| Marking a significant victory for private property rights, the Washington State Supreme Court recently demonstrated that it will honor the crucial differences between the strongly protective property rights clauses of the state constitution and the minimally protective property rights clauses of the federal constitution.
In the case of Manufactured Housing Communities v. State, the state Supreme Court reviewed the Mobile Home Parks Resident Ownership Act, which decreed that when a mobile home park owner decided to sell the property, the tenants must receive a right of first refusal to purchase the park themselves on the same terms as the contract with the potential third party purchaser. The mobile home park owners argued that the statute was a “private use” taking under the state constitution.
The “private use” taking provision in the state constitution is over 200 words long, but clearly prohibits a governmental taking for a “private use” — i.e., a government action that hands a property interest to a private party. In contrast, the federal constitution’s takings clause is just 12 words long and contains no prohibition on a “private use” taking.
Recognizing that the state constitution is more detailed and extends more protections than the federal constitution’s takings clause, the Court held that the tenants’ mandated right of first refusal was a “private use” taking because the government was taking a property right and handing it to a private party.
Importantly, in order to find the state constitution’s prohibition on “private use” takings existed, the Court had to find the state constitution’s takings clause is more protective of property rights than the federal constitution.
The Court limited its ruling that the state constitution’s taking clause is more protective than the federal clause only on the issue of “private use” takings. However, builders can ultimately benefit from the ruling because they have been consistently subjected to laws forcing them to hand a property interest to a private party. One such example is the requirement in many cities that, in order to build a few regular homes, the builder must build “low-income” housing for below market at a loss. That sure seems like being forced to hand over a valuable property right to a private party. Under the precedent set by Manufactured Housing, these types of demands should be challenged. | 
