THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Feature
Supreme Court May Hear Case on Rent Control in NYC by Rebecca E. Neely
In recent days, both the Bloomberg administration and Schneiderman submitted opposition briefs to the high court outlining their support of the city’s Rent Stabilization Law, which covers an estimated two million renters.
In a nutshell, why rent control? Per the recent
property available for rental cannot then claim that the
WSJ blog, “Legal War Over NYC Rent Regulations”,
presence of tenants constitutes an uninvited permanent
Schneiderman put it as follows:
physical invasion.”
“New York City faces a notorious shortage of affordable
The Harmons fired back, saying mobile homeowners
rental housing and a volatile housing market for
in San Diego and landlords in NYC have absolutely
many reasons — including a highly desirable location,
nothing in common. That case spoke explicitly to the
exceptional population density, high construction costs,
“unusual economic relationship between [mobile home]
and limited space due to natural geographic boundaries
park owners and mobile home owners” and the “unique
By regulating evictions and the pace of rent increases,
protection from…eviction” given mobile home owners,
the RSL protects tenants, particularly the elderly and
per the blog.
disabled, from dislocation, and limits the disruption to neighborhoods and communities that would result from
The Harmons are also hanging their hats on due
dramatic changes in rental rates and rapid turnover of
process – the legal requirement that the state must
tenants year to year.”
respect all of the legal rights owed to a person. They put forth the argument that the rent control laws were
The Harmons’ position against rent control focuses on a
established ninety years ago, and that was in response
number of factors, including the Fifth Amendment, due
to a catastrophic emergency, and as such, it can be
process, and economics.
temporary, not permanent. Not so, says Schneiderman. That precedent was tossed
First of all, the Harmons own, and rent, a brownstone
out twelve years later in the case of Nebbia v. New
on the Upper West Side of the city. The city’s rent
York. The outcome? The government was permitted
control laws, in essence, force them to charge less
to regulate the price of milk if it could reasonably
than the going market rate, and continually renew their
demonstrate a public benefit.
tenants’ leases. The Harmons say this is in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states the government
But, the Harmons ask, where is the public good in rent
is not allowed to take private property for public use
control? Their tenants in essence, receive nearly a 60%
without just compensation. But, the city and state
discount, and get lifetime tenure. Their parting shot?
disagree, citing the case of Yee v. City of Escondido. Per
They say the city’s rent control laws are a “racket in
Schneiderman’s brief:
which property owners and market rate tenants always lose.”
“In Yee, this Court recognized a simple proposition that forecloses petitioners’ claim: owners who make their
PAGE
Quite frankly, the Harmons’ arguments are stacking
www.lawcrossing.com
continued on back