Rent control is a foreign concept to me, but then to a lesser extent so was the question that lead to the Kelo decision.
The Supreme Court may soon decide the constitutionality of rent controls in New York City.
New York Post:
Harmon’s arguments are compelling. Consider: The Fifth Amendment says that nobody can be “deprived of . . . property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Rent regulations deprive Harmon of his property. These laws aren’t like zoning laws, under which Harmon wouldn’t be able to build a munitions factory on his home, a perfectly reasonable restriction. Instead, Harmon can’t use much of his own property for any purpose. He’s a trespasser in his own brownstone. If he doesn’t want to renew a tenant’s lease, it’s tough luck. In fact, Harmon has spent $30,000 in fees trying — so far unsuccessfully — to vacate one apartment so that his grandchild can live there. Because tenants in the two other regulated apartments are (like Harmon) older than 62, if he wants “their” space, he has to find them similar apartments at the same or lower price in the same neighborhood.
The fact that Harmon must renew leases over and over is a violation, too, of the Constitution’s contracts clause. Rent regulation compels Harmon to sign his name to a piece of paper every year, whether he wants to or not.
out
