Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)

Citation
1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Parent Document
1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2019-07-30

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text

817 chars
20th Street Owner contends that the Board’s current
interpretation of section 1803(t) violates its constitutional right to
a fair return, citing City of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley Rent
Stabilization Bd. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 951 (City of Berkeley). In
City of Berkeley, the court held: “[A] rent control provision which
does not permit a just and reasonable return on a landlord’s
investment is confiscatory; and if a rent control measure does not
expressly assure the landlord of that fair return on investment,
such a condition will be implied.” (Id. at p. 962, citing Birkenfeld
v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 169.) We disagree with
20th Street Owner’s reliance on City of Berkeley.
       One purpose of the Rent Control Law is to provide
consistency with constitutional requirements such as allowing