U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Confines of the 101 Precinct
19,561 posts, read 34,647,015 times
Reputation: 8389

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2 View Post
Many had thought they would take it and rule against the rent stabilization laws because it beautifully demonstrates the abuses in the system.
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear UWS $1,000/Month Rent-Stabilization Case: Gothamist

"An Upper West Side townhouse-owning couple's attempt to get the Supreme Court to revoke NYC's rent stabilization laws has failed, with the country's highest court declining to hear the case. Which means that James and Jeanne Harmon must keept their rent-stabilized tenant, who pays $1,000/month for a one-bedroom on West 76th Street, even though she's paying another $1,500/month for her Southampton home."

Clearly,the tenant in this situation has another home that she owns outside of NYC and shouldn't benefit by the rent stabilization laws.

Michael Jackson - Human Nature - YouTube
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html

 
Old 04-23-2012, 10:42 PM
 
31 posts, read 58,255 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
What was the putative constitutional question? What made this a fit case for the SCOTUS?
As I recall, the case was argued under the "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment - Gov't shall not take property without just compensation.

The argument went:

Under ordinary contract law, once a contract or lease expires, either party can walk away from lease. Both sides have to agree for a new contract to be formed.

Under RSL, renewing the lease is made unilaterally by tenant. RSL requires LL to offer renewal lease at below market rates as long as tenant wants to live there.

RSL is therefore forcing LL into a contractual relationship with tenant and "taking" LL's property without just compensation.

Now just imagine if rent stabilization/rent control applied to all things in life - hey you sold me that BMW in 1972 for $3000 so everytime I want a new one I get to walk into the nearest BMW dealership and buy a new one for $3000 for the rest of my life.

Thank God Communism did not spread any further than rent control.
 
Old 04-24-2012, 03:43 AM
 
38 posts, read 51,704 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
What was the putative constitutional question? What made this a fit case for the SCOTUS?
My assumption is that it was brought under takings doctrine. The principle is that the govt cannot take private property for public purposes without just compensation. Obviously if the govt eminent domains your house, it pays. This case would be regulatory taking - the principle is that the govt enacts some law (environmental, rent control etc) which has the effect of taking away enough of the value of your property that is is the equivalent of them eminent domaining at least of it. And they need to pay.

It wouldn't supposedly get rid of rent control, it would just force the govt to compensate landlords for rent control.

The problem with this as a test case is that you can only claim a takings if you have the land AND THEN THE GOVT TAKES. If you KNOW about regulation and you buy, then economic market theory dictates that the cost of the regulation was already priced into the building cost. In other words, the lower tenant yield was priced into the building and because the Harmons bought in 2001, they have no case. Because the govt hasn't actually taken anything from them. Removing rent control would result in a windfall for them.

Also, lots of things "take" in this way. Health and safety "takes" because it costs money to have upkeep. Rules against illegal basements "take". Clean Air and Water Act take etc etc. they don't fall foul of takings doctrine.
 
Old 04-24-2012, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
21,452 posts, read 28,329,018 times
Reputation: 9739
All zoning regulations are in effect, takings, of the sort that would encompass rent stabilization and rent control.

Can we presume that that the case got to SCOTUS after the decision in favor of the tenant was decided by a Court of Appeals?

I imagine local rent control regulations have been upheld hundreds of times in the past and this is settled law and the only reason it was presented to SCOTUS yet again is the thought that since this is the most right wing court since the Depression, perhaps since 1789, that they would find in favor of landlords.


Of course, mathjack is correct in stating that the law does not prohibit ownership or rental of another piece of property. It only requires that only ONE can be rent stabilized and that one must be the person's primary residence.
(Faye Dunaway gets to keep her stabilized apartment in my neighboorhood in spite of owning a home in California. YAY, FAYE)
 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:13 AM
 
213 posts, read 603,486 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the stabilized apartment only has to be your PRIMARY residence. what you choose to buy with your money isnt a factor . Some choose to buy very expensive cars, others a bunch of expensive vacations, we have friends who collect fine art that easily cost more than our PA vacation home. in our case rather than go away on vacation and stay in a hotel we chose to own a place to go to.

we close it after thanksgiving and opened it last weekend and go every other weekend.

that has no bearing on our primary residence and shouldnt.
Yes it is. Rent control and rent stabilization are meant for the "true" working class, the underbelly of society. If you can afford a vacation home, you don't belong in that class. Lol. How you can argue differently other than your current situation is mind-boggling. It should be clear to anyone with a pulse. The people on these programs should not be able to afford cottages or vacation homes, especially purchases. What a joke.
 
Old 04-24-2012, 07:01 AM
 
71,457 posts, read 71,629,249 times
Reputation: 49011
Bull , under 250k in income its not income related at all.. its only based on the length of time someone lives in an apartment. 250K INCOME LIMITS IS NOT FOR THE TRUE WORKING CLASS. not sure where you came up with that idea.

so if you live in an apartment for 30 years you have to move because the politicians played a mind game and held rent artificially low to win votes for a bunch of years? thats rediculous thinking...

i own rent stabilized apartments that pay way under market and even i cant agree with your logic. my tenants earn more than i do.

so its okay to buy cars,trips and anything else you like while living in a stabilized rental but you cant by a property thats not even a place you live in full time....

just absurd logic.

Last edited by mathjak107; 04-24-2012 at 07:24 AM..
 
Old 04-25-2012, 04:25 AM
 
197 posts, read 413,756 times
Reputation: 164
I wish the government would apply this logic to gas/oil prices
 
Old 04-25-2012, 04:42 AM
 
Location: The Milky Way Galaxy
2,256 posts, read 6,078,024 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaggerLee22 View Post
Score one for the common folk!

Here's a thread my wife started years ago.
Getting My Landlord to Buy Me Out

That's for all those anti-rent control haters out there.
Enjoy.
Common folk don't have two places both in nice areas.

Nice try.
 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:24 AM
 
71,457 posts, read 71,629,249 times
Reputation: 49011
really? ,...... ha ha ha what logic

why would you even assume some one isnt successful or inheirited any money just because they happen to live in an older building a long time??????????

that is not fact at all.. our building is filled with successful people. they may not earn over 250k a year every year but some of them have loads of money in the bank...

why does everyone equate the stabilization system with someones net worth. it has nothing to do with it at all..

it would be great if it did at least it would make some sense, but the fact is it does not have anything to do with net worth...

where you people dream this stuff up escapes us all.
 
Old 04-25-2012, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
15,581 posts, read 24,988,219 times
Reputation: 20829
Not for nothing, but it seems these people inherited this building, and they have a nerve to complain because out of the 6 apartments 3 are RS or RC, whichever????

they really have a sense of entitlement don't ya think????

and the tenants that are living there RS or RC, well, they have been living there for decades, now these people want the laws to be aboilished for their convenience....glad the judge threw it out.


they seem like 2 selfish prickz.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top