The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a major property-rights challenge to rent control laws in New York City and elsewhere that give tenants a right to stay for many years in an apartment with a below-market cost.
A group of New York landlords had sued, contending the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use.
The justices had considered the appeal since late September. Only Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent.
… violated the Constitution’s ban on taking of private property for public use.
Do they think that regulating the usage of private property is the same as having it taken away? Was their argument really “As long as it’s on my property, I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want. Anything else is a violation of my rights!”
Property can be “taken” by the government, this sometimes happens when zoning laws change. For example, if the zoning of the property was changed from residential to agricultural. Then the owner could argue that the value of the property was “taken” by by the government and they would likely win the case. Regardless of if the owner was a landlord or the owner of a vacant lot.
To be clear, I’m not commenting on the original issue, but intend to only provide information about the laws related to this issue.
The argument is that there exists some level of regulation by the government at which point you can claim that you functionally do not have ownership of the thing in question.
That bar is definitely very high - consider landmark laws where you can be legally forced to maintain certain aesthetics or can be prevented from knocking down a money pit that you also functionally can’t sell - hence this case failing, but it’s not an absolutely absurd argument in general principle.
Unpopular opinion of the day : I think the justice needed to hear this case.
Given how rapacious landlords have been for all of history, I’d be curious to hear your reasoning.
To shoot it down and form precedent.
form precedent
That’s a big ask from the same scotus that shot down a 50 year precedent.
To get an answer as to whether or not the actions of the city are constitutional.
Not every case has enough legal merit for the Supreme Court. Given that they declined the case, the obvious signal is that it’s allowed.
This is good. Rent control is a local issue and I don’t see a need to involve the federal government.
The supreme court only takes a few cases every year. When they turn a case down that is meaningless - they can take it again in the future or not. When they take one that is a signal, but they might not take this one only because they think they have enough else to do [and so won’t have time to do it justice].
Yeah I disagree with the idea that it is allowed just because they didn’t take the case. They are just saying this particular case doesn’t meet the standards they need. One doesn’t equal the other
Tenants are no better, and so there needs to be a balance. We need both landlord and tenant rights. They are in conflict, but the world needs both (remember that public housing just makes government the landlord)
Tenets breaking rules and being shitty mean that landlords lose on their investments (which inherently carry risk).
Landlords breaking rules and being shitty means that people go homeless, live in awful conditions, or cannot afford basic necessities.
Sure, both sides have the capacity to be bad, but trying to “both sides” basic shelter is fucking wild.
Tenants breaking rules drives up the cost of rent for the good ones. When a landlord expects to have expensive maintenance (patching holes…) that gets priced into the cost of rent. If supply and demand doesn’t allow getting that much rent then they will sell and then no more landlords at all. Renting a house is the best option for some people, so we need landlords. Therefore we need them to make a small profit.
For whom is renting the best option?
Anyone who isn’t going to live there for very long - there are a lot of costs to selling a house, while renters can just move out at the end of their lease. Some of this is risk management - house values sometimes go down, eventually they tend to go up (hopefully tracking inflation long term - often more but I agree with those who say this is not sustainable). The real gains of owning a house don’t come until you have been there for a few years: your payment stays the same while inflation means you get more income (eventually many pay it off) ; and you can reconfigure it to fit your personal needs. A good rule of thumb is if you won’t live there for 7 years you should rent.
If you are good with tools you can save a lot of money doing your own labor - fixing your house can be a good hobby for some. However if that doesn’t describe you then renters mean someone else deals with all the contractors to repair things which can be nice.
In the end everyone has a different situation so there is no common rule. You need to figure out what is right for your situation (some of which is only a guess!) and trust that others figured right for theirs despite coming up with different answers.
they will sell and then no more landlords at all.
Do you think there’s only one landlord in NYC? If one sells, who is buying? Another owner!
Also, since this is about NYC, obviously co-ops and condos need to enter the conversation. What’s a co-op, you ask? That’s where the tenants own the building and run it, with possible restrictions on income and some tax benefits. They can rent out apartments if they want.
The “worst case scenario” here is the owners selling to the current tenants, which just might mean they lose money. Property owners are not entitled to a “small profit” as you put it. If they want risk-free income, they can buy a Treasury Bond.
Landlords are wealth leeches.
Balance is always good but the balance is way farther towards tenants than where we are now.
No you definitely don’t want the SCOTUS touching this until after Thomas and Alito die.
Bypass the paywall: https://archive.ph/a9Uu8
