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.
"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.
Generally I support the spirit of the rent stabilization laws so I'm not arguing that the whole system should be scrapped.It's slowly fading into history on it's own anyway.
I do feel however that this case is a good example of how many (if not most)of our well intentioned but antiquated systems in NYC have become corrupted almost to the point of irredeemability.
Not even sure if the tenant here is benefiting illegally unless she is hiding income but I'm sure the rent stabilization laws were never intended to protect someone with the resources to buy a house in Southampton.I think the $200,00 income limit is too high.
I think it would have been a good thing if they had taken the case and at least ruled that one could not own a home outside of NYC and also simultaneously claim that a stabilized rental apartment is their primary residence but I guess they decided that was too tricky.
What was the putative constitutional question? What made this a fit case for the SCOTUS?
Not sure how it was framed but according to the owner:
"The issue is whether the Constitution allows the government to force someone to take strangers into their home and to subsidize them for the rest of their lives..."
Obviously SCOTUS decided that it wasn't a fit case ,although many thought they would and anti stabilization people were convinced there was a good chance this case would upend the laws.
As an aside,I wonder if their decision gives any indication of how they might lean in the other case where it is being questioned whether the government has these kinds of rights ?
Not sure how it was framed but according to the owner:
"The issue is whether the Constitution allows the government to force someone to take strangers into their home and to subsidize them for the rest of their lives..."
Obviously SCOTUS decided that it wasn't a fit case ,although many thought they would and anti stabilization people were convinced there was a good chance this case would upend the laws.
As an aside,I wonder if their decision gives any indication of how they might lean in the other case where it is being questioned whether the government has these kinds of rights ?
If it's a private residence I can sorta see where that theory applies, but if it's an apartment building we're not talking about a home so much as we're talking about a business. Even so, that may not necessarily be an appropriate situation for government regulation.
That's for all those anti-rent control haters out there.
Enjoy.
I agree but I don't consider the tenant here one of the "common folk". She probably makes either just under the $200,000 limit or is possibly lying and has an even higher income .
So out of all the rent stabilized apartments in NYC, not rent controlled but rather rent stabilized, what is the percentage of people on it that are abusing the system like this? I am guessing a surprisingly low percentage because with any program there is always going to be a handful of people that try and cheat the system, but that doesn't mean the system is broken.
Also, this woman who rents in Manhattan and in South Hamptons, it sounds like that is a rent controlled apartment, which I can understand phasing those out over time, but I see nothing wrong with wanting to make sure a city has a sustainable amount of rent stabilized apartments to prevent people from being priced out of the city.
Obviously the Supreme Court agrees and didn't see the need to waste any time on this issue that can simply be dealt with at a city political level.
"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.
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.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-23-2012 at 05:02 PM..
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.
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.
