Here's the text of it. (Note that this article is discussing a city ordinance, not state law. I'm not sure what jurisdiction luvflyin is dealing with.)
An Oakland couple forced to pay more than $6,500 to move back into their own home lost their latest legal battle Wednesday, affirming — at least for now — a controversial city ordinance.
Lyndsey Ballinger and her wife, Sharon Ballinger,
sued the city in 2018, claiming the hefty sum was unconstitutional and unfair. The fee came as a shock, they said, because they began renting out their home before Oakland passed the ordinance requiring landlords to compensate some tenants for relocating. When a federal judge
dismissed the case in 2019, the Ballingers appealed. On Wednesday, the Ballingers lost again after a panel of appellate judges affirmed the trial court’s ruling, throwing out the couple’s case.
“They’re disappointed and considering their options,” said the Ballingers’ attorney, J. David Breemer with the Pacific Legal Foundation. The couple may take the case to the Supreme Court, he said.
The lawsuit took aim at Oakland’s Uniform Relocation Ordinance that requires landlords to pay tenants thousands of dollars if they are evicted for no fault of their own, such as making way for the owner or a family member to move in or when an apartment is converted into a condo. Tenants’ rights advocates say the ordinance helps displaced renters afford first and last month’s rent and a security deposit in a new place — and helps prevent them from becoming homeless in the Bay Area’s expensive rental market.
San Francisco, Berkeley and Palo Alto have similar ordinances, but landlords have complained the laws put an unfair burden on homeowners.
Oakland’s ordinance eases the hardship of eviction, particularly for tenants who lose their rent control status and are thrust into a significantly more expensive market, according to Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker.
“This is a victory for the City of Oakland — and for tenants’ rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed what we have said since this litigation began: that the City’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance is a lawful — and vital — protection for Oakland tenants against no-fault eviction,” Parker wrote in an emailed statement. “We hope this decision is also a message to all Oakland landlords that following the laws that support and protect tenants is not optional.”
The Ballingers lived in their three-bedroom home in Oakland until 2015, when both women, who were on active duty in the Air Force, were transferred to the Washington, D.C., area. They rented out their Oakland home while they were away. When they returned in 2018, they gave their tenants a two-month notice and made plans to move back in.
While the Ballingers were away, the City Council passed the relocation-payment ordinance. So the couple had to fork over $6,582.40 to get their tenants out.
Currently, Oakland requires landlords to pay qualifying tenants $7,447 to vacate a studio or one-bedroom unit, $9,166 to vacate a two-bedroom unit and $11,314 to vacate a three or more-bedroom unit. If the renter’s household includes low-income, elderly or disabled people, or children, they are entitled to an extra $2,500 per unit. The amounts are adjusted every year for inflation.
The Ballingers’ tenants lived in the house for less than two years, so their relocation payment was smaller.
Even so, that fee amounted to a “ransom” payment for a home being held hostage, the Ballingers claimed. They argued it was unconstitutional, as the city was taking their money without just compensation.
It was especially unfair, Breemer said, because they and the tenants signed a lease before the ordinance was passed.
But the Ninth Circuit opinion glossed over that fact, Breemer said.
The judges found Oakland has a right to impose the relocation fee.
“Here, the ordinance imposes a transaction cost to terminate a lease agreement,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote on behalf of the panel. “We see little difference between lawful regulations, like rent control, and the ordinance’s regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship here. Thus, the relocation fee is not an unconstitutional physical taking.”
