Rent control seems unfair, but ending it could threaten people's homesand endanger important zoning regulations
Michael Appleton / The New York Times / Redux
The doorbell on a rent-controlled apartment that was the focus of a landlord's suit against the actress Faye Dunaway and her son, Liam Dunaway O'Neill, in New York, Aug. 2, 2011.
Cohen is the author of Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America
In many congested cities New York City most of all rent control laws protect tenants who are lucky enough to have such leases from major rent increases. But the Supreme Court could be on the brink of striking down rent control. If it does, the court will hand landlords a huge victory and put many tenants in danger of losing their homes. It could also lay the groundwork for striking down a wide array of zoning laws.
The Supreme Court is considering a case filed by James Harmon, a onetime Reagan Administration lawyer who owns a brownstone on West 76th street in Manhattan. One of his tenants, an executive recruiter named Nancy Wing Lombardi, has leased a one-bedroom apartment in the building since 1976. Since the apartment is rent-controlled, she pays $1000 a month, at least half what an unregulated apartment in the same neighborhood would cost. Harmon argues that laws limiting how much rent he can charge are an unconstitutional taking of his property. The court has not yet decided to take the case, but it has asked for additional briefing taking a harder look, the Wall Street Journal reported, than anyone expected.
(MORE:Real Estate Trend: Wealthy Californians Demand Tons of Bathrooms)
Rent control has a long history. New York City adopted its law after World War I, when a shortage of housing and a glut of renters including soldiers returning from the war put extreme pressure on rents. Many other localities have rent control laws, including dozens in New York State and California. Along with New York City, some of the largest are San Francisco, Oakland, and Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld rent control, going back to 1921. In 1988, in Pannell v. San Jose, it ruled 6-2 that San Joses law did not violate the constitution in an opinion written by the very conservative then-Chief Justice, William Rehnquist. In 1992, in Yee v. City of Escondido, the court unanimously rejected a claim that a rent control ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of property just the issue Harmon is raising.
These rulings should settle the question. But rent control opponents clearly think they have a chance, given how pro-corporation the Court is today. Harmons challenge is attracting strong support from real estate interests and conservative groups like the CATO Institute. They argue that rent control unconstitutionally deprives landlords of the right to charge as much rent as they want. They like to point to extreme cases of people benefiting who do not need it like the actress Faye Dunaway, who until recently had a $1,048.72 a month one-bedroom on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
See the rest here:
What if the Supreme Court Kills Rent Control?