Updated: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 9:45 AM EDT Published : Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 9:45 AM EDT
Brenda Flanagan, Staff Reporter, MY9TV.COM
MY9TV.COM – The fight over rent-stabilized apartments in New York City has gone all the way to the nation’s highest court.
Tenents who have spent most of their lives in these apartments say they can not afford to move out.
While landlords say they feel victimized.
Brenda Flanagan has more on the fight that seems to have no end.
Thomas Lake likes living with his grandmother in a rent-stabilized apartment on the Upper West Side. The river view from some apartments in his building takes your breath away. He tells us, “This is a really nice place. I grew up here. I was born here. So I plan to stay.” Continue reading →
Photo by Christina Santucci. Rent stabilized apartments, including ones in this Bayside building on 43rd Avenue, will be guided by the same regulations that they have for the past 40 years, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether New York’s rent control laws are constitutional, leaving the regulations intact in Queens and the rest of the city.
The high court had no comment and offered no information on details of the vote by court justices. Four of the justices were raised in New York City.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to consider the case means the rent control regulations will continue as they have for more than 40 years.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision. Continue reading →
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 →
It’s the best rent deal in New York City: a SoHo one-bedroom that goes for the price of a porterhouse steak.
Thomas Lombardi, whose family moved to Manhattan from Italy in the 1940s, pays $55.01 a month for a one-bedroom at 5Spring St. — the same unit where he grew up and which he now shares with his much younger wife.
His monthly rent — which amounts to the price of a cup of coffee a day — has not increased a penny in at least two decades, according to state records.
“That’s the lowest rent I’ve ever heard of,” said Frank Ricci, director of government affairs at the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 property owners.
Upper West Side landlord James Harmon is tired of his rent stabilized tenants paying well below market rate for the apartments in the five-story West 76th Street brownstone he inherited, so he’s turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to relieve him—and the rest of the state—of rent regulations. Harmon filed a lawsuit against the chair of the Rent Guidelines Board, Jonathan Kimmel, and the commissioner of New York State Homes and Community Renewal, Darryl Towns, alleging that the rent regulations violate his Fifth Amendment right to receive compensation from the state for what he says is the taking of his property. When the court ruled that there was no taking of property, Harmon appealed on the basis of the 14th Amendment, claiming that he had been denied the right to due process. That’s what caught the attention of a law firm in California, Pacific Legal Foundation, which has jumped in in support of Harmon’s case to ask the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
R.S. Radford, the attorney who filed the amicus brief on behalf of the firm, as well as the conservative policy think tank the Cato Institute and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, said that Pacific Legal takes on cases that affect the public interest.