Supreme Court won't hear New York City rent case
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The 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.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a six-page ruling by summary order, agreed and rejected the various arguments by the Harmons on the grounds they were without merit.
Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-newyork-rentbre83m0v6-20120423,0,5219888.story
Mr.Turnip
(645 posts)There is no way I could continue to live in Manhattan if my apartment was not rent stabilized, really no way at all unless I roomed with 2 or 3 friends (which people in New York are doing until they are well in their 30s now). The real estate market here is just too inflated and the inflation is out of control, we need more rent laws here in The City not less.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That sounds like a more sarcastic question than it is; I'm not against the idea of rent control but it seems like an awfully heavy-handed way to do things.
Mr.Turnip
(645 posts)In some areas of New York a heavy handed solution might be only solution.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)in Manhattan. We have one we keep for our company and it's rent in midtown is $4500. If there was no rent control, only the very rich could live here unless you want a few roommates.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A friend of mine pays more than that in Sunnyside, let alone Manhattan.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)simply by building enough units to get the vacancy rate above 5 percent. The law, which dates to WWII, is in effect as long as the vacancy rate is below 5 percent -- which has been the case since then in all five boroughs and Westchester. The only place where this strategy probably wouldn't work is Manhattan.
spooky3
(34,455 posts)that they would not be able to charge market rents. They couldn't have not known that - even those of us who have never lived in NY know at least generally about the rent controls and stabilization.
hack89
(39,171 posts)is it fair to the owners if taxes steadily go up at a greater rate than rents?
spooky3
(34,455 posts)if you bought an investment property for $500K that would have been worth $700K if you could charge higher rents of a certain %-age, and its fair market value (i.e., what you could get if you tried to sell it) today is $600K but it would have been worth $800K if you could charge higher rents, then you are taxed on $600K (probably less, in most jurisdictions). If the county tries to assess your value at $800K, which is highly unlikely, since they are generally charged with tracking market increases/decreases for large communities over time, all you have to do is show them recent sales of comparable properties at ~$600K and a fair county will make the adjustment. If they don't, you usually have an appeal avenue.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Everyone knows that you just give the super a little extra if you want a place and tip him monthly.