy is rented to a tenant.
After purchasing your interest, but before the date comes for the condominium conversion, the City Council in this cosmopolitan city amends its condo conversion ordinance, and now requires that a property owner converting a rental apartment to a condominium must offer a lifetime lease to the current resident of the unit being converted.
Just like that, the renter of your soon-to-be-condo has a legal right to live in your retirement home for the duration of his life which might be longer than your lifetime.
If this happened to you, your last name is probably Pakdel and you purchased a condo for your retirement in the City of San Francisco.
I read about this story at the Cato Institute website.
Pakdel sued San Francisco, claiming the amendment to the ordinance violated the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
Pakdel lost in both the district court and the appeals court, and the proceedings at the administrative level in the City and County of San Francisco are more complicated than the simplified description I have set forth above.
The City and County defended against Pakdel’s complaint in federal court by pointing to various agreements made by Pakdel, and failures by Pakdel to assert certain claims as part of the conversion process on a timely basis. Thus, Pakdel’s hands are not completely “clean” with respect to the way he went about seeking to vindicate his rights as the property owner.
In the federal courts, the question of whether this amounted to an unconstitutional “takings” was never actually considered. Pakdel lost in the district court based on that court’s determination that his “takings” claim wasn’t yet “ripe” — that at the time he filed his lawsuit the decision by San Francisco with regard to enforcement of the ordinance wasn’t yet final, and there was still the possibility that Pakdel could obtain a waiver of the ordinance’s tenant lease requirement.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the action but then went further by making it a matter of the record that Pakdel had, in fact, waived many of his rights to contest the requirements of the ordinance by failing to follow the time deadlines in the ordinance for filing applications for variances, and taking advantage of other provisions that might have exempted him from the lifetime lease offer requirement.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and it appears that all the merits briefs have been filed. Here is the brief filed on behalf of Pakdel and his wife. The issues raised are pretty far afield from my practice area, and it’s a little bit late in the evening for me to try to break down the legal arguments set forth. I’m going to opt for watching the new season of Top Chef instead.
But, one lesson you might take from this is that if you are living in Dayton, Ohio, look for someplace other than San Francisco to invest in a retirement condo — that is if you want to actually live in your retirement condo.
If this case goes to the SCOTUS, does anyone have any doubt that Chief Justice Roberts will side with the Progressives?
I don’t.
All of San Francisco wants someone to subsidize them to live there.
They think it’s an entitlement for people as cool as they are.
Who would want to retire in San Francisco anyway? It’s a lost city.
advice to SF slumlords
find another occupation
Yep I wonder. John Roberts has gone liberal on us, on a number of cases.
I wonder if John Roberts likes to be something of a swing vote, as opposed to being firmly lined up with the conservative bloc?
Then again, maybe he’s being blackmailed and we don’t know it.
Some contortions, such as calling the Obamacare penalty a tax, and if it’s a tax, that makes Obamacare constitutional, seem out of bounds.
And fratboy and RBG redux are just along for the ride.
Are politicians in a contest these days to prove who can come up with the stupidest laws?
What happens if Pakdel sells that property?
New owner, lease with old owner doesn’t exist anymore.
After all the hysteria and incivil behavior conservatives dealt with for Kavanaugh. He was already damaged goods even then, hardwired for Globalism, courtesy of the Bushies.
I don’t know what to say about Judge Amy.
Except for this: Mitch McConnell most likely selected the judicial nominees who told him “Yes. If need be, yes, I would vote to convict President Donald Trump if it was meant to ‘maintain the overall peace of American Society.”
THAT may be the main reason Mitch was able to get so many judges confirmed so very quickly. Had you ever wondered how he did it, and why he had not been stopped by people like Schumer? I used to wonder. Used to.
Be careful what you vote for.
Given that he was intending to retire in SF, the ordinance and the lower courts are probably doing him a favor. He will likely be thanking them later.
The radical left hates private property and wants to seize it. They can’t do that just yet. For the time being, they’ll have to be content with making it so you can’t use your property - effectively stealing it from you.
The freeze on rents, ordered under Trump, was illegal. The government does not have the right to invalidate the terms of a valid contract between two parties.
This action by SF is illegal, for the same reason.
When they actually do take private property, few will notice, because we’re almost there now.
Zoning is taking.
“No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
Article I, Section 9
The State of California is legally a creation of the federal government.
Why would anyone want to retire in San Francisco?
Isn’t that the city with the poop alerts so citizens don’t step in human excrement?
And Pelosi has a mansion there? A people are moving out in droves? Blue State hellhole in progress...
My sister basically had to buy her SF home twice — once to buy it from the previous owner and a second time to buy out a basement renter whom she took on in order to help pay for the first purchase.
(And she still votes Marxist, for which she gets no sympathy from me over suffering from policies imposed by the very people she voted for.)
I’m retired and spending down.
My financial assets will wind up in my septic tank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.