184
Supreme Court turns down rent control challenge (www.latimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a major property-rights challenge to rent control laws in New York City and elsewhere that give tenants a right to stay for many years in an apartment with a below-market cost.

A group of New York landlords had sued, contending the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use.

The justices had considered the appeal since late September. Only Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

... violated the Constitution’s ban on taking of private property for public use.

Do they think that regulating the usage of private property is the same as having it taken away? Was their argument really "As long as it's on my property, I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want. Anything else is a violation of my rights!"

[-] Brokkr@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Property can be "taken" by the government, this sometimes happens when zoning laws change. For example, if the zoning of the property was changed from residential to agricultural. Then the owner could argue that the value of the property was "taken" by by the government and they would likely win the case. Regardless of if the owner was a landlord or the owner of a vacant lot.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on the original issue, but intend to only provide information about the laws related to this issue.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

The argument is that there exists some level of regulation by the government at which point you can claim that you functionally do not have ownership of the thing in question.

That bar is definitely very high - consider landmark laws where you can be legally forced to maintain certain aesthetics or can be prevented from knocking down a money pit that you also functionally can't sell - hence this case failing, but it's not an absolutely absurd argument in general principle.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Unpopular opinion of the day : I think the justice needed to hear this case.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago

Given how rapacious landlords have been for all of history, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago

To shoot it down and form precedent.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

form precedent

That's a big ask from the same scotus that shot down a 50 year precedent.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

To get an answer as to whether or not the actions of the city are constitutional.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not every case has enough legal merit for the Supreme Court. Given that they declined the case, the obvious signal is that it’s allowed.

This is good. Rent control is a local issue and I don’t see a need to involve the federal government.

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

The supreme court only takes a few cases every year. When they turn a case down that is meaningless - they can take it again in the future or not. When they take one that is a signal, but they might not take this one only because they think they have enough else to do [and so won't have time to do it justice].

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I disagree with the idea that it is allowed just because they didn't take the case. They are just saying this particular case doesn't meet the standards they need. One doesn't equal the other

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Tenants are no better, and so there needs to be a balance. We need both landlord and tenant rights. They are in conflict, but the world needs both (remember that public housing just makes government the landlord)

[-] MeepsTheBard 31 points 1 year ago

Tenets breaking rules and being shitty mean that landlords lose on their investments (which inherently carry risk).

Landlords breaking rules and being shitty means that people go homeless, live in awful conditions, or cannot afford basic necessities.

Sure, both sides have the capacity to be bad, but trying to "both sides" basic shelter is fucking wild.

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Tenants breaking rules drives up the cost of rent for the good ones. When a landlord expects to have expensive maintenance (patching holes...) that gets priced into the cost of rent. If supply and demand doesn't allow getting that much rent then they will sell and then no more landlords at all. Renting a house is the best option for some people, so we need landlords. Therefore we need them to make a small profit.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

they will sell and then no more landlords at all.

Do you think there's only one landlord in NYC? If one sells, who is buying? Another owner!

Also, since this is about NYC, obviously co-ops and condos need to enter the conversation. What's a co-op, you ask? That's where the tenants own the building and run it, with possible restrictions on income and some tax benefits. They can rent out apartments if they want.

The "worst case scenario" here is the owners selling to the current tenants, which just might mean they lose money. Property owners are not entitled to a "small profit" as you put it. If they want risk-free income, they can buy a Treasury Bond.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

For whom is renting the best option?

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Anyone who isn't going to live there for very long - there are a lot of costs to selling a house, while renters can just move out at the end of their lease. Some of this is risk management - house values sometimes go down, eventually they tend to go up (hopefully tracking inflation long term - often more but I agree with those who say this is not sustainable). The real gains of owning a house don't come until you have been there for a few years: your payment stays the same while inflation means you get more income (eventually many pay it off) ; and you can reconfigure it to fit your personal needs. A good rule of thumb is if you won't live there for 7 years you should rent.

If you are good with tools you can save a lot of money doing your own labor - fixing your house can be a good hobby for some. However if that doesn't describe you then renters mean someone else deals with all the contractors to repair things which can be nice.

In the end everyone has a different situation so there is no common rule. You need to figure out what is right for your situation (some of which is only a guess!) and trust that others figured right for theirs despite coming up with different answers.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Landlords are wealth leeches.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

Balance is always good but the balance is way farther towards tenants than where we are now.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No you definitely don’t want the SCOTUS touching this until after Thomas and Alito die.

[-] mr_robot2938@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bypass the paywall: https://archive.ph/a9Uu8

this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
184 points (100.0% liked)

News

25742 readers
3233 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world