Once Ruth Bader dies and we get another property rights conservative SCOTUS then we can fight back
But that’s also not the same as a blanket ban of rent control. My point still is, rent control is not unconstitutional.
Yes it is. Confiscation without compensation. It was used in WW2 to stop war profiteering. Just like when Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus it was illegal. Time to fight back. The solution to a short term crisis has created a long term crisis is all blue state urban areas
Government also regulates how much PG&E can charge their customers. Is that unconstitutional as well?
There must be a different application of the law for instituting price controls wrt price controls. I don’t know what it is, but I’d like to learn.
With regards to rent control on private property, regarding the 5th amendment, it seems the govt indeed is taking private property for public use - especially it that “public use” is doing something like “affordable housing for all.”
Perhaps the way to look at this is — what is the intention of the government in instituting rent control? In practice it does gift a portion of your private property to tenants — but I think the intention of the government is to take a portion of the property away for public use.
Restricting how a property can be used is not the same as confiscation. Zoning is also restricting how you can use your property. All government regulations are.
You can exit the rental market thru the Ellis act. As long as you can do that it’s not confiscation. You can argue the burden is too much and that it should be lessened. I agree. But it’s not the same as saying controlling price of rental units is unconstitutional.
Why isn’t it the same as confiscating a future revenue stream worth present value of $xyz and giving it back to the public by reducing the price of one tenant’s rent so that that tenant and pump the money back into the public economy? Seriously asking.
San Jose’s rent control ordinance was 8% increase a year a few years ago. They recently changed it to 5%.
They can change it to 2% at any time.
What is your definition of irresponsible landlord?
My definition of irresponsible tenant is “claiming the equivalent right of owning property without paying the cost to get it”.
When you rent something, you deserve to rent it until the end of lease contract, not forever.
When rent is falling, if landlords demand tenants to sign 10-year lease, would they sign it? They won’t even sign 2-year rent. I personally moved to cheaper rental home when rent went down in 2010 although my current landlord at that time offered the rent at the same price.
I don’t understand why rental market should be such a big exception from market economy.
I own rental property in my home country and never heard of anything close to rent control. Only protection they provide to tenants is minimum 2-year lease at the time of renewal of contract.
Repeal Profit and jail the stock owners!!
Not a legal scholar here. So just talking from a layperson perspective.
If you broaden confiscation to anything that impacts future revenue, it would make all government regulations untenable. Zoning is one example. Why can’t I maximize my property value by building a skyscraper? By forbidding me build a skyscraper the government is robbing many millions of dollars of future revenue from me.
Almost every government regulation creates winners and losers. “Confiscation” by necessity needs to clear a high bar or else we won’t have governments.
Public utility is a monopoly. Individual homes are not. Time to fight another Revolutionary war. It is the workers against slackers and the slackers are taking over. Renters will vote for free rent if they could. After all housing is a human right
Defeat Prop 10 is the first priority.
Ask Ford to impeach Kavanaugh if he does not end rent control Bribe Dr Ford and make her a rent control terminator
Exactly as @Elt1 pointed out. That’s because they have a monopoly. If you only allow one landlord to operate in a state, then the government would be able to dictate prices.
Ok, for devil’s advocacy reasons then - why are banks limited by law wrt the max interest rate they may charge for a loan? There are many banks and no one bank is a monopoly. Why is this ok?
I’m not aware of an interest rate limit. Hard money loan rate can be any rate that’s acceptable to borrowers and lenders.
Rent control is unconstitutional except during emergency. Santa Rosa fire can qualify for rent control for 6-12 months.
Constitution didn’t mention monopoly at all. Saying something is “unconstitutional” is a high bar and rightfully so.
Is zoning unconstitutional?
Vote, just vote against Prop 10. Your fate is in your very own hand.
Kavanaugh is very moderate. Don’t hold too much hope on him. I think we need to ask Dr Ford to threaten Kavanaugh to ban rent control.
Here are the usury laws by state - http://www.lendingkarma.com/content/state-usury-laws-legal-interest-rates/
that said in practice there are lots of exceptions which is why you bring up the example of hard money loans having such a high rate.