Comments
Die-Nacht t1_j7h8sle wrote
> The landlords say they will next try to get the U.S. Supreme Court and its conservative majority to weigh in.
That's what's different this time around.
TheNormalAlternative t1_j7hrhtz wrote
Ah yes, how can I forget the famous conservative cause of aborting your tenants.
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7huf9t wrote
I mean, yeah, fucking working people over and generally being a piece of shit is the whole basis of American conservatism so that tracks pretty well.
TheSpaceBetweenUs__ t1_j7jgyxb wrote
Conservative ideology revolves wholely around the wishes of people highest on the social hierarchy having all power to fuck over those lower on the hierarchy. That includes in tenant landlord relationship.
You can't seriously pretend like conservatives aren't on the side of landlords
Phaedrusnyc t1_j7kn1l5 wrote
Lord, all you have to do is look at this sub to figure that out.
Die-Nacht t1_j7hww71 wrote
idk if you are trying to make a joke or you truly have been living under a rock for the last decade.
Yes, the thing "conservatives" are trying to conserve nowadays is crazy fascist and capitalist ideas. They would definitely rule against tenant protections.
I would like to think that they wouldn't dare touch such a local issue, but idk what to expect anymore.
williamwchuang t1_j7hung8 wrote
It's utter BS but that's the situation that we find ourselves in. Roe v. Wade was precedent for decades until SCOTUS stepped in and found that it was so wrong that it wasn't precedent.
Junk-trash t1_j7hwoy2 wrote
They are anti human-rights which is anti tenant-rights
nonlawyer t1_j7hdm2a wrote
True, but this is less of a hot button issue on Fox News, where the rightwing grievances are developed before eventually becoming SCOTUS law.
Like we’re not talking about domestic violence abusers being denied guns or tech companies banning hate speech on their privately owned platforms, so I don’t think this will really get Alito’s juices flowing. We’ll see though.
LivefromPhoenix t1_j7hfci9 wrote
>I don’t think this will really get Alito’s juices flowing
It is an opportunity to screw with blue cities though. I'm sure that's more than enough to get Clarence and Alito excited.
nonlawyer t1_j7hopoa wrote
Could be. Even this SCOTUS still denies the vast majority of cert petitions though.
[deleted] t1_j7i848e wrote
[deleted]
ER301 OP t1_j7hapkh wrote
When would we know if the Supreme Court accepts, or rejects, this case? Is there a way to follow it?
TheNormalAlternative t1_j7hr6n2 wrote
Yes. They have a public docket available on www.supremecourt.gov - or for easier navigation, use the blog Scotusblog.com
[deleted] t1_j7i7v5x wrote
[deleted]
TheNormalAlternative t1_j7ig1un wrote
There is an appeal as of right from any three judge panel under 28 USC 1253, very rare selection of cases listed under 28 USC 2284, particularly given the recent narrowing of justiciable cases concerning apportionment.
[deleted] t1_j7igqaz wrote
[deleted]
djphan2525 t1_j7i8hlg wrote
frankly that's how a lot of cases are getting to the supreme court these days...
osmumten_faang t1_j7iz5yg wrote
This is absolutely hysterical.
Rent control is universally panned by economists as being an idea with bad negative effects: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control/
Phaedrusnyc t1_j7kneur wrote
Regardless.of whether you believe this or don't, it doesn't change the fact that this was a system the landlords knew full well existed and in most cases voluntarily opted into; nothing was stolen from them.
MartyMohoJr t1_j7qbchg wrote
Imagine owning a home you can't move into yourself because there's no way to compel the tenant to leave once the initial year lease is over. Is that theft?
Phaedrusnyc t1_j7sr3mp wrote
Um, no, not when you know you're buying a rent-regulated property and happy to accept the tax breaks that come with it.
You and yours are just so used to getting the benefit and then having the lobbying power to change the terms in your favor that actually having to abide by your legal agreements feels like theft to you.
_Maxolotl t1_j7i5a3i wrote
As much as the SCOTUS conservatives love to fuck over poor people, they also have at least some awareness of the level of shitstorm their rulings can cause, and the potential political fallout.
Nullifying rent regulation completely would be one hell of a shitstorm. One third of NYC households would instantly be put in a very precarious situation.
But how precarious? Yes, the overwhelming majority of landlords are vultures, and we could expect them to immediately raise rents.
But with a critical mass of over 1 million households, how the fuck would the NY Sheriffs managed to evict anyone? Eviction notices on that scale could very plausibley lead to at least some level of armed insurrection.
yasth t1_j7i9gho wrote
I don’t think they’ll intercede, but I think you may be way over starting their concern with some tenants complaining. I mean the Fox News headline would be something like “SCOTUS returns control to property owners from tenants getting special deal”. They just have bigger fish to fry.
If there were a way to disrupt it via shadow docket I’d not be surprised but I don’t think there is a clear one.
_Maxolotl t1_j7ibo7h wrote
"some tenants complaining" is a wild understatement of the scale of the likely fallout from a total ban on rent regulation.
And the ensuing chaos isn't exactly what they'd be worried about. The "republican judges evict 1 million families" headlines are what they'd think twice about.
yasth t1_j7iesnb wrote
Eh it would be way smaller than you’d think. For one leases would likely play out as is, and also a lot of rent stabilized apartments aren’t done under the emergency declaration but a trade of value which would likely be allowed.
So it would only be the older rentals that were undervalued by a fair bit (because if the net is an extra couple of hundred a month most are going to stay put). Still major but smaller than all rent stabilized apartments and done over a year or two.
Also the downsizing of over housed people will likely depress the market some which will mitigate the impact for a while. This is partly why some market rate landlords aren’t quite as excited as people would expect.
Again we aren’t likely to find out by my guess is there would be cataclysmic headlines briefly but the spread over time and space would likely make it less impressive of a media event.
_Maxolotl t1_j7if72d wrote
Non-sequitur.You opened by changing my entire premise: what would happen if they nuked it all?
yasth t1_j7ig1u5 wrote
They can nuke the system but they aren’t going to break leases. That isn’t even what they are asking for. It just is not on the table. You might as well ask what if they ordered all tenants to pay triple rent just for fun, it isn’t under consideration or request.
harlemtechie t1_j7j8oh9 wrote
I think if they take it to court, they'll rule in favor of what the state wants bc that seems to be the direction a lot of the overturning of cases seem to be doing.
jgalt5042 t1_j7ip872 wrote
Shame. There should be no binding price floors of rent. We need to eliminate zoning and community boards to increase development / supply.
Enough is enough. Let housing float. No more NIMBY.
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?
doodle77 t1_j7kfglo wrote
The regulation was changed in 2019 to greatly decrease their expected returns.
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!"
hjablowme919 t1_j7kpupv wrote
I am for the rent stabilization laws staying in place. However, something does need to be done about the eviction process. Taking 4, 5 or more months to evict someone who stops paying rent is outrageous. It sucks if they lose their job, but how long of a grace period are they supposed to get?
[deleted] t1_j7gxkab wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7h19ya wrote
[removed]
Bombastically t1_j7zjxfr wrote
Does this apply to all apartments in the city? I assume no since folks report 25% hikes
[deleted] t1_j7inehv wrote
[deleted]
oledirtycrustard t1_j7izj3w wrote
reminder: rents would come down ~25% across the city if rent stabilization was thrown out
Bombastically t1_j7zjnuo wrote
Explain why
oledirtycrustard t1_j84cknu wrote
econ 101
Bombastically t1_j84y9ss wrote
you ever take the subsequent classes?
wabashcanonball t1_j7iosnb wrote
Well, if the landlords win, the next solution would be to make renting property illegal and actually have the city take it under the takings clause and make it public housing. Too bad landlords, you asked for it.
PM-Nice-Thoughts t1_j7iwgs1 wrote
Yeah no thanks. Not interested in my only option for an apartment being NYCHA
[deleted] t1_j7htpyt wrote
Rent control is obviously a takings. It is clearly taking the title from the owner and transferring it to the resident. It is also the absolute worst thing you can do to a city. The things people do not to build housing.
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7hvqch wrote
I don't know what law school you went to, but they definitely shouldn't let you graduate with such a poor understanding of property.
[deleted] t1_j7i8ds9 wrote
[deleted]
Junk-trash t1_j7hx34d wrote
Counterpoint: nah
ER301 OP t1_j7gyx2o wrote
Hopefully the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, but if they do, and they side with the landlords, hopefully legislators will be able to come up with a new law that can’t be challenged successfully. I guess we’ll see. This law is one of the few things that keeps NYC affordable for working class people. Would really be a sign of the times to see it go away.
SuperTeamRyan t1_j7h9t70 wrote
I don't know why you have faith that the new law won't be challenged successfully, the current supreme court has shown that it'll come to a decision and then back track it's way to find justification for it. If it gets challenged with the new work around law they'll just change the rules.
ER301 OP t1_j7ha7zi wrote
There’s a difference between hope and faith.
SuperTeamRyan t1_j7hadql wrote
You're right, I didn't catch that.
[deleted] t1_j7hu30m wrote
Build more housing!!!! Rent control is a terrible policy. It discourages new investment and leads to the inefficient allocation of a scarce resource. For example, there are rent controlled apartments on the upper east side next to the met that are capped at $500 a month. some owners don’t live there they are just used as piedaterres.
GeorgeWBush2016 t1_j7i66v2 wrote
less than 1% of the housing stock is rent controlled
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7hvgsk wrote
Except that's demonstrably not true. Rent regulation has never been shown to have a detrimental effect on the rate of new construction in any city where it's been implemented. If you're concerned about pied-a-terres, all you have to do is have a strictly enforced full-time residency requirement.
All you're really saying is that the free market is terrible at making housing affordable and we should massively expand public housing.
bsbbtnh t1_j7i271u wrote
> Except that's demonstrably not true. Rent regulation has never been shown to have a detrimental effect on the rate of new construction in any city where it's been implemented.
And yet removing rent controls leads to more construction.
>Building on the existing literature, the purpose of this study is to estimate the effect of rent control and its evolution over time on housing construction in the Bay Area, and in particular, in Berkeley, California. Our approach is a macro analysis, using place-level data over time for both rent-controlled and non-rent-controlled communities. In particular, the case study demonstrates how major changes in rent control rules following the statewide Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995, contributed to faster supply growth in the ensuing years for rent-controlled communities.
>The vast majority of economists agree that artificially controlling apartment rents acts as a price ceiling that reduces the supply of housing over time. While the precise nature and severity of rent control are important factors, empirical studies have found numerous ways that rent control can reduce housing supply.
>...
>RCG’s case study examined the impact of rent control and its evolution over time on housing construction in the Bay Area. More specifically, our research considered how the change in rent-control rules following the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 affected the growth in housing supply in rent-controlled cities, including Berkeley, as well as Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Even after accounting for employment growth, density, rent growth and local place-specific factors, the supply of housing in these rent controlled cities grew faster following the loosening of rent control rules than during the period of more restrictive rent controls. This result was statistically significant, even though newly built units were generally not included in local rent control ordinances during the pre-Costa-Hawkins period. In addition to the change in the nature and severity of rent control rules (the shift to vacancy decontrol and statewide exemptions for new construction and single family homes), we believe that uncertainty regarding the potential for future changes to local rent-control policies was an important factor that limited development in the pre-Costa-Hawkins period. The statewide legislation provided greater certainty for developers, investors and lenders, factors that bolstered housing construction in rent-controlled cities in the ensuing years.
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7i4wg0 wrote
NAHB? This is like citing a study by BP to say that climate change isn't real. Of course the parasites that are collecting rent aren't going to want rent control.
Also the problem with this case study is two-fold. 1, Costa-Hawkins passed in 1995, right when cities all over the US were going into a growth period with massive amounts of investment and construction. In fact, more housing was built in 1990, 91, and 92 than. In 1995 or 1996. 2. Clearly, it hasn't solved the housing affordability crisis because SF remains the first or second most expensive city in the country, and the rest of the Bay Area isn't much better.
The primary factors behind a lack of construction in NYC are zoning, NIMBYs, and high upfront costs. The idea that rent regulation is even a factor, especially in as-of-right construction with no mandatory inclusionary housing, is quite frankly, asinine.
bsbbtnh t1_j7muohr wrote
Presumably you have some studies which say rent control doesn't have an impact on new construction?
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7mwg3r wrote
And an article for slightly easier comprehension.
In fact, the only articles that I could find that claim rent control decreases construction were published by developers and parasites landlords themselves. Not exactly an unbiased source. And basically all of them cite that single Bay Area case study that you did. And case studies aren't good evidence of a trend or causation. Only that something is a possibility.
[deleted] t1_j7i28va wrote
Look at saint paul and Minneapolis construction rates post rent control
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7i5spe wrote
You mean when builders threw a fit? Rent control was in place for a single year. Ultimately, they always come back because they can still profit off the backs of people who actually work for a living. Obviously, the best solution would just be to have all the government do it like in Singapore or Vienna, but this is the US and we can never do anything that would benefit people to the detriment of parasites corporate shareholders and billionaires.
ctindel t1_j7i6jmc wrote
> All you're really saying is that the free market is terrible at making housing affordable and we should massively expand public housing.
It isn't the "free market" that imposes stupid things like FAR limits and air rights, it's the government regulation that prevents people from tearing down buildings and replacing them with bigger ones in the first place.
ManhattanRailfan t1_j7i7t9r wrote
Yeah, and it's the free market that allowed 10 to a room tenements with factories right next to homes, child labor, no safety codes, and blue fucking milk. I'm not saying zoning regs as they stand are good, but rent regulation is absolutely a good thing because landlords are universally terrible who see their tenants as nothing more than a source of income with little to no labor required. Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, thought landlords could get fucked, so obviously we should be keeping them on an extremely tight leash.
ctindel t1_j7i92dh wrote
> Yeah, and it's the free market that allowed 10 to a room tenements
Well, when the city doesn't allow you to build supply that matches demand, that's how people can afford it.
> with factories right next to homes
Separating industrial from residential doesn't cause the housing supply to be limited though. I don't think there's any problem with this.
> rent regulation is absolutely a good thing because landlords are universally terrible who see their tenants as nothing more than a source of income with little to no labor required.
If you believe that being a landlord/super is no work, especially in NYC, then you've never done it.
Anyway, the answer is to make it so the majority of people aren't renters but owners. That way they aren't beholden to these evil landlords you hate so much. This should be a country of owners, and instead of limiting construction we should allow unlimited construction as long as the buildings are coops that are affordable by the middle class and have to be owner-occupied as a primary residence by covenant.
ER301 OP t1_j7ich0q wrote
Reduced rent through increased housing is certainly a piece of the puzzle, and a great investment for the future, but it would likely be a decade before we actually saw any substantial citywide rent reductions due to expanded housing availability. If rent stabilization was outlawed, what would working class families do right now, in real time?
Junk-trash t1_j7hwvcj wrote
If they dont live there the landlord can initiate a holdover and take the place back
TheNormalAlternative t1_j7gzrbl wrote
Reminder that Gothamist does not employ legal scholars and this headline is definitely hyperbole. Like any time a party loses on appeal at the circuit court level, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court may get involved, but usually the high court stays out unless there is a "circuit split" - that isn't the case here.
The Second Circuit's decision (link) relied on a number of Supreme Court cases, including Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), a case where the Supreme Court previously rejected the argument that rent control laws were unconstitutional under the Takings Clause.
Gothamist doesn't explain their belief for a showdown other than quoting a sore loser who insists it will try to appeal, but appeals to SCOTUS are rarely made as of right.