"1. A challenge to New York City's onerous rent control laws has been granted cert by the Supreme Court according to the New York Times. The plaintiff, James Harmon, a former lawyer in the Reagan adminisration and an alumnus of West Point, inherited the house from his grandparents, who worked long hours as a governess and a waiter to afford the home. Harmon argues that the rent stablization laws amount to the government taking his property without properly compensating him for it.
2. Harmon has taken to the Supreme Court because the lower courts, and even his assemblywoman, Linda B. Rosenthal, are fine with the current regime. Rosenthal herself is quoted in the Times sounding a bit like an Occupy Wall Street devotee:
“I understand he thinks he could make more money, that he is being deprived,” she said. “But I have so many constituents who would willingly trade his problems for theirs.”
As for luck, she said, Mr. Harmon was “lucky enough to inherit a town house.”
...she lives in a rent-regulated apartment, though she added, “If I didn’t, I probably wouldn’t be representing tenants in this district because I couldn’t afford to live in the city.”
3. ...the assemblywoman appears unaware that we have a system by which hardworking parents can designate their belongings to children after their deaths. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the role of "luck."
4. Assemblywoman Rosenthal, however, is arguing that she is entitled to her cheap rent because her political worldview demands that others make accommodations so she can do the job she likes.
5. Rent stabilized tenants are paying 59 percent below market rates to live in Harmon's house, and one tenant even maintains a house on Long Island. This is reminiscent of a famous scandal in which then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan maintained a riverfront rent-subsidized apartment in the Mitchell-Lama complex managed by New York City, designed to provide assistance to "moderate" and "middle-income" families.
6. Thanks to rent control laws, private landlords are bilked by New York City to the benefit of well-to-do tenants, hiding the difference between the market rate they are owed and the rent they actually get paid.
7. What's most interesting about this case is that Harmon is demanding compensation -- rightly so -- for a mandate imposed on him by a local government. Is Harmon entitled to the value of the property the government is letting go for cheaper?
8. There are over a million rent controlled or rent stabilized units in New York City. It's no wonder the lower courts passed the buck and the Supreme Court won't."
The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Challenge to Manhattan's Rent Control Laws Goes to Supreme Court
What a fascinating case!
Will the Supreme Court decide that government can make one citizen support another?
And, if not,...can the question of the progressive income tax system be far behind?
2. Harmon has taken to the Supreme Court because the lower courts, and even his assemblywoman, Linda B. Rosenthal, are fine with the current regime. Rosenthal herself is quoted in the Times sounding a bit like an Occupy Wall Street devotee:
“I understand he thinks he could make more money, that he is being deprived,” she said. “But I have so many constituents who would willingly trade his problems for theirs.”
As for luck, she said, Mr. Harmon was “lucky enough to inherit a town house.”
...she lives in a rent-regulated apartment, though she added, “If I didn’t, I probably wouldn’t be representing tenants in this district because I couldn’t afford to live in the city.”
3. ...the assemblywoman appears unaware that we have a system by which hardworking parents can designate their belongings to children after their deaths. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the role of "luck."
4. Assemblywoman Rosenthal, however, is arguing that she is entitled to her cheap rent because her political worldview demands that others make accommodations so she can do the job she likes.
5. Rent stabilized tenants are paying 59 percent below market rates to live in Harmon's house, and one tenant even maintains a house on Long Island. This is reminiscent of a famous scandal in which then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan maintained a riverfront rent-subsidized apartment in the Mitchell-Lama complex managed by New York City, designed to provide assistance to "moderate" and "middle-income" families.
6. Thanks to rent control laws, private landlords are bilked by New York City to the benefit of well-to-do tenants, hiding the difference between the market rate they are owed and the rent they actually get paid.
7. What's most interesting about this case is that Harmon is demanding compensation -- rightly so -- for a mandate imposed on him by a local government. Is Harmon entitled to the value of the property the government is letting go for cheaper?
8. There are over a million rent controlled or rent stabilized units in New York City. It's no wonder the lower courts passed the buck and the Supreme Court won't."
The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Challenge to Manhattan's Rent Control Laws Goes to Supreme Court
What a fascinating case!
Will the Supreme Court decide that government can make one citizen support another?
And, if not,...can the question of the progressive income tax system be far behind?
Last edited:
