Court will not go against Rent Stab.

LOVE this!

You can read more from RRRC here (PDF), which points out that Harmon bought out his brother's interest in the townhouse for $1.5 million (giving the whole building a value of $3 million), "Mr. Harmon conveniently ignores the value brought to his property by other regulatory actions, including fire safety and building codes, landmark preservation programs, and stricter zoning regulations - all of which have created and maintained a safe and habitable city, but whose net effect has been to suppress the housing supply and thereby greatly enhance the value of existing structures. Mr. Harmon bought his property under a regulatory system he well understood, and profits handsomely from limitations created by other regulations. If anyone is receiving a windfall from government invention, it is the Harmon family."

A good point was brought up in the other thread on this subject that is it incongruous for city to enforce landmark or FAR restrictions during a housing emergency. This needs to be addressed.

Bad decision and bad reporting by the NY Times. The article states that the townhouse was not "taken" from them because they can get the property back by demolishing it and installing something other than housing. It's landmarked, so it cannot be demolished; and, zoning allows only for residential or much lower-valued non-profit space. And they cannot claim the units for family because the tenants are over 62 yrs old and cannot be evicted. Unreal! The tenant w/ the Hampton's beach house and 50% off rent for life is the real winner. RC/RS is why SO many townhouses, and apt buildings, also, are like ghost buildings on beautiful streets. Tenants that pay pennies on the dollar cannot fund the upkeep.