Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Phaedrusnyc t1_j7icsav wrote

Can someone explain to me, as a layman, what exactly the landlord lobby was claiming? I don't understand how landlords who opted to buy property that was regulated, knowing it was regulated, and, in many cases, receiving breaks because it was regulated, can claim a "taking" here? Or are these all nonagenarian landlords who are claiming regulation was forcibly imposed on them without a choice?

4

doodle77 t1_j7kfglo wrote

The regulation was changed in 2019 to greatly decrease their expected returns.

4

Phaedrusnyc t1_j7km0a5 wrote

Ok, but that still doesn't explain how they were using this as a basis to broadly challenge the notion of regulation in and of itself. This is a system they bought into--anyone with basic common sense understands that if you opt into a regulated system that the terms of the regulation are subject to change. I work in pharmaceutical advertising, a highly regulated industry. If the FDA narrows the scope of advertising the pharma companies don't get to say, "Regulation is theft" decades after having agreed to participate.

Let us not forget that the regulation has been changed MANY times, over MANY years, and almost uniformly to the benefit of the landlord lobby up until this point. THAT was OK by them, right? But it went the other way this time and suddenly "regulation is illegal!"

3