Of course he’s probably crazy but he seems to be making a lot of trouble for the hotel. NYC rent stabilization rules apparently at fault, together with a lot of confusion and benefit of the doubt given to him by the bureaocratic system. Claiming to own the whole hotel in downtown NYC was a step to far, although probably trying to bill the other tenants didn’t endear him to management either.
Obligatory side note: “if you think rents are high in NYC, think how much cheaper they would be without rent control”
This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.
I have long since stopped trying to make sense of the legal system but it is worth a shot just for fun. Why is rent control not a “taking” by the government of the landlord’s property and therefore forbidden by the 5th amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The courts have invented convoluted rules such as whether the taking is “permanent” or temporary. In 2012 in the Harmon case there was some hope that the Supreme Court would revisit the New York “rent stabilization” law but as usual the Roberts court punted.
Even if they had taken it Roberts would probably have sided with the Leftists, who of course will vote as a bloc, to allow it under some cockamamie reasoning like the Robertscare or the census two-step dance decisions.
p.s. I realize that the Fifth amendment and the Constitution in general applies to the federal government but the Supremes have also invented theories using the 14th Amendment to apply it to state and local government.
I’m wondering if the issue the SC had about taking it was about how it qualified for “public use” considering it affects rents between individuals, not any part of the government.
Add to that the fact that it’s a local government and technically not permanent (even if it looks to be for as long as renter wants) and I think the punting looks more like a refusal to touch this mess with a 10-ft pole.
Even so, this kind of stupid stuff makes you shake your head how it is even legal or possible.