Though courts on all levels have routinely upheld rent stabilization laws, and despite the fact that his own case has been dismissed by two state courts, James Harmon has caught the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court in his bid to fight the regulations. But according to the New York Law Journal, Harmon isn’t any more likely to win his case than previous challengers – even after the Supreme Court requested the city file a response explaining the courts’ aforementioned dismissals.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Harmon claimed that rent stabilization does not help the needy, and that it is “not about affordable housing.” He wrote: “It is all about luck … a racket in which property owners and market rate tenants always lose.” The state, he argued, has essentially “taken” three of his apartments, as it prohibits him from objecting to rent the property or terminating a tenancy.
But, to a man, the real estate lawyers quoted by the Law Journal all say that these arguments have been presented before to little avail. They agreed its unlikely a court rules differently this time around. In fact, Harmon’s biggest sympathizers in the Supreme Court, the conservative justices, are unlikely to rule on his behalf as it would be a form of active policymaking, the Law Journal said.Moreover, tenant attorney Timothy Collins of Collins Dobkins & Miller said Harmon misunderstood the purpose of rent regulation, which is not to provide affordable housing, but “to control profiteering in a market that is plagued with chronic housing shortages.” [NYLJ]
March 12, 2012 at 10:17 am, James Harmon | Rent Stabilization | Supreme Court | Посты said:
[...] case of James Harmon, an Upper West Side landlord who owns a five-story townhouse on West 76th Street near Central Park, [...]