What’s the difference between price controls on milk and price controls on rent? Do landlords in Manhattan and trailer-park owners near San Diego have the same rights? Is rent stabilization in New York City a foolish racket or a rational policy to help tenants?

The fate of New York City’s rent laws could hinge on answers to these questions. As the Journal reported Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking a surprisingly serious look at a federal lawsuit in which a Manhattan couple is trying to overturn the regulations shielding their tenants.

James and Jeanne Harmon, the owners of an Upper West Side brownstone, are waging an underdog constitutional battle against rent rules forcing them to subsidize their tenants — including Nancy Wing Lombardi, an executive who pays about $1,000 a month for a one-bedroom unit and also owns a house in the Hamptons.

Few expected the case — swatted down by lower courts — would get to this point. In a twist that startled both critics and champions of rent controls, the Supreme Court this winter asked the city and the state to explain why the court shouldn’t hear the couple’s case.

On Monday, the Bloomberg administration and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman submitted to the high court their opposition briefs defending the merits of the state-enforced and locally adopted Rent Stabilization Law, the blanket of rent regulations covering about two million renters in the city. In separate briefs, Schneiderman and the city’s corporation counsel, Michael Cardozo, laid out similar arguments, but the attorney general’s brief also presented a more spirited defense of rent controls as a matter of policy. (See the city’s brief here.)


http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/03/06/the-legal-war-over-new-yorks-rent-regulations/?mod=WSJBlog

 

-----signature-----

This always seemed like a mess to me.


Would landlords be ok with price controls if their property taxes were based on some multiple of their yearly rent received?


If rent control went away, it's not like rents would universally skyrocket, but it would definitely be chaos in the short term and a lot of mass migration out of the city.

 

-----signature-----

An individual should mot be paying taxes on his property. The property is his not the State's. Those who disagree are supporting the notion that there is no such thing as private property and that we are all just sharecroppers to the State

Second how much and individual wishes to charge for rent is up to the individual and what the market will bear. The State has mo authority or say about what the pruce should be

What I hope with this case should the proper argument about the limitations of the State be put forth by the majority, will create a precedent that can be used to strike down the minimum wage

 

-----signature-----

I'd rather live in a camper in Texas than a brownstone New York

 

-----signature-----

and Im sure if you ever wanted to change that, New York would start shipping you checks to keep you in Texas

 

-----signature-----

it wouldn't happen at all, those who live in those buildings are subsides by other renters. they are now being charge much higher rates, once alot of units will be available, they'll get lower rates while the rent control/stabilize folks will pay higher rates.

also people with rent control apts keep it in their family even if they don't live there any more. more like cheap vacation homes.

 

-----signature-----

Why is this in federal court? Purely a state issue and I do not even see jurisdiction as it arises under state law and does not involve the U.S. const.

and BT you would just be giving the feds more power. Minimum wage was decided under the commerce clause... giving the feds the ability to legislate in a states domain. This would just set precedent of allowing federal courts to legislate state and local policy.

 

-----signature-----

Seems like the case is being argued on a 5th Amendment basis. That seems like a legitimate reason to be in federal court.

 

-----signature-----

What exactly has the government taken?

Would you rather them just tax the crap out of your property and give out housing subsidies to reach the same goal? If the people dont like the system they can go to the polls and use our democratic system for change... having appointed judges make sweeping policy for us is dangerous... even if you support the outcome.

 

-----signature-----

We like activist federal courts when they are on our side

 

-----signature-----