The Supreme Court is “taking a surprisingly serious look” at New York’s rent regulation laws, according to a story in the Journal outlining the legal precedents that a Manhattan couple are using to challenge the regulations and how the city and New York AG are defending stabilization. The back story: “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.” The Harmons say rent stabilization violates the “Fifth Amendment, which says the government can’t take private property for public use without just compensation.” The city and state argue that stabilization doesn’t actually constitute taking based on an earlier ruling that found that if you’ve already allowed tenants, “taking” isn’t involved. The Harmons are also making a due process claim: “arguing that the high court established 90 years ago that rent controls can’t be permanent but only a temporary response to a ‘catastrophic’ emergency. That, they say, was the upshot of a 1922 ruling, the last time the high court looked at the constitutionality of New York City’s rent controls.” And, finally, the couple is arguing that rent regulations are a “racket in which property owners and market rate tenants always lose,” but the state is countering that this sort of argument about policy aren’t relevant to the legality of the regulations.
The Legal War Over NYC’s Rent Regulations [WSJ]
Photo by shinsawbu


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Because it seems that you can’t spell or type, classiejoe.

    Here are your posts quickly corrected for spelling, grammar and punctuation:

    – – – – – – – – –
    I think if the city cares so much about the rent laws and still wants us landlords to pay high real estate taxes, the city should pay the difference on the rent stabilization apartments. For example, a 2-bedroom in Carroll Gardens goes for $2400/month. If you have a tenant paying only $400, the city should give the landlord the other $2000 and everyone is happy.
    – – – – – – – – –
    The city should house all of the rent control tenants and see how it likes collecting $250/month from a 2-bedroom apartment. This city is sick. They need to change the laws soon.
    – – – – – – – – –
    The city pays part of all Section 8 — why can’t it pay the difference on rent controlled and/or rent stabilized apartments? That way the landlord could pay their bills. It’s funny: the rent control tenant has a partner.
    – – – – – – – – –
    We landlords are losing out. Owning a building is a business and we live off it. Why is the city hurting us? Just build affordable housing for these people, put them all there and let the city deal with them.
    – – – – – – – – –
    Why? Because I am right?

1 2 3 19