Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies California Rent Control Litigation City of San Rafael The Company sued the City of San Rafael in federal court, challenging its rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) on constitutional grounds. The Company believes the litigation was settled by the City’s agreement to amend the ordinance to permit adjustments to market rent upon turnover. The City subsequently rejected the settlement agreement. The Court refused to enforce the settlement agreement, and submitted to a jury the claim that it had been breached. In October 2002, a jury found no breach of the settlement agreement. The Company’s constitutional claims against the City were tried in a bench trial during April 2007. On April 17, 2009, the Court issued its Order for Entry of Judgment in the Company’s favor (the “April 2009 Order”). On June 10, 2009, the Court ordered the City to pay the Company net fees and costs of approximately $2.1 million. On June 30, 2009, as anticipated by the April 2009 Order, the Court entered final judgment that gradually phased out the City’s site rent regulation scheme that the Court found unconstitutional. Pursuant to the final judgment, existing residents of the Company’s Property in San Rafael will be able to continue to pay site rent as if the Ordinance were to remain in effect for a period of ten years, enforcement of the Ordinance was immediately enjoined with respect to new residents of the Property, and the Ordinance will expire entirely ten years from the June 30, 2009 date of judgment. The City and residents’ association (which intervened in the case) appealed, and the Company cross-appealed. The briefing schedule for the appeal has been set to conclude on October 24, 2011. City of Santee In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of Santee in California Superior Court (Case No. 777094). The effect of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two rent control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the Company and other property owners. However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that predated the two invalid ordinances (the “prior ordinance”). As a result of the judgment the Company was entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the difference in annual adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to adjust its base rents to reflect what the Company could have charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect. The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The City and the tenant association also each sued the Company in separate actions alleging that the rent adjustments pursuant to the judgment violated the prior ordinance (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE 020524), sought to rescind the rent adjustments, and sought refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and damages in these separate actions. As a result of further proceedings and a series of appeals and remands, the Company was required to and did release the additional rents to the tenant association’s counsel for disbursement to the tenants, and the Company has ceased collecting the disputed rent amounts. The tenant association continued to seek damages, penalties and fees in their separate action based on the same claims the City made on the tenants’ behalf in the City’s case. The Company moved for judgment on the pleadings in the tenant association’s case on the ground that the tenant association’s case is moot in light of the result in the City’s case. On November 6, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The tenant association appealed. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that (i) the mootness finding was not correct when entered but could be reasserted after the amounts held in escrow have been disbursed to the residents; (ii) there is no basis for the tenant association’s punitive damage claim or its claim under the California Mobile Home Residency Law; and (iii) the trial court should consider certain of the tenant association’s other claims. On remand, the Court has entered a schedule for the remainder of the case, including a hearing date of November 18, 2011 for the parties’ anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment, and a trial call date of January 6, 2012. In addition, the Company sued the City of Santee in federal court alleging all three of the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On October 13, 2010, the District Court: (1) dismissed the Company’s claims without prejudice on the ground that they were not ripe because the Company had not filed and received from the City a final decision on a rent increase petition, and (2) found that those claims are not foreclosed by any of the state court rulings. On November 10, 2010, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s ruling dismissing the Company’s claims. On April 20, 2011, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties. The Company has filed a rent increase petition with the City in order to ripen its claims, and intends to pursue further adjudication of its rights in federal court. Colony Park On December 1, 2006, a group of tenants at the Company’s Colony Park Property in Ceres, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Stanislaus County alleging that the Company had failed to properly maintain the Property and had improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company answered the complaint by denying all material allegations and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The case proceeded in Superior Court because the Company’s motion to compel arbitration was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal. Trial of the case began on July 27, 2010. After just over three months of trial in which the plaintiffs asked the jury to award a total of approximately $6.8 million in damages, the jury rendered verdicts awarding a total of less than $44,000 to six out of the 72 plaintiffs, and awarding nothing to the other 66 plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s who were awarded nothing filed a motion for a new trial or alternatively for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, which the Court denied on February 14, 2011. The Company has filed a memorandum of costs that seeks a costs award of approximately $0.2 million, and has filed a motion that seeks an attorneys’ fees award of approximately $2.1 million. Despite the jury’s verdict awarding less than $44,000 to only 6 plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of costs that seeks a costs award of approximately $56,000, and has filed a motion that seeks an attorneys’ fees award of approximately $0.8 million. The Company intends to vigorously oppose any award of costs or attorneys’ fees to any of the plaintiffs. A hearing on the parties’ respective requests for awards of costs and attorneys’ fees has been set for September 9, 2011. California Hawaiian On April 30, 2009, a group of tenants at the Company’s California Hawaiian Property in San Jose, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County alleging that the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, to dismiss the case, and to strike portions of the complaint. By order dated October 8, 2009, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. The plaintiffs filed with the Court of Appeal a petition for a writ seeking to overturn the trial court’s arbitration and stay orders. On May 10, 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the petition and ordered the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to restore the matter to its litigation calendar for further proceedings. On May 24, 2011, the Company filed a petition for rehearing requesting the Court of Appeal to reconsider its May 10, 2011 decision. On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeal denied the petition for rehearing. On June 16, 2011, the Company filed with the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The petition for review remains pending. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Hurricane Claim Litigation On June 22, 2007, the Company filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 07CH16548), against its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, regarding a coverage dispute arising from losses suffered by the Company as a result of hurricanes that occurred in Florida in 2004 and 2005. The Company also brought claims against Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Illinois (“Aon”), the Company’s former insurance broker, regarding the procurement of appropriate insurance coverage for the Company. The Company is seeking declaratory relief establishing the coverage obligations of its carriers, as well as a judgment for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair settlement practices and, as to Aon, for failure to provide ordinary care in the selling and procuring of insurance. The claims involved in this action are approximately $11 million. In response to motions to dismiss, the trial court dismissed: (1) the requests for declaratory relief as being duplicative of the claims for breach of contract and (2) certain of the breach of contract claims as being not ripe until the limits of underlying insurance policies have been exhausted. On or about January 28, 2008, the Company filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which the insurers have answered. In response to the court’s dismissal of the SAC’s claims against Aon, the Company ultimately filed, on February 2, 2009, a new Count VIII against Aon alleging a claim for breach of contract, which Aon answered. In January 2010, the parties engaged in a settlement mediation, which did not result in a settlement. In June 2010, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment against the insurance companies seeking a finding that our hurricane debris cleanup costs are within the extra expense coverage of our excess insurance policies. On December 13, 2010, the Court granted the motion. Discovery is proceeding with respect to various remaining issues, including the amounts of the debris cleanup costs the Company is entitled to collect pursuant to the Court’s order granting the Company partial summary judgment. In January 2008, the Company entered a settlement with Hartford Fire Insurance Company pursuant to which Hartford paid the Company the remaining disputed limits of Hartford’s insurance policy, in the amount of approximately $0.5 million, and the Company dismissed and released Hartford from additional claims for interest and bad faith claims handling. Since filing the lawsuit, the Company has received additional payments from Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, of approximately $3.9 million. California and Washington Wage Claim Class Actions On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA Transaction, the Company and other named defendants willfully failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and its affiliates (“PA”) who became employees of the Company all of the wages they earned during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the Company improperly “stripped” those employees of their seniority. The suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The original complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages. The complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought. The Court granted in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend the Company’s motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s original complaint and various amended complaints. Discovery is proceeding on the remaining claims in the third amended complaint. On February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On June 22, 2011, the Court determined the content of the class notice. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in the California class action. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment. On May 22, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of action not previously dismissed, which was denied. With leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on September 11, 2009. On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as a result of an unrelated accident. Plaintiff’s counsel may attempt to substitute a new named plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Other The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to the Company’s water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Company’s operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes that all proceedings herein described or referred to, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, the Company considers any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in favor of the Company.

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

California Rent Control Litigation

City of San Rafael

The Company sued the City of San Rafael in federal court, challenging its rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) on constitutional grounds. The Company believes the litigation was settled by the City’s agreement to amend the ordinance to permit adjustments to market rent upon turnover. The City subsequently rejected the settlement agreement. The Court refused to enforce the settlement agreement, and submitted to a jury the claim that it had been breached. In October 2002, a jury found no breach of the settlement agreement.

The Company’s constitutional claims against the City were tried in a bench trial during April 2007. On April 17, 2009, the Court issued its Order for Entry of Judgment in the Company’s favor (the “April 2009 Order”). On June 10, 2009, the Court ordered the City to pay the Company net fees and costs of approximately $2.1 million. On June 30, 2009, as anticipated by the April 2009 Order, the Court entered final judgment that gradually phased out the City’s site rent regulation scheme that the Court found unconstitutional. Pursuant to the final judgment, existing residents of the Company’s Property in San Rafael will be able to continue to pay site rent as if the Ordinance were to remain in effect for a period of ten years, enforcement of the Ordinance was immediately enjoined with respect to new residents of the Property, and the Ordinance will expire entirely ten years from the June 30, 2009 date of judgment.

The City and residents’ association (which intervened in the case) appealed, and the Company cross-appealed. The briefing schedule for the appeal has been set to conclude on October 24, 2011.

City of Santee

In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of Santee in California Superior Court (Case No. 777094). The effect of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two rent control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the Company and other property owners. However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that predated the two invalid ordinances (the “prior ordinance”). As a result of the judgment the Company was entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the difference in annual adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to adjust its base rents to reflect what the Company could have charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect. The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The City and the tenant association also each sued the Company in separate actions alleging that the rent adjustments pursuant to the judgment violated the prior ordinance (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE 020524), sought to rescind the rent adjustments, and sought refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and damages in these separate actions. As a result of further proceedings and a series of appeals and remands, the Company was required to and did release the additional rents to the tenant association’s counsel for disbursement to the tenants, and the Company has ceased collecting the disputed rent amounts.

The tenant association continued to seek damages, penalties and fees in their separate action based on the same claims the City made on the tenants’ behalf in the City’s case. The Company moved for judgment on the pleadings in the tenant association’s case on the ground that the tenant association’s case is moot in light of the result in the City’s case. On November 6, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The tenant association appealed. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that (i) the mootness finding was not correct when entered but could be reasserted after the amounts held in escrow have been disbursed to the residents; (ii) there is no basis for the tenant association’s punitive damage claim or its claim under the California Mobile Home Residency Law; and (iii) the trial court should consider certain of the tenant association’s other claims. On remand, the Court has entered a schedule for the remainder of the case, including a hearing date of November 18, 2011 for the parties’ anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment, and a trial call date of January 6, 2012.

In addition, the Company sued the City of Santee in federal court alleging all three of the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On October 13, 2010, the District Court: (1) dismissed the Company’s claims without prejudice on the ground that they were not ripe because the Company had not filed and received from the City a final decision on a rent increase petition, and (2) found that those claims are not foreclosed by any of the state court rulings. On November 10, 2010, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s ruling dismissing the Company’s claims. On April 20, 2011, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties. The Company has filed a rent increase petition with the City in order to ripen its claims, and intends to pursue further adjudication of its rights in federal court.

Colony Park

On December 1, 2006, a group of tenants at the Company’s Colony Park Property in Ceres, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Stanislaus County alleging that the Company had failed to properly maintain the Property and had improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company answered the complaint by denying all material allegations and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The case proceeded in Superior Court because the Company’s motion to compel arbitration was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal. Trial of the case began on July 27, 2010. After just over three months of trial in which the plaintiffs asked the jury to award a total of approximately $6.8 million in damages, the jury rendered verdicts awarding a total of less than $44,000 to six out of the 72 plaintiffs, and awarding nothing to the other 66 plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s who were awarded nothing filed a motion for a new trial or alternatively for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, which the Court denied on February 14, 2011. The Company has filed a memorandum of costs that seeks a costs award of approximately $0.2 million, and has filed a motion that seeks an attorneys’ fees award of approximately $2.1 million. Despite the jury’s verdict awarding less than $44,000 to only 6 plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of costs that seeks a costs award of approximately $56,000, and has filed a motion that seeks an attorneys’ fees award of approximately $0.8 million. The Company intends to vigorously oppose any award of costs or attorneys’ fees to any of the plaintiffs. A hearing on the parties’ respective requests for awards of costs and attorneys’ fees has been set for September 9, 2011.

California Hawaiian

On April 30, 2009, a group of tenants at the Company’s California Hawaiian Property in San Jose, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County alleging that the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. The Company moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, to dismiss the case, and to strike portions of the complaint. By order dated October 8, 2009, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. The plaintiffs filed with the Court of Appeal a petition for a writ seeking to overturn the trial court’s arbitration and stay orders. On May 10, 2011, the Court of Appeal granted the petition and ordered the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to restore the matter to its litigation calendar for further proceedings. On May 24, 2011, the Company filed a petition for rehearing requesting the Court of Appeal to reconsider its May 10, 2011 decision. On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeal denied the petition for rehearing. On June 16, 2011, the Company filed with the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The petition for review remains pending. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

Hurricane Claim Litigation

On June 22, 2007, the Company filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 07CH16548), against its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, regarding a coverage dispute arising from losses suffered by the Company as a result of hurricanes that occurred in Florida in 2004 and 2005. The Company also brought claims against Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Illinois (“Aon”), the Company’s former insurance broker, regarding the procurement of appropriate insurance coverage for the Company. The Company is seeking declaratory relief establishing the coverage obligations of its carriers, as well as a judgment for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair settlement practices and, as to Aon, for failure to provide ordinary care in the selling and procuring of insurance. The claims involved in this action are approximately $11 million.

In response to motions to dismiss, the trial court dismissed: (1) the requests for declaratory relief as being duplicative of the claims for breach of contract and (2) certain of the breach of contract claims as being not ripe until the limits of underlying insurance policies have been exhausted. On or about January 28, 2008, the Company filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which the insurers have answered. In response to the court’s dismissal of the SAC’s claims against Aon, the Company ultimately filed, on February 2, 2009, a new Count VIII against Aon alleging a claim for breach of contract, which Aon answered. In January 2010, the parties engaged in a settlement mediation, which did not result in a settlement. In June 2010, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment against the insurance companies seeking a finding that our hurricane debris cleanup costs are within the extra expense coverage of our excess insurance policies. On December 13, 2010, the Court granted the motion. Discovery is proceeding with respect to various remaining issues, including the amounts of the debris cleanup costs the Company is entitled to collect pursuant to the Court’s order granting the Company partial summary judgment.

In January 2008, the Company entered a settlement with Hartford Fire Insurance Company pursuant to which Hartford paid the Company the remaining disputed limits of Hartford’s insurance policy, in the amount of approximately $0.5 million, and the Company dismissed and released Hartford from additional claims for interest and bad faith claims handling. Since filing the lawsuit, the Company has received additional payments from Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, of approximately $3.9 million.

California and Washington Wage Claim Class Actions

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA Transaction, the Company and other named defendants willfully failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and its affiliates (“PA”) who became employees of the Company all of the wages they earned during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the Company improperly “stripped” those employees of their seniority. The suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The original complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages. The complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought. The Court granted in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend the Company’s motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s original complaint and various amended complaints. Discovery is proceeding on the remaining claims in the third amended complaint. On February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On June 22, 2011, the Court determined the content of the class notice. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in the California class action. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment. On May 22, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of action not previously dismissed, which was denied. With leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on September 11, 2009. On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as a result of an unrelated accident. Plaintiff’s counsel may attempt to substitute a new named plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Other

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to the Company’s water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Company’s operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes that all proceedings herein described or referred to, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, the Company considers any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in favor of the Company.