RENT CONTROL’S CONSTITUTIONALITY: PART 2, COMETH THE MAN
Public Interest Litigation Watch Group in New Dehli, India. Aggarwal believes that “One would endeavour to ensure that property owners of the world should unite because they have nothing to lose except their pittance-paying tenants.”
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.
Rent-Control Laws Hamper New York’s Housing Market