Constitutional Law
Nov. 1, 2001
Rental Relief
San Francisco has a knack for adopting landlord-tenant ordinances that raise constitutional eyebrows, even when courts uphold the city's actions. See, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. San Francisco, 177 Cal.App.3d 892 (1986) (ordinance upheld because it was "onerous" but not "confiscatory"); Bullock v. San Francisco, 221 Cal.App.3d 1072 (1990) (ordinance invalidated because it required "payment of ransom" by landlords to escape its harsh terms).
By Michael M. Berger
San Francisco has a knack for adopting landlord-tenant ordinances that raise constitutional eyebrows, even when courts uphold the city's actions. See, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. San Francisco, 177 Cal.App.3d 892 (1986) (ordinance upheld because it was "onerous" but not "confiscatory")...
San Francisco has a knack for adopting landlord-tenant ordinances that raise constitutional eyebrows, even when courts uphold the city's actions. See, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. San Francisco, 177 Cal.App.3d 892 (1986) (ordinance upheld because it was "onerous" but not "confiscatory")...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In