Rent Control

Subscribe to Rent Control via RSS

Last Friday, we noted that the Supreme Court was scheduled to consider whether to accept cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things.

However, according to the Court’s docket report this morning, the Court put off the decision for another week, rescheduling consideration until the April 20, 2012 conference. Does this mean that someone up there is interested? The same Justice or Justices who asked for briefs in response? That there is a titanic behind-the-scenes struggle between the Justices to get that fourth vote? The cert pool clerk was out sick last week?

We don’t know, but we sure are intrigued. Continue Reading Not So Fast…

Most likely, by the time you read this, the Supreme Court will have decided whether to grant cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things. Today, you see, is the day the Court is scheduled to hold its conference to decide whether to do so.

We mere mortals won’t know what the result of the conference is until next week, of course, but we thought we’d get you ready. Use the time to review the key briefs:

…
Continue Reading Conference Day For New York Rent Control Challenge

Here is the Reply Brief in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (filed Mar. 20, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner is challenging New York’s rent control law as unconstitutional:

Respondents confuse the issues with their scattershot assertions that rent stabilization concerns merely “landlord tenant relations,” “economic regulation,” “price controls” and “economic liberties,” and is just a matter of political and legislative policy. They disregard controlling precedent of this Court and seemingly concede that the Court of Appeals was mistaken. They also each acknowledge the existence of the “different case” standard set forth in Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 528 (1992). However, despite having argued otherwise to this Court and to the Court of Appeals in prior litigation, the State now argues that rent stabilization does not present the elements of the “different case” standard. The conflcts with decisions of this Court and…

Continue Reading Petitioner’s Reply Brief In New York Rent Control Case: “Permanent dispossession is nine-tenths of this law”

Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.

Both respondents waived their rights to file a BIO, but in December, the Court requested responses. Last week, we posted the City of New York’s BIO here.

Here’s the Court’s docket page for the case.Continue Reading State’s BIO In New York Rent Control Case

Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.

We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.

The BIO argues that Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) forecloses the takings claim (it “removes any basis for petitioners’ argument that the [Rent Stablization Law] effects a physical taking of their property”). It also argues that the RSL is “rational,” and does not violate due process:

The RSL addresses a pressing local problem. “In contrast to the rest of the country, most New Yorkers do not own the homes in which they live.” New York City Rent Guidelines Board, 2011 Housing Supply Report…

Continue Reading BIO In New York Rent Control Case: Market Rents Are “Unjust, Unreasonable, And Oppressive”

The Stanford Law Review has been doing a good job lately of talking takings. Last week, it published a note about judicial takings and the Stop the Beach Renourishment case. Now comes the Law Review’s online edition with a new essay by Professor Richard Epstein, “Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many,” about the New York City rent control case up before the Supreme Court on a cert petition. (We posted the cert petition and the amicus briefs in support in the Harmon case here.) Professor Epstein writes:

Unfortunately, modern takings law is in vast disarray because the Supreme Court deals incorrectly with divided interests under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment … The Supreme Court’s regnant distinction in this area is between physical and regulatory takings. …

Thus, under current takings law, a physical occupation with trivial economic consequences gets full compensation. In contrast…

Continue Reading Epstein On Physical And Regulatory Takings (Stanford L. Rev.)

Professor Richard Epstein, in his own inimitable and unequivocal style, opines on rent control and the Harmon cert petition in a Federalist Society podcast. A must-listen. Here’s the description:

In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law by Mr. John Harmon, whose townhouse has been occupied for years by tenants paying rent equal to about 60% of market value. The Second Circuit ruled that “government regulation of the rental relationship does not constitute a physical taking” in light of the Supreme Court precedent, and that Mr. Harmon was therefore not entitled to just compensation. The Supreme Court has asked New York City and the tenants to file a response to the certiorari petition filed by Mr. Harmon. On this previously recorded conference call, Prof. Richard Epstein provides analysis of the case and…

Continue Reading Federalist Society Podcast On New York Rent Control Takings Challenge With Professor Richard Epstein

As he writes in yesterday’s column, “Supreme Court should take on New York City’s rent control laws.” He’s writing about the Harmon case and the cert petition which the Supreme Court is currently considering:

Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Harmons get no compensation for being coerced into privatized welfare: The state shows compassion to tenants — many of whom are not needy; one of the Harmons’ entitled tenants owns a house on Long Island — by compelling landlords to subsidize them.

We’ve posted the cert petition and the amicus briefs in support (start here).Continue Reading George Will Doesn’t Like Rent Control

Here’s the final amicus brief supporting the petitioner in the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance. The case is in the cert stage (we posted the petition here, along with the other three amicus briefs supporting the petition), and although the respondents initially waived their response rights, the Court requested a response which is now due on March 5, 2012.

Here’s more on the case:

The Court’s docket report is here. Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In NYC Rent Control Takings Challenge