Supreme Court turns down property rights challenge to rent control in New York and California
www.latimes.com
Apartment owners lose bid to say rent control laws in New York and California violate the Constitution's ban on the taking of private property by government.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a major property-rights challenge to rent control laws in New York City and elsewhere that give tenants a right to stay for many years in an apartment with a below-market cost.

A group of New York landlords had sued, contending the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use.

The justices had considered the appeal since late September. Only Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    341·
    9 months ago

    If landlords collectively agree to double the rent of every apartment in a city, tenants can’t simply move to a cheaper unit. There should be someone telling those landlords no.

    • shovingleopardnsfw@lemmynsfw.com
      435·
      9 months ago

      But that’s the free market at work. Prices will continue to rise until they become unaffordable and landlords have empty properties. Where I live there is no rent control, and the prices keep rising as the economy and inflation rises. When rental properties are in high demand, rental prices increase across the board. When construction provides many new properties to buy, people buy, rental demand decreases, and rental prices stagnate. No need for regulation from some government body. I thought this was capitalism 101?

      • harmsy@lemmy.world
        15·
        9 months ago

        When a handful of colluding parties control the entire supply of something people can’t live without, that’s not a free market. It’s despotism. The parties in control can do anything they want, and anybody who tries to tell them no can be deprived of that resource and left to die.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        141·
        9 months ago

        until they become unaffordable and landlords have empty properties

        That is precisely what is happening, by design, and it sucks. Wouldn’t it be much, much better if there was a safeguard to prevent this?

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        Free market doesn’t mean that all rules go out the window. Colluding over prices eliminates the natural competition that occurs in a free market. That is why it is generally prohibited, though businesses still try it from time to time and they (rightly) get in trouble for it.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        3·
        9 months ago

        No that’s an oligopoly, not capitalism. Why are you arguing against your own best interests?