pf_03135 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

282 Minn. 552 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ~i,-. ,~,tj~ 1;;1 t-g- . ii .N~--.;' 11 .~. 2. Constitutional Law e=>48(1) Municipal Corporations e=>122.1(2) Party challenging statute or ordinance's constitutionality has burden of proof. 3. Eininent Domain e=>2(1.2) City ordinance requiring mobile home park owners who close their parks to pay relocation costs to park residents was not per se taking of park owners' property, although value of property diminished as result of ordinance. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69. 4. Eminent Domain e=>2(1.2) City ordinance requiring mobile home park owners who close their parks to pay relocation cost to park residents was city wide, legislative land use regulation, making legitimate governmental purpose test, rather than ''rough proportionality" applicable in de- tennining whether ordinance effected uncon- stitutional taking. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69. 5. Eminent Domain e=>2(1.2) City ordinance requiring mobile home park owners who close their parks to pay relocation costs to park residents advanced legitimate governmental purpose of protect- ing mobile home park residents from loss of substantial investments in their homes when park owner decides to close park by selling land or changing its use and had direct nexus to interest of lessening economic devastation imposed on displaced residents, and thus did. not effect unconstitutional taking in violation of Fifth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5; Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69. \ 6. Eminent Domain e=>2(1) Legitimate governmental interests are substantially served, for purposes of takings analysis, by legislation seeking to redistrib- ute benefits and burdens of economic life or otherwise to restore equitable balance to eco- nomic relationship, particularly at end of that relationship. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 7. Eminent Domain e=>2(1.2) When land use regulations are designed to benefit specific governmental enterprise, compensable taking occurs under Minnesota Constitution if property has suffered SUb- stantial and measurable decline in value as result of regulations. M.S.A. ~ Art. 1, ~ 13. 8. Eminent Domain e=>2(1.2) City ordinance requiring mobile hOI1)e park owners who close their parks to pa relocation costs to park residents did n~ violate takings clause of Minnesota Constitu- tion, where ordinance was not designed spe.. cifically to benefit governmental enterprise or take effective easement. M.S.A. Canst. Art. 1, ~ 13; Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69. 9. Constitutional Lawe=>213.1(2), 251.3 When legislation is not based on suspect class and does not infringe on fundamental right, it need only be rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose in order to withstand federal equal protection or sub- stantivedue process challenges. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.14. 10. Constitutional Law e=>213.1(2), 251.3 Under equal protection and due process provisions of Minnesota Constitution, legisla- tion is constitutional so long as it serves to promote public purpose; is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference with pri- vate interest; and means chosen bear rational relation to public purpose sought to be served. M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, ~ 13. 11. Constitutional Law e=>228.3, 278.3 Landlord and Tenant e=>392 City ordinance requiring mobile home park owners who closed their parks to pay relocation costs to park residents satisfied rational basis test for equal protection and substantive due process purposes, where or- dinance advanced legitimate government purpose under takings analysis. U.S.C.A Const.Amends. 5,14; Bloomington, Minn., Code art. 6, ~ 15.69. 12. Municipal Corporations <::=>111(1) Statutes e=>46 Legislative bodies generally are not re- quired to articulate reasons for enacting stat- ute or ordinance. 1-1 '~~:. ~:-. ~ -., ,"-"