<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>PALO ALTO \u2013 The future of Palo Alto's\nsole mobile-home park remains in flux.<br></p>\n\n<p>The Jisser family, who owns\nthe Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, want to close the facility. But as a\ncondition of closing, the city of Palo Alto requires the family to pay $8\nmillion to the 400 or so residents who would be displaced.</p>\n\n<p>The family filed suit\nagainst the city but the Jissers suffered a loss in federal court. A judge dismissed\nthe suit, ruling it was \u201Cnot ripe for adjudication.\u201D</p>\n\n<p>The Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Jissers, filed an appeal.</p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">\u201CThe crux of the decision is that the Jissers should have\nlitigated their case all the way through California\u2019s state courts before\nbringing their federal constitutional claims to federal court,\u201D PLF attorney\nLarry Salzman told the <i>Northern California Record</i>. \u201CBut that is a\nmisapplication of a line of cases springing from a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court\ncase, <i></i>Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank<i></i>,\n473 U.S. 172.\u201D</span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Salzman explains that when property owners seek</span><span class=\"apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;</span><span class=\"s1\">just compensation</span><span class=\"apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;</span><span class=\"s1\">for a taking of private property,</span><span class=\"apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;the&nbsp;</span><span class=\"s1\">Williamson County ruling</span><span class=\"apple-converted-space\">&nbsp;</span><span class=\"s1\">sometimes does require them to sue in state court before bringing\ntheir compensation claims to federal court. </span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">\u201CThis is a unique hardship for property rights plaintiffs, who are\nforced to litigate for years in state court with little to no expectation of\nrelief, only to then be required to file their takings claims in federal court,\u201D\nSalzman said.</span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Salzman said the Jissers sought no money from the city. </span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">\u201CThey have simply asked the federal court to stop the city\u2019s\nunconstitutional shakedown before the harm is done,\u201D Salzman said in a <a href=\"http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/release-6-27-16-jisser-4-1551\" rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\">Pacific Legal Foundation press release</a>.</span></p>\n\n<p>In his ruling, judge Edward\nJ. Davila wrote: \u201CFailure to exhaust an as-applied takings challenge in\nstate court is grounds for dismissal in federal court.\"</p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">There is a chance this case might not even reach the appeal\nhearing process.</span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Santa Clara County, the city of Santa Clara and the housing\nauthority of Santa Clara formed a partnership that would purchase the park from\nthe Jissers. Each entity would each pay $14.5 million and the housing authority\npaying the balance.</span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">The purchase would be made under the auspices of eminent domain.\nAccording to an article on PaloAltoonline.com, there would be no relocation\nassistance for the residents.</span></p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\">Displacement of current residents \"shall be avoided to the\nmaximum extent allowed by law,\" according to the memorandum of\nunderstanding between the three agencies. </p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\">Salzman then addressed what would happen if the\npartnership takes over the park.</p>\n\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201CIf the property is taken by eminent domain, it\nwill end our constitutional lawsuit challenging the extortionate fees imposed\non the Jissers as a condition of closing their park because the government will\nown the park and decide for itself how to close or rebuild the park,'' Salzman\nsaid.</p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://norcalrecord.com/stories/510963968-buena-vista-mobile-home-park-owners-appeal-verdict>