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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
31 points

Given how rapacious landlords have been for all of history, I’d be curious to hear your reasoning.

permalink
report
parent
reply

To shoot it down and form precedent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

form precedent

That’s a big ask from the same scotus that shot down a 50 year precedent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

To get an answer as to whether or not the actions of the city are constitutional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

Not every case has enough legal merit for the Supreme Court. Given that they declined the case, the obvious signal is that it’s allowed.

This is good. Rent control is a local issue and I don’t see a need to involve the federal government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The supreme court only takes a few cases every year. When they turn a case down that is meaningless - they can take it again in the future or not. When they take one that is a signal, but they might not take this one only because they think they have enough else to do [and so won’t have time to do it justice].

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Yeah I disagree with the idea that it is allowed just because they didn’t take the case. They are just saying this particular case doesn’t meet the standards they need. One doesn’t equal the other

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Have you heard of “amendments”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes. What about them?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Lol, we can’t even agree on equal rights for all being enshrined the constitution, no chance in hell that rent control would make it in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-36 points

Tenants are no better, and so there needs to be a balance. We need both landlord and tenant rights. They are in conflict, but the world needs both (remember that public housing just makes government the landlord)

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Tenets breaking rules and being shitty mean that landlords lose on their investments (which inherently carry risk).

Landlords breaking rules and being shitty means that people go homeless, live in awful conditions, or cannot afford basic necessities.

Sure, both sides have the capacity to be bad, but trying to “both sides” basic shelter is fucking wild.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Tenants breaking rules drives up the cost of rent for the good ones. When a landlord expects to have expensive maintenance (patching holes…) that gets priced into the cost of rent. If supply and demand doesn’t allow getting that much rent then they will sell and then no more landlords at all. Renting a house is the best option for some people, so we need landlords. Therefore we need them to make a small profit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Landlords are wealth leeches.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Balance is always good but the balance is way farther towards tenants than where we are now.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 19K

    Posts

  • 494K

    Comments