HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmily_Lewis_Comment_In Opposition_To_Proposed_Renton_City_Council_Ordinance_20220406_Attachment
1200 Westlake Ave N, Suite 802 Seattle, WA 98109 TEL: (206) 906-9346 FAX: (206) 400-2712
WEB:www.martindavislaw.com
David M. Otto
dotto@martindavislaw.com
April 6, 2022
To: Renton City Council
From: David M. Otto, Martin Davis, PLLC
RE: Comment In Opposition To Proposed Renton City Council Ordinance.
Dear Renton City Council:
I have been retained by the owners of Puppyland to represent them in opposition to the
Renton City Council’s proposed Ordinance, proposed by the Community and Economic
Development Department. Please consider this letter as our response in opposition and make it
part of your public record.
After reviewing thoroughly the proposed Ordinance and controlling RCW’s and
Constitutional law, we believe that your proposed Ordinance is Unconstitutional,
violates our client’s rights and, if adopted and enforced, would subject the City of Renton to
significant liability and other claims from our client. More specifically, we believe that your
proposed Ordinance violates multiple laws including the following:
1. The interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The implied or dormant commerce clause adopted by Federal Courts in reliance
on both the commerce clause and the supremacy clause.
3. The equal protection clause of the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions.
4. The privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. and Washington State
Constitutions.
5. The substantive due process clause of the U.S. and Washington State
Constitutions.
6. The procedural due process clause of the U.S. and Washington State
Constitutions.
7. The recently enacted RCW statutes on pet shop sales which, as a matter of
Constitutional law, are supreme and occupy the field.
8. Multiple provisions of the City of Renton Municipal Code.
In short, given that our client is one of only a few owners of local, independent pet stores that sell
pets in the City of Renton, it also appears to be specifically directed at our client and our client’s
business and, as such, appears to violate spot zoning and constitutes an unjustifiable taking that
would entitle our client to just compensation.
2
If you decide to proceed with your hearing and efforts to adopt this ill-advised
Ordinance, please:
a) Note our objection to the Ordinance and make it part of the public record;
b) Include this letter in the record as part of our initial response and objection to any
planned ordinance or regulation that targets or limits my client’s business; and
c) Provide us with your legal research and explanation as to how you believe that
this proposed Ordinance does not violate the RCWs on Pet Shops that “occupy
the field” and how it does not violate our client’s Constitutional rights under both
the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions.
Best Regards,
Martin Davis, PLLC
David M. Otto, The Managing Partner