High Court Denies Certiorari in Rent Stabilization Case

By Brendan Pierson Contact All Articles

New York Law Journal

April 24, 2012

 

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on April 23 that it will not hear a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New York City’s rent-stabilization law.

The case, Harmon v. Kimmel, 11-496, was filed against the city in 2008 by James Harmon and his wife, Jeanne. The couple owns an Upper West Side brownstone with six apartments, of which three are rent stabilized. The Harmons argued that the 1969 rent-stabilization law, intended to respond to a housing shortage, was an unconstitutional taking of their property.

Southern District Judge Barbara Jones (See Profile) dismissed the case in February 2010, and Judges Amalya Kearse (See Profile), Robert Sack (See Profile) and Robert Katzmann (See Profile) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in March 2011. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal marks the end of the case.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will allow the existing court rulings dismissing this case to stand,” Alan Krams, senior counsel in the Appeals Division of the Corporation Counsel’s office, said in a press release. “Rent regulation in New York City has a long history, and the Court properly left it to elected state and city officials to decide its future.”

James Harmon said in an e-mail that the Harmon family was disappointed in the court’s denial of cert. “We still believe that the Constitution does not allow the government to force us to take strangers into our home at our expense for life. Even our grandchildren have been barred from living with us. That is not our America.”

“We are deeply disappointed that the United States Supreme Court did not accept what we believe to be relevant and legitimate property rights concerns of all New York City rent-regulated property owners, who have endured 70 years of rent regulation in one form or another,” Joseph Strasburg, president of the Rent Stabilization Association, which filed an amicus brief on the Harmons’ side, said in a press release.

 

Source: New York Law Journal.

NYC Rent Control: US Supreme Court Won’t Hear Harmon V. Kimmel

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal that seeks to end rent stabilization laws in New York City.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from James and Jeanne Harmon, who have lost earlier court attempts to get rent stabilization laws thrown out.

The Harmons' building in the Upper West Side.

The Harmons inherited a building with three rent-controlled apartments near Central Park on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. The Harmons say rent stabilization laws forces them to rent the apartments at rents 59 percent below market rate. They argue that by giving the tenants lifetime tenure with succession rights, the government has illegally taken their property.

A federal judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City threw out their lawsuit. The high court refused to review that decision.

 

Source: The Huffington Post.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to New York Rent Control Regulations

 

Posted Apr 23, 2012 9:12 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to New York’s rent control regulations.

A plaintiff in the Fifth Amendment case was James Harmon, a former prosecutor who runs a corporate investigations firm. The high court denied cert today, SCOTUSblog reports.

Harmon inherited his New York brownstone in the 1990s. One of his tenants who pays $1,000 in monthly rent also owns a home near the shore in Southampton.

 

Source: ABA Journal.

The Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Challenge to NYC’s Rent-Control Law

 

Posted by Trevor Burrus

Today, the Supreme Court declined to review Harmon v. Kimmel, a case challenging New York City’s rent control law. For a case that merely had the possibility of getting to the high court,Harmon has received a surprising amount of attention. A lot of this attention is due to the persistence of Mr. Harmon, who has admirably been fighting this important battle on behalf of thousands of similarly situated landlords who are forced to subsidize cheap rents, often for tenants who can easily afford to pay the market price. According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the Harmons’ rent-controlled tenants even “owns a second home near the shore in Southampton, where she spends weekends gardening and playing tennis.”

As I said in January in a Reason.tv video, rent control is something that nearly every economist can agree on: it lowers the amount of housing, it lowers the quality of housing, it raises the total costs of finding and securing housing, and it doesn’t even guarantee that those who need cheaper housing will get it. Nevertheless, it seems as if rent control will remain as much a part ofNew York City’s culture as Broadway theatre and pizza.

In addition to the ill-effects of rent control on a housing market, perhaps the most pernicious aspect is that it allows lawmakers to force the costs of subsidizing others onto private individuals. New York Citycould certainly create a program in which tax dollars are used to directly subsidize the rents of those in need by giving money either to the tenant or to the landlord. The city could also provide more state-built, low-income housing. Either program could achieve the goals of rent control without many of the accompanying negative effects (although, of course, both programs would have many horrible problems of their own).

Such taxpayer-funded programs, however, would not serve the immediate goals of many city politicians: to provide benefits seemingly without cost. In a way, rent-control laws are a lot like the individual mandate of Obamacare currently under challenge in the Supreme Court. Both allow lawmakers to use regulatory requirements in lieu of raising taxes to pay for a program (I discussed how this works in Obamacare here). Rent-control laws permit lawmakers to avoid the political accountability of taxpayer-funded, on-budget subsidization by forcing individual property owners to subsidize tenants in the name of the “public good.” Whatever the merits of such a proposal, innocent landlords such as the Harmons should not be forced to become pawns in lawmakers’ attempts to avoid losing the next election.

It is unfortunate that the Court will not hear the case, but I applaud Mr. Harmon for bringing much-needed attention to an important issue.

CHIP Files Amicus Brief in Support of the Harmons

 

No. 11- 496
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
JAMES D. HARMON, JR. and JEANNE HARMON,
Petitioners,
v.
JONATHAN L. KIMMEL, in his offi cial capacity
as MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK
CITY RENT GUIDELINES BOARD, CITY OF NEW

Harmon v. Kimmel – Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus Brief

 

No. 11-496
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
Ë
JAMES D. HARMON, JR., and JEANNE HARMON,
Petitioners,
v.
JONATHAN L. KIMMEL, in his official capacity
as Member and Chair of the New York City Rent
Guidelines Board, City of New York; DARRYL C.
TOWNS, in his official capacity as Commissioner,
New York State Homes and Community Renewal,
Respondents.
Ë
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
Ë
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION,
CATO INSTITUTE, AND SMALL PROPERTY
OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO INSTITUTE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS JAMES D.
HARMON, JR., and JEANNE HARMON

Atlantic Legal Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Support of Harmon Rent Control Challenge

 

No. 11-496
_______________________________________________
IN  TH E
Supreme Court of the United States
JAMES D. HARMON, JR. and JEANNE HARMON,
Petitioners,
v.
JONATHAN L. KIMMEL, in his official capacity as
MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK CITY
RENT GUIDELINES BOARD, et al.,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT