Supreme Court won’t hear New York City rent case

Thomas Reuters

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a New York City rent stabilization law and regulations that control rent increases and evictions for nearly 1 million apartments.

The justices turned down an appeal by a couple, James and Jeanne Harmon, who own and live in a small brownstone building in Manhattan. They claimed three tenants in their building pay government-set rents at 59 percent below market value.

The couple sued in 2008, claiming the rent stabilization law violated their constitutional rights by taking their property without just compensation. They also claimed the law violated the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Continue reading

US Supreme Court rejects rent control challenge

Crain's New York

 

High court declines to hear the case of a Manhattan couple who claimed that New York City’s rent stabilization law was forcing them to subsidize tenants in their Upper West Side brownstone.

April 23, 2012 12:45 p.m.

Published: April 23, 2012 – 12:45 pm

{Bloomberg} The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal that would have challenged New York City’s rent stabilization laws. The decision was released Monday morning.

Landlords James and Jeanne Harmon, who own a five-story, six-unit brownstone at 32 W. 76th Street claim that the city’s rent stabilization laws unconstitutionally forces them to subsidize three of their tenants who pay rents that are 59% below market. The Harmons’ case, which began in 2008, was rejected by a federal district court and a New York State Supreme Court. Mr. Harmon appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and late last year there was a sign of hope when the Court ordered the city and state to respond to the petition, something that previous courts did not require.

“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,” said Mr. Harmon, in a statement. “Because of rent stabilization, it will now continue to be difficult for us to keep our home of five generations. We will not demolish our home as the federal courts suggested that we should do if we did not like the law.”

The brownstone has been in Mr. Harmon’s family since 1949. He inherited it in 1994. According to Mr. Harmon’s petition, “New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law has forced the Harmons to lease apartments permanently to three tenants-in-possession for over 90 tenant years (and their designated successors) without regard to financial need.” Mr. Harmon, who resides in the building with his wife, claims that as a result the building’s value has been reduced substantially and his family is deprived of appropriate income. Continue reading

A Good Primer for the Economic Justification of the Harmon’s Case


REALITY CHECK

 

Want Cheaper Rent? End Rent Control

By Amanda Williams, 02/03/2012

The Supreme Court may have a chance this year to determine whether rent control is constitutional or whether it represents a “taking” without just compensation. A topic worthy of debate—but in my view, there are sound economic reasons rent control (like many government regulations), however well intentioned, is woefully misguided. To see why, let’s return briefly to Economics 101.

Anyone who took an economics class will likely have (possibly painful) flashbacks in examining Exhibit 1, which shows a generic supply and demand graph, with price and quantity on the x- and y-axes, respectively. Basic economic theory expects a supply curve to slope upward because the higher the price a good’s provider can obtain, the more he’s willing to supply. On the flip side, demand for most goods is downward sloping because, on average, consumers are less-inclined to consume higher quantities of a good the more it costs. The intersection of the two determines the price and quantity the market supports (commonly known as equilibrium).

Continue reading

Cato Institute Explains its Support of Harmon Lawsuit



Will The Supreme Court End New York’s Rent Control Laws?

by Reason TV
Posted Jan 20th 2012 


“If you wanted to destroy a city’s housing – short of bombing – the best way to do it is rent control,” says Cato legal associate Trevor Burrus.


While most cities in America long ago got rid of rent control, New York remains a bastion of government-mandated limits on what landlords can charge renters. About 50 percent of New York’s rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization, policies that keep rents artificially low and produce housing shortages, higher overall housing costs, and all sorts of corruption.




The court case Harmon v. Kimmel may finally bring an end to rent control laws that have been on the books in one form or another since the 1940s. James D. Harmon owns a building in Manhattan where the tenants are paying rents that are about 60 percent below the going market rate. After losing various legal battles at lower levels, Harmon has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his argument that rent stabilization is a form of takings that should be prohibited under the Constitution. The Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case but has asked the state and city of New York to respond to Harmon’s argument.

Cato’s Burrus wrote a friend of the court brief on the case and explains why rent control and rent stabilization are bad at promoting affordable housing and abridgments of economic freedom.
Shot and edited by Joshua Swain.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.



Source: Big Government / reason.tv