Supreme Court to Review Rent Control Laws

That is awesome.

Salient point:
All versions of rent-control laws share a single dominant characteristic: They allow a tenant to remain in possession of property after the expiration of a lease at below-market rents. New York even gives the tenant a statutory right to pass on the right to occupy the premises at a controlled rent to family members who have lived with them for two or more years. The tenants in Mr. Harmon's complaint pay rent equal to about 60% of market value.

The question revolves around the the phiosophical implications of our current social contract.
Social and civic implications to NYC would be enormous.
It would hard to imagine the unraveling of rent control laws.
Scalia's a wild man...anything is possible.

to me this is clearly a violation of the fifth. If supreme court takes this on we are in for a wild ride. Scalia doesnt care about NYC civic implications, and he shouldn't nor should anyone else on the bench.

Great article. Will be very interested in what the supreme court finally says. However, I find it hard to see how supreme court will rule against so many precedents which declared rent control valid. The real difficulty will be for owners who bought the property with tenants already in place.

Thank God SOMEONE is waking up to the fact that we need to toss this failed social experiment.

who used to own stuy town ?

met life

Or at least if the supreme court won't abolish rent control completely, limit the burden to landlords who generate over a certain amount of income from rent. It seems totally unfair for a couple who own a townhouse to be subject to rent control laws. It's not like the townhouse is one small part of a huge rental investment portfolio. It would make a lot more sense to distribute it more fairly and evenly as part of a tax incentive program.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

on its own that might have a chance, unfortunately, with " deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" immidiately prededing it and the years of law upholding rent control laws it's a stretch. says this armchair legal eagle. they won't get it declared unconstitutional but the case brings attention and stirs public anger and frustration and might result in changes to the actual legislation. good luck to this guy. most persistent, indeed.

Rent control is damn crazy! Most people don't get that doing away with rent control will most likely lower rents in NYC (all those RC units coming onto the market should depress rents as they are absorbed ino the market). How can lowering rents for the majority on NYC not be a social good that outweighs the benefits of protecting a group of people who haven't paid their fair share of the cost of living in the city? People who have RC apartments are basically stealing from everyone who pays market rent. They get a low rent and their neighbor has to pay a higher rent to make up the difference. There are way more people struggling to pay elevated rents than people who get benefits. It's surprising that this relic of WWII is still around especially when it hurts so many people.

Pitchforks and torches.....anyone?

Let's blame the poor. It's clearly their fault. Food, shelter, healthcare for everyone?
No matter what?
Maybe living under a bridge would toughen them up.

Give me a break.

Rent control means the person has been in place since 1971. We are talking about the elderly and many who contributed to the stability of their community for decades including many of the worst.
How exactly does the math work that rent regulation (control and stabilization) make some new tenant pay more? I never understood that math - in fact this anecdote indicates that the party who is claiming an economic loss is the owner.

when the history of nyc is written, it will be shown that the gradual elimination first of rent control and then rent stabilization was an act of out and out insanity.

why should a private entity be forced to be the sole supporter of a public subsidy ? NYC or the federal government should be cutting monthly checks to the owners to make up the difference. We all pay for welfare right ?

no one is forcing anyone. people who buy rent stabilized buildings/units do so knowing exactly what the deal is. if they don't like it, they shouldn't buy it. just like the united states will not be the united states without a middle class, neither will new york city.

do you think that met life was a net loser as the owner/seller of stuyvestant town?

do you think that the idiots that bought it from met life were unaware of the rent stabilization laws? were they somehow tricked into a bidding war?

so if I cant afford to live in my apartment can I get that same deal? I desreve it too.

do you understand the difference between a law and a whim?

lets try again: did the people who bought stuyvesant town from met life get tricked?

or are you just yet another case of sour grapes.

Tenants in question are stabilized not controlled. They are also paying 60% of the theoretical market rent. I'd say it is likely that they don't go back more than 10 to 12 years.

And the owners are newer. They purchased with such tenants on place so they knew the law.

To my mind there is a difference between Control and Stabilization. Someone Rent Controlled is on 2012 a senior citizen and likely elderly. Someone

Someone under Control had been a consistent presence for 4 decades or more, a stabilizing element of their community. They are New Yorkers through thick and thin.

Excuse typos

Someone Rent Controlled is in 2012 a senior citizen.

apparently the supreme court thinks theres something worth looking at and I think they know the difference between a law and a whim.

the issue isn't whether the law is constitutional or not. the issue is whether it is an existing law that everyone involved knew about.

do you think the united states is better or worse without a middle class?

>do you think the united states is better or worse without a middle class?

Not sure the relevance of that question.

Given the age and long-term commitment of Rent Control tenants, leave them alone.

As for Rent Stabilization, on a city-wide basis, I doubt that rents would increase if we removed these protections. Would there be displacement - yes, probably more though that the people on the upper floors of this townhouse have to move to StuyTown or to Forest Hills or to Riverdale, than the risk that the StuyTown, Queens or Bronx tenant has to go anywhere.

Wow, a whole week or so went by before this got picked up on SE.

I don't have a coherent view on this.

1) Based on everything I've read, rents will probably fall a little bit in "prime" parts of NYC if RS & RC end and LLs everywhere are immediately able to evict tenants who can no longer pay market. This is good for "new" blood, I suppose. There is a certain elegant finality to this - tada, now we find out what every apt would go for on the market. A reckoning.

2) In the "prime" part of NYC where I've lived for 15 years, I've met many folks who are RS/RC. They would be in real trouble if RS/RC ended and their LLs raised rents or apply to change the C of O (many of the walkup apts in TH buildings would be most economically viable as single family conversions). Not only would the tenor of the streets change, but where are these folks going to go? They stayed in their apts because they stayed single or didn't start a family or don't have family ties anywhere else.

3) What happens to people who live in non-fancy parts of NYC who see their rents raised a little bit by LLs testing the market? They leave, and where do they go? I've not seen a study that looks at whether there might be significant dislocation caused by the end of RC/RS.

i am only familiar with incredibly wealthy landlords who have "enjoyed" owning rent stabilized and rent controlled units over the years. i cannot fathom how it is better for all of us for them to be richer.

the people you are referring to will leave and i too have no idea where they will go. the theory that this will somehow lower overall rents is a pipe dream similar to many other pipe dreams like trickle down economics and how job creators hire people based on income tax rates not on demand for their product or service.

On the UWS, that is true re: wealthy LLs. Bldgs haven't changed hands much over the last 20 years, and most LLs or holders of sponsor rent-reg units are sitting very pretty w.r.t to rent rolls. Can't speak for the rest of NYC. Jazzman can chime in here.

Personally, I'm very sympathetic to the elderly and those who have invested three or four of five decades of their lives in a neighborhood and a specific building in NYC.

Rent Stabilization - I have less sympathy for an argument that any one person is entitled to special protection under the law vs. some other person. One middle class person vs. some other middle class persion. A middle class person being entitled to the Upper East or Upper West vs. elsewhere in NYC with the same school system and city-wide 24 hour public transportation.

As far as the owners - I have no sympathy. The only government taking took place when the laws were put into effect. Anyone's who has bought a rent regulated property from someone else knew exactly what they were getting into. Changing the law gives them a windfall, which is all they are after. Interestingly though, significant investment in improvements would need to be made, especially for owners of Rent Control units - what many market rate renter complainers ignore is that a lot of these majority rent reg buildings are not maintained at the level of full free market rentals in the same area, and most of the units are far from "luxury" condition.

No, I don't own or rent any rent regulated property.

How did the government take anything from Mr. Harmon, when he bought the property knowing full well the legal rules?
With such a ruling, people who buy land with open space restrictions could sue to get "compensated".
It's amusing to see all the free-market fans empathize with the poor multi-millionaires who got a deal for their lemons, and now cry for Supreme Court help to improve their investment yield.

Where will the cleaning lady and the nanny live?
With me?
In the Poconos?
If I have to pay them a living wage, I'll have to let the go. Where are they going to go with their limited language skills, no passport, no papers and no money.
Maybe their jhole of a son will buy them a ritzy coop in Manhattan.
If we could only out smart that pesky coop board.
Bastards!
See the problems deregulation causes.

Sorry,
The fruit was hanging so low and the market is so slow.

Falco: in my world, my babysitters & cleaning help all live in market-rate units (I'm nosy, I ask). The fish-slinging crabby people at 74th St. Fairway jamming up the elevator are much more likely to live in RS/RC units.

Maly: get it straight.

Harmon inherited from his gparents, and his brother inherited a stake as well. He bought his brother out for a 1m or 1mish a few years ago. With the sales for park block W70s THs having jumped by 100% in 5 years, if he got his RS tenants out, he's looking at a nice chunk of change.

"just like the united states will not be the united states without a middle class, neither will new york city. "

"Someone under Control had been a consistent presence for 4 decades or more, a stabilizing element of their community."

im not very well versed in this topic, but i've been in a few rent controlled apartments and lived in 2 buildings with rent controlled tenants. none of the tenants would fit any reasonable description of "middle class". most lived alone well below the poverty line, never had visitors, no family they ever mentioned or saw. the one actual family i knew who lived in a rc place, they were filthy and there were like 12 of them living in a 3 bedroom place. their apartment single handedly nourished our building's diverse and vibrant vermin community. another rc neighbor DIED in his apartment and was discovered when my soon to be ex husband smelled his decomposing body through the door and called the cops. his closet relative who gave a shit was some kid in texas who asked the landlord to post his email in the lobby asking for information about his long lost weirdo uncle who had gone mia decades ago. no one had any info for him, that guy was a recluse who ate at soup kitchens. almost every single rc tenant i have personally met has been a recluse estranged from family who lived in pretty extreme poverty. none of the were contributing anything to the stability of new york. granted my personal experience is limited, but i don't see anyone else here sharing actual examples of cases of rc they believe reflect the intended the purpose of keeping the "middle class" in new york. and i think that's very significant in this debate. people who have a problem with it are talking about actual cases they have seen, which is why they often come across as angry or frustrated, because it's personal to them. people who support it usually stick to the rhetoric. both landlords in my cases, i should add, were heirs of the families who owned these buildings since at least the great depression. they were great and responsive for me, as a market rate renter. the apartments had no problems, everything was new and updated, they worked very hard to keep their market rate tenants happy.

"he bought his brother's share"
Presumably, having inherited from his grandparents, and having millions in the bank, he had full knowledge of the legal landscape. I'm sure he can sell the house for more than he paid for it. What did the government take from him again? Set me straight please, on how the gubmint is oppressing his rich white ass, and his rich friends at the WSJ doing PR for the .01%. I'd like a good cry.

>almost every single rc tenant i have personally met has been a recluse estranged from family who lived in pretty extreme poverty. none of the were contributing anything to the stability of new york.

What the heck does that even mean? Because someone was poor or had distant family, they weren't worthy? They weren't New Yorkers?

A rent control tenant is someone who has been in place since 1971 or earlier. I don't know when you lived in these buildings, but if you are in your early 30s and you moved to NY in your early 20s, then the shortest the rent control tenants were in place while you lived in these buildings was 30 years while you were a newcomer to their building.
And in any case, having lived in their place in the 1970s and 1980s, they did absolutely contribute to the stability of their neighborhood. Maybe you don't recall that NYC wasn't always under the Giuliani and Bloomberg enlightenments.

I wonder what your financial and family situation is to come out and say that Rent Control tenants are all poor and estranged and therefore aren't deserving.

im not really sure what your motivation is in this scene. righteous proletariat rage? education and pontification to the ignorant?

"I wonder what your financial and family situation is to come out and say that Rent Control tenants are all poor and estranged and therefore aren't deserving."

you know what my financial and family situations are and i specifically specificated that these were examples of what i had seen personally. how about you share a personal experience of you have had with the rent regulation system of this great city. being such a true blue new yorker and all.

"you were a newcomer to their building. "

one teeny thing though. these were not THEIR buildings. these buildings literally, legally, and physically belonged to our landlords.

" they did absolutely contribute to the stability of their neighborhood."

no, genius. the people who established the neighborhoods and contributed to their stability left years ago with their families. the ones left behind are the recluses. get it?

What is interesting is that no single issue unites more economists than this. No major economist on the left, right, or center - not Krugman, Reich, Rohmer, etc included - thinks that rent control is a good idea. They ALL teach that rent control is a terrible system, and that vouchers for poor renters or some other system would be better. This is a slam dunk from that POV.

For anyone who wants to see the ownership history, it's in ACRIS under Block 1158 Lot 51.

I think the family's long association with this property strengthens the Harmons' standing, and makes them more sympathetic figures than if they had simply bought the property from strangers in 2005, knowing it was encumbered by rent-regulated leases and hoping for a windfall through decontrol. That doesn't mean they'll win, but it does give them a legitimate gripe.

One problem - even if the Harmons prevail on the law - is that striking down rent regulation is a profoundly flawed remedy for the original wrong. I wonder whether the Harmons have already pursued personal use, which would seem to offer a solution to their problem. A constitutional challenge to rent regulation seems like a highly ambitious strategy in this case.

One little inference: given the long history and the small number of units involved, the conflict at 32 West 76th isn't about constitutional principles, and it's only partly about the money. This is personal.

>im not really sure what your motivation is in this scene. righteous proletariat rage? education and pontification to the ignorant?

What scene? streeteasy? I'm voicing an opinion. You are voicing hatred because some guy down the hall wasn't pretty enough for you.

>the people who established the neighborhoods and contributed to their stability left years ago with their families. the ones left behind are the recluses. get it?

Really? The people I am talking about have lived in their place now for over 4 decades consistently. Rent Control, vs. Rent Stabilization, requies a regulated apartment and consistent tenancy since 1971. These Rent Control tenants didn't flee when times in NYC were tough - maybe you don't remember NYC through even the early 1990s. And now that they are elderly, they still haven't fled.

>one teeny thing though. these were not THEIR buildings. these buildings literally, legally, and physically belonged to our landlords.

They have long term rights of tenancy in the apartments. That's the whole point. Tenancy rights are a well understood legal concept dating back before our country was founded.
But oh, someone down the hall smelled and offended your sensibilities and troubled your husband, so they don't count.

>how about you share a personal experience of you have had with the rent regulation system of this great city. being such a true blue new yorker and all.

You don't even live here anymore.

Here's my experience with Rent Control - many many elderly people living in their apartment, some with family still in the City, some with family and friends who have long departed - the family fled for more space in Long Island or New Jersey, or the friends for warmer climates like Florida and Arizona. They stay in their home in NYC regardless of what their family and friends have done.

Few Rent Controlled tenants are even just merely senior citizens and none are newly eligible enrollees in the AARP at 55. A baby boomer, now just an age 65 or 66 "senior citizen", would have had to have been in place since they were in their early 20s to be Rent Controlled. The Rent Controlled tenants are more likely to be in their 80s at this point. You think we should have them kicked out to benefit the landlords because transplant Jason from California and escapee Lucille now residing in New Jersey, Christina Rohmer and Robert Reich both from University of California at Berkeley, or some angry 20-something who wants to live in the Village or Hell's Kitchen at a lower price think it is a "terrible system".

>I wonder whether the Harmons have already pursued personal use, which would seem to offer a solution to their problem.

I wondered the same.

>the conflict at 32 West 76th isn't about constitutional principles, and it's only partly about the money. This is personal.

Right, because the other thing they could / would / should have tried is the buyout. Not sure how much this lawsuit is costing them.

W81: At least one of the tenants cannot be evicted under the personal use regulations - he is 73, and even though "rent-stabilized" is now protected as a SCRIE tenant. At rents below 1k, it's likely that the other tenants are over 62.

What is curious is that the family didn't pursue personal use decades ago.

"The tenants in Mr. Harmon's complaint pay rent equal to about 60% of market value."

price controls of any kind always give to one group and take from another

so what? every business transaction could be characterized in the exact same way. so what?

been a long time since we had such a good thread on SE

"You don't even live here anymore. "

"I'm voicing an opinion."

so what. most people don't live in the west bank or gaza, but everyone seems to have an opinion on THEIR tenant rights. are you the boss of my opinions now?

" You are voicing hatred because some guy down the hall wasn't pretty enough for you."
"But oh, someone down the hall smelled and offended your sensibilities "

you can't do willfully dense, so why even bother? i mentioned that in response to the middle class thing to point out that in MY experience, rc residents are not middle class by any definition of that concept. neither financially nor socially.

">I wonder whether the Harmons have already pursued personal use, which would seem to offer a solution to their problem.

I wondered the same."

no you didn't. on another thread months ago when someone was talking about buying a rental property with rc residents in place and i said try going the personal use route you said that can't be done to long time rc resident. so there.

columbiacounty
39 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse so what? every business transaction could be characterized in the exact same way. so what?

says the guy demanding more government regulation on business transactions.

" These Rent Control tenants didn't flee when times in NYC were tough "

aarghh! you know very well most who stayed did it because they couldn't afford the suburbs or because the deal they had was just too good. they stayed because their housing was cheaper in the city! not out of some noble loyalty to new york.

"You think we should have them kicked out to benefit the landlords"

"angry 20-something who wants to live in the Village or Hell's Kitchen at a lower price think it is a "terrible system"

yeah, that's called capitalism. remember? for such a staunch libertarian, you're kind of a commie, huh.

"The Rent Controlled tenants are more likely to be in their 80s at this point. "

if you believe these people deserve to be cared for by the singular vitrue of having lived, worked, and paid taxes all their lives, your logical sympathies should then lie with tax payer funded retirement and senior care. is that where your sympathies lie?

marco_m
40 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse been a long time since we had such a good thread on SE

more like bizzaro thread! huntersbug has gone pinko, columbiacouty is defending unfair business practices. everyone is defecting! what's next, w81st starts cracking dirty jokes?

Right, I'm a staunch libertarian who doesn't want to throw people in their 80s out of their home for 40 years. Congratulations, you found my flaw. I'm even willing to let them stay despite them smelling bad and what was the other criticism? Oh right: They annoyed you and your husband.

no you didn't. on another thread months ago when someone was talking about buying a rental property with rc residents in place and i said try going the personal use route you said that can't be done to long time rc resident. so there.

Yes I did. There's a material difference between a rental property and a townhouse or bownstone with owner occupancy.

Some facts are necessary before knickers get further in a twist (at least about the underlying case as opposed to the issue of rent control). This case is such crap that even conservative shill Richard Epstein -- the source of WSJ article -- admitted in March that the Second Circuit (court of appeals) decision against Harmon was "undeniably correct as a matter of current constitutional law." See below:

http://electzu.com/?note=nyc-landlord-to-supreme-court-the-rent-is-too-damn-low

So the SCT would have to overturn long-standing precedent in this area, which is rare even for this court (especially since it had the chance to do so recently and did not). Also, the SCT has not even said that it will accept cert to hear the case. The defendants originally waived their right to file an opposition to the cert petition (a rare thing), which shows how meritless Harmon's case is. It was only after a few right-wing nutjob legal foundations filed three amicus briefs that the SCT, quite reasonably, has given the defendants a chance to put in an opposition to the cert petition, which is normally what happens under the SCT Rules. (You can see all this from a link in the above article.) One should be careful to read too much -- at this point -- into the SCT following basic rules of procedural fairness to allow the defendants a chance to put in an opposition.

Sorry -- s/b "One should be careful about reading too much ..."

Lucille, what are the unfair business practices that columbiacounty is defending?

MidTownerEast/nyc10023: Thanks for the excellent color.

Lucillebluth:
There was an old rent-controlled renter
Whose landlord began to resent her...

Correction, to fit the facts of the case:
There was an old stabilized renter
Whose landlord began to resent her...

Anyone want to add the last three lines?

Thanks and NYC10023 has a very good point about why Harmon or his family sat on their rights (or other parts) so long if, in their view, the law is so patently unconstitutional.

More flavor: Harmon was represented at the appellate level (and maybe level) by a "James Harmon." He is apparently a lawyer, which will not help any claim that he was unaware of his remedies.

Too hasty again; I meant to say "(and maybe at the lower level)"

Lucille:

Actually, rent stabilized and rent controlled tenants have a legally protected property right to continued tenancy in their apartments on good behavior. To steal that right without compensation would be an obvious taking of private property for private use -- it is simply reverse Robin Hood theft.

Your view that RC tenants should be expropriated because you once met one who isn't middle class, is no different from saying that Harmon or his ilk should be evicted from their homes just because I have met several long-standing homeowners who bought the legal occupancy rights to their homes a long time ago at less than current market rates and are now recluses.

Jason:
You are wrong. Standard urban economics teaches that middle class residential rental markets suffer from serious market for lemons issues. Empirically, it is hard to find any example of a city, here or abroad, that has ever resolved them without some form of rent stabilization. Middle class tenants need a right to remain in residence on good behavior and landlords need a right to raise rents to cover expenses, and without rent stabilization it seems to be very difficult to negotiate a lease that gives both parties what they need. Condos and coops do it, but only by eliminating the major social advantage of tenancy, which is that it puts the risk of market price changes on diversified landlords instead of undiversified residents, thus radically reducing the costs of bubbles, crashes, and ordinary market fluctuations.

If SCOTUS is reviewing rent control laws, then you can kiss them goodbye. You think the corporate owned court that brought you Citizens United is going to allow rent control to continue?

Market prognosticators:

Abolishing rent stabilization/ rent control would obviously benefit current landlords of stabilized apartments and hurt their tenants, since value is being stolen from the latter and given to the former. However, the gain to landlords would almost certainly be less than the loss to tenants, as the pool of stable middle class tenants would shrink rather drastically.

As for the rest of us, in the short run, demand for rentals (and therefore rents) would probably drop sharply and demand for sales (and therefore prices) would rise. This could give rise to another bubble, with its dislocations and inefficiencies. Or not. Perhaps people would just leave the city, seeing this as the final blow to the middle class.

In the medium run, landlords would shift units from the rental market to the sales market. This creates a strong pressure for both sets of prices to revert to non-bubble levels reflecting the cost of production, which in the case of rentals should be close to current prices and in the case of sales quite a bit lower than today. However, since risk would now be borne by people less able to diversify it away, overall wealth would be lower. Prices might be, too, if the market is sufficient rational.

In the long run, middle class people who'd prefer a rent stabilized apartment would be forced to buy (or rent without protection from arbitrary increases or eviction, which few would do). The result would be a more volatile purchase market and a less secure middle class, as even more people would have too much of their net worth tied up in an illiquid depreciating asset. Since people would be forced to put more of their wealth into housing (and rational people, if there are any, would feel compelled to set aside more to protect themselves from the inevitable market fluctuations), they'd have less for other things: both consumption (and the industries it supports) and investment would drop. The city would be a less interesting and slower growing place.

However, some number of middle class and poorer people, mostly elderly in the case of rent control, would have had their main asset stolen from them and handed to someone wealthier. So we would at least know that in return for making people unhappy, shifting risk to those less able to bear it, and decreasing economic growth, we would have committed a great injustice and increased inequality. That's something.

Financeguy interesting theory but wrong. You assume current rent controlled tenants have money to buy? I would think not many of them do, so they will keep renting where they really can afford to rent (so no more west village living for someone who can't aford it - what is a big deal with that?). So a new bubble that you predict would never happen.

Rent prices for current non controlled rentals would decrease thereby helping the real middle class that is paying market rents while hurting some landlords. At the same time it would hurt the artificial middle class (created by these rent controls) and would benefit some landlords.

As per people moving out of the city, that will happen but in their place new people will move in. Keep in mind that many people cannot afford to live here because they can't pay the rent and they can't get a rent controlled apt. Once rental prices are down on average, they will move in.

So net net, real middle class wins, artificial middle class loses, landlords on average are probably a bit better off, and most importantly new middle class can move into the city (this is what NYC is all about correct? constant changes).

This is like arguing about what to do with princess phones.

Regardless of what you think of the theory of rent control/rent stabilization, in practice, the supply of those apartments has been dropping for decades.

Now it's pretty much gone from prime Manhattan, so except for weird outliers like this townhouse guy, reversing it isn't going to make any difference to the rest of us.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

"Rent prices for current non controlled rentals would decrease thereby helping the real middle class that is paying market rents while hurting some landlords. At the same time it would hurt the artificial middle class (created by these rent controls) and would benefit some landlords."

I think you are defining middle class in a way that doesn't make sense. Middle class is, roughly speaking, how much you earn. Whether you live in a market rate apartment or a rent stabilized one doesn't change how middle class you are, it only affects the affordability of your housing.

In general, outside of prime Manhattan, you'd probably be right that ending rent stabilization would help the middle class on average. In prime Manhattan, ending rent stabilization would eliminate significant chunks of housing that's affordable on a middle class income in prime Manhattan which would be replaced by slightly cheaper market rentals that are not at all affordable on a middle class income.

I agree that rent stabilization is an incredibly bad way to accomplish its purported social goal, but there's some value in having more diverse neighborhoods, and it would be nice to find ways to keep some of them.

New York is as much about heritage as it is about evolution. Constant change without grounding is not a New York that is attractive to me. The Statue of Liberty is not only a welcoming symbol but also a symbol of everyone who was welcomed here in the past.

There's a difference between Rent Control and Rent Stabilization too. Rent Control indicates that the apartment was regulated 1971 or prior a d the tenant from 1971 is still there. No new Rent Control can be created, but a RC apartment can become Rent Stabilized. The person you are kicking out of a Rent Control apartment is not some spring chicken.

" throw people in their 80s out of their home for 40 years"

yeah? you think it will go straight to that, do you? will it look something like this? pretty please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0AJv-oKcLc

and then the rent controlled old people can make a really dramatic final stand. kind of like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RbL4PwTDsQ

"Now it's pretty much gone from prime Manhattan, so except for weird outliers like this townhouse guy, reversing it isn't going to make any difference to the rest of us."

one building i mentioned is in mid 80s on a park block, 2nd building from cpw. other is in low 70s, it is the first building off west end ave. i rented both within the last 10 years. both ll are still owners as these buildings are and have been their families/ livelyhoods for almost a century. these people are not millionaires, they are not the 1%, THEY are actually the closest thing to real middle class that still exists in prime manhattan.

"Middle class is, roughly speaking, how much you earn."

you GUYS!!! finances are only one part of the SOCIOLOGICAL term Middle Class. it's a lifestyle, culture, social behavior and structure, etc etc.

and then maybe it could spawn a whole vigilante movement among the old rent controllers' adult kids who now have no purpose in life, being deprived of the only one they've ever known, waiting for their parents' deaths.

what's the only thing you'd kill for? MY RENT CONTROLLED APARTMENT! let's party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhISgw3I2w

There was an old stabilized renter
Whose landlord began to resent her
He buttered the steps
Poured himself a schweps
and toasted the appointment of Scalia

and how come w81st's poem had to go? very strange door policy around here.

I thought the relief sought by the Harmons is compensation for the taking of their property by NY. This still could effectively end rent control however if NY becomes liable to all similar landlords and the reality of adequately compensating this city's landlords exceeds the political pressure of ending it. The end result would be a lot of people in NY whining/crying---on the bright side, once people all pay market rent the LLs will have motivation and money to fix up buildings and resolve problems.

Thats what makes this case so interesting. Its going to be decided without the bias of the effect on NYC housing. This decision is based on how law is interpreted.

here's a nice dose of reality. no long winded politicized diatribes or simplistic proclamations one might overhear at a lang dorm party. only numbers, just how you guys like it.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/newport-east

how can anyone say with a straight face that rent regulation does not seriously limit inventory and keep prices higher than they have to be------->UNAFFORDABLE. wouldn't the flood of all those 2 and 3 bedrooms in the family oriented nabe of yorkville be a pretty gosh darn doodlebugging swell thing for the families of new york, renter and buyer alike?

http://img.streeteasy.com/nyc/image/40/6119940.gif

this pad here might not cost $2508 to rent through an unfair system of government forced affordibility, but it would contribute to the general lowering of prices in the entire neighborhood and ultimately leading to actual affodibility. a person whose housing budget is $2500 should be living where that budget is apporpriate. the forced "affordibility" of rent regulation is an obstacle to actual affordibility.

I would just like to speak as a Manhattan LL with many many RS apartments:

-I do not want anyone kicked out of their home and onto the streets, but generational succession must end. There is just no reason for it, and it in fact makes a generation of unmotivated people. I have a lot of deadbeat tenants who inherited their RS apartments and have never had a real job, because they do not need one to afford their lifestyle. Its bad enough to not be able to to evict a problem RS tenant, but to have to then be stuck with their heirs is just not justifiable.

-If the government enacts price controls, there should be some sort of cap between the RS rent and market rent (i'd be happy with 50% at this point). That or have the govt be the ones to subsidize, especially after say, 50 years since the "emergency" was created...

Here're some interesting statistics on how many apartments went into and out of stabilization in 2010: http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/changes2011.pdf

It's quite fluid, and there're lots of categories, but the biggest increase in the stabilized stock was due to 421-a tax breaks for landlords: 7600 apartments newly stabilized.

Meanwhile, 13,000 apartments left stabilization due to High Rent/Vacancy decontrol. The net reduction was 4600 apartments.

I wonder how many landlords want the Supreme Court to shut down controls.

E.g., market-rate owners are all for stabilization. Ditto owners who chose to take 421-a benefits, as they'd lose the benefit while the rents are already at market at close to it.

A landlord with the typical market/stabilixed ratio (60/40 in prime Manhattan) might be on the fence, trying to calculate the gain in one direction and the loss in the other.

One gain for us all, of course, would be the dismantling of NYS's RS bureaucracy. I don't know how many there are, but there'd have to be hundreds if not thousands of jobs.

does anyone know what the total amount of RC / RS units are in manhattan ?

In NYC as whole, in 2008, there a bit more than 1,000,000, or about 48% of the rental stock. Can't find borough stats, and neighborhood would be more useful anyway. I just saw a map somewhere where the UWS was about 40% RC/RS.

I've recently viewed a situation where a women who grew up in a 3br. rent stabilized moved herself in 'metaphoricly speaking' and waited out her mother's dimise so that she could inherit the RS situation. Her mother died and now it's hers. As she said to me..."how could someone with her income live in such a fat 3br. in prime Manhattan if not for RS laws". The rent is so low it sounds like a monthly parking bill.
Fair, Unfair???
She has played inside the rules. Granted, she gamed the system to her advantage. The question is, what is the spirit of the law and what are it's true intentions?

sorry, for her it's rent control.

NWT, that sounds outrageous. I wonder how many of those are folks for whom the RS/RC laws are meant to benefit.

I've come across many people who told me they would consider buying but have a good deal living in a RS apt.....and they have the means to pay market-level rent.

If the city ever gets rid of RS (even if certain groups, i.e. elderly, are grandfathered), I bet rents will plunge and sales will heat up.

falcogold1: Yes, she played inside the rules and I don't even think she "gamed" the system particularly. (The system gives her succession rights if she meets certain criteria; she met them.) The downside for her is the risk that the Legislature might change the rules, or that the courts might change the way the fine print is interpreted. those are risks every sensible RC/RS tenant needs to consider.

The danger is fairly small for seniors, the disabled and other protected groups. For a younger person who plans her life around rental succession rights, it's a high-stakes roll of the political dice. If she wins, more power to her. If she loses, tough luck.

west81st, exactly. If she lived with her mother only "metaphorically", i.e. leaving only a paper trail, her LL was behind-hand in not having her surveilled to determine her actual residence. It takes a lot of diligence on both sides.

uptowngal, the laws were enacted not just to protect the people (almost all of whom then rented) from the dislocations of the market. The other intent was to prevent what used to be called profiteering. The high-rent/high-income decontrols didn't come about until the 1990s. Before then, there was no means test at all and no intent to benefit only the "deserving" (whoever they are.)

1mm apartments in the 5 boroughs ?!?!!!??

well said, MAV--it's a bit like those who inherit money that makes them "just rich emough to fail"--

and it's worse with RC--

the $$ heir can go to work and get motivated with no penalty--if the RC apt heir goes to work and household income grows, s/he stands to lose the free money represented in the RC lease

marco_m, yes, 1,027,000 in 2008, and a bit fewer now, per http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/hvs08/08summary.pdf

Another tid-bit: Median household incomes in 2007:

RC: $24,000
RS: $36,000
FM: $50,000

Have to wonder how any of them manage....

What's the rationale for the succession rules? At a minimum, it seems reasonable to means test succession since the only reasons I can think of relate to not dislocating people who have been living there a long time and couldn't otherwise afford a reasonable living situation nearby.

this is awesome

a couple of rationales. adult child moves back in to actually take care of aging parent. lives there for extended period perhaps sacrificing other life opportunities. parent finally dies. now what?

mentally or physically disabled child lives for extended period with parent --- in this case with parent providing care and assistance for adult child. parent finally dies. now what?

every thing can be gamed. reporting on and talking about the cheats is always more fun and lucrative than talking about the honest people who have been helped.

CC, I am not sure a private 3rd party has the obligation to ensure that people have an easy time of it.

Anyone that feels the need to lend a hand to someone who is having a tough time is welcome to open their home. There is no need for the govt to mandate how someone is allowed to use or rent their home, is there?

I mean, if you are going to force someone to accept a below-market rate - then the appropriate thing to do would be to supplement the tenant's rent with a govt voucher to bring the rent to a market level. There is no way that the landlord should have to suffer because someone thought people should be helped. I mean really wtf.

oh yea, and anyone who offers to leave a rent control for 1M in order for an apartment to be sold needs to go to jail.

who is the private 3rd party?

the question was --- what was the rationale? one can choose to agree or disagree.

there is no doubt in my mind that rent control/stabilization was a major factor in the success of new york city as a city.