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.
You would think at some point the Supreme Court would have to strike down the entire unconstitutional rent control system
Few have tried, all have failed.
New York's RC/RS laws have been a hauled into courts including the SCOTUS more than a few times since they were enacted; usually on violation of the takings clause of the USC; each time plaintiffs have lost. Usually because the courts have found that the laws do not deprive a LL of fair use and compensation for his property. That and if there were hardships the statue does have methods for addressing.
However this current legal action is something different entirely.
As noted in the link posted and elsewhere (including the LL's legal action) New York's rent control laws were never meant to address affordability, but to control price gouging and other abuses of a (then) scarce resource, rental housing. This is why for instance there is not a formal income guideline to rent a RS or RC apartment, and why Democrats have resisted any sort of income verification for current RS tenants.
Under Cuomo and de Boob and the City Council RS has been greatly expanded to become part of "affordable housing". That is rents are to be kept "reasonable" to preserve what some see as preserving low to middle income rental housing. Again the problem is the statues creating RS do not (IIRC) ever speak to affordability, hence the legal action filed today.
The City got away with a rent freeze last year and should have known they were pushing far by going for it again twice in a row.
It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the courts. There is only a three months (October 1st) before the renewal leases affected by this action take affect. Thus the court hearing this case off the bat has some decisions to make; it can either order a stay on the freeze or allow it to go forward but if the ruling goes against the plaintiffs find a way to "un-ring that bell" for a start. Of course the court could just refuse to hear the case but the LLs are likely to appeal.
well if they can demonstrate that the board made the proper calculation but chose to ignore the result in order to further a political motive, then I don't see how the board can get away with the freeze and this might set a precedent that they wish hadn't been set
New York's RC/RS laws have been a hauled into courts including the SCOTUS more than a few times since they were enacted; usually on violation of the takings clause of the USC; each time plaintiffs have lost. Usually because the courts have found that the laws do not deprive a LL of fair use and compensation for his property. That and if there were hardships the statue does have methods for addressing.
However this current legal action is something different entirely.
As noted in the link posted and elsewhere (including the LL's legal action) New York's rent control laws were never meant to address affordability, but to control price gouging and other abuses of a (then) scarce resource, rental housing. This is why for instance there is not a formal income guideline to rent a RS or RC apartment, and why Democrats have resisted any sort of income verification for current RS tenants.
Under Cuomo and de Boob and the City Council RS has been greatly expanded to become part of "affordable housing". That is rents are to be kept "reasonable" to preserve what some see as preserving low to middle income rental housing. Again the problem is the statues creating RS do not (IIRC) ever speak to affordability, hence the legal action filed today.
The City got away with a rent freeze last year and should have known they were pushing far by going for it again twice in a row.
It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the courts. There is only a three months (October 1st) before the renewal leases affected by this action take affect. Thus the court hearing this case off the bat has some decisions to make; it can either order a stay on the freeze or allow it to go forward but if the ruling goes against the plaintiffs find a way to "un-ring that bell" for a start. Of course the court could just refuse to hear the case but the LLs are likely to appeal.
There's more of a case to it than the New York cases suggest - in the late 90s, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Boston's rent control laws unconstitutional under the state constitution. A federal court could make a similar finding under federal law, which is basically the same as Massachusetts law on this point. I don't necessarily think they will (they don't want to get involved), but it's hardly impossible.
It's been run through the federal courts before, both directly and indirectly. The federal courts have backed the power of state and local governments to control prices of real.estate.
It's been run through the federal courts before, both directly and indirectly. The federal courts have backed the power of state and local governments to control prices of real.estate.
Under specific conditions...
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.
