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.