18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9 - Laserfiche WebLink

housing; and its screening of owners and tenants (at least initially) to ensure that they are lower income households. In Napa, the plaintiffs had asserted that the City's ordinance was a rent control ordinance that violated the due process clause because it required the sale or rental of ten percent of housing units at a fixed price without any provision for a fair return on investment to the developer. While not resolving whether a fair rate of return was required, the Court of Appeal found that Napa's ordinance was not an ordinance that "require[d] property owners who develop residential housing to sell or rent 10 of their units [to low income individuals]," (i.e., was not a rent control ordinance) because any person who did not want to sell or rent a portion of his or her housing units to low income individuals could choose one of the numerous alternatives included in the ordinance, such as paying an in lieu fee or donating land.'0 In 2000, the Colorado Supreme Court found that a similar ordinance was, indeed, a rent control law.31 The Town of Telluride's ordinance required developers to create housing affordable to forty percent of the employees generated by the development. The developer could satisfy the requirement by constructing new housing with controlled rents, paying fees, or dedicating land. Even though the developer was not required to provide rent-controlled units, the Colorado court found that the Telluride ordinance set a base rent and strictly limited rent increases and that the "scheme as a whole operated to suppress rental values below their market values," violating the "plain language" of the Colorado statute prohibiting rent control. Similarly, in 2006 a Wisconsin appellate court found that an inclusionary ordinance adopted by the City of Madison violated the "plain language" of a Wisconsin statute prohibiting local rent control, despite state policies encouraging cities to provide housing affordable to all income levels. The "Napa at 199. " See Town of Telluride v Lot Thirty-Four- Venture L.L.C., 3 P. 3d 30,35 (Coln. 2000). II )9on;i 1•72n172.; 7 2015)