Sandpiper Mobile Village v. City of Carpinteria

Here we uphold the rent control ordinance of the City of Carpintería because: (1) it does not exact a compensable physical taking of the property of appellant, Sandpiper Mobile Village (Yee v. Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. _ [ 118 L.Ed.2d 153 , 112 S.Ct. 1522 ]), (2) it is rational and serves a legitimate public purpose and therefore does not violate substantive due process, and (3) on its face it validly regulates mobilehome rent.

We do not consider its validity as applied because Sandpiper did not allege requisite facts in its complaint to raise this issue.

Background and Contentions

Sandpiper owns and operates a mobilehome park in Carpintería. By judgment on the pleadings, the trial court denied Sandpiper’s challenge to the constitutionality of Carpinteria’s mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance. We affirm.

We review this judgment by the same standards we use to review a judgment entered after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. (See 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Proceedings Without Trial, § 263, pp. 564-565.)

We deem true all material and properly pleaded facts. We may not consider opinions, contentions, deductions or conclusions of…