A writ of certiori is a petition to the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. The writ includes information such as, the parties, previous proceedings, and reasons as to why the court should grant the petition and hear the case. In order for a writ of certiori to be granted, 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices must agree to hear the case. Denial of the writ means that the decision of the lower court stands. However, denial does not necessarily mean that the justices agree with the lower court decision or affirm the constitutionality of the lower court decision.
At issue in Harmon v. Kimmel was the constitutionality of the New York City Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The RSL provides limits on the amount that a landlord may increase rent in certain apartments and was adopted in response to what was deemed a public emergency in the New York City housing market – rents were increasing at abnormal rates and there was an acute shortage of housing. Rents remain low market, for longer periods of time, as housing is often passed down between relatives (due to succession rights). Today, this has resulted in below market rate housing in typically expensive housing areas.
The Harmons inherited a building with 3 rent controlled tenants. The tenants occupied the building since the 1970s, for a combined 91 years, and were paying approximately 56% below the market rental rate. The Harmons claimed that the RSL amounted to an unconstitutional taking by the government, as it prevented them from appropriately increasing the rent on these tenants.
The court would hear none of it, as it declined to review the case. Assuming that the Supreme Court would have granted the petition, the argument would have been a particularly difficult one to win.
A regulatory taking occurs when the government permanently restricts all use of an owners land, leaving all of the owner’s land economically idle – thus, depriving the owner of all economic value of the property. A taking has previously been distinguished from government regulation of land such as zoning, rent control on landlords, regulation of wetlands, or the landmark preservation of property, all of which are valid if the owner can obtain a “reasonable financial return.” Here, the Harmons were not deprived of all economic value of their property and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
Tough luck, landlords.
Read all of the briefs and documents, here.
At issue in Harmon v. Kimmel was the constitutionality of the New York City Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The RSL provides limits on the amount that a landlord may increase rent in certain apartments and was adopted in response to what was deemed a public emergency in the New York City housing market – rents were increasing at abnormal rates and there was an acute shortage of housing. Rents remain low market, for longer periods of time, as housing is often passed down between relatives (due to succession rights). Today, this has resulted in below market rate housing in typically expensive housing areas.
The Harmons inherited a building with 3 rent controlled tenants. The tenants occupied the building since the 1970s, for a combined 91 years, and were paying approximately 56% below the market rental rate. The Harmons claimed that the RSL amounted to an unconstitutional taking by the government, as it prevented them from appropriately increasing the rent on these tenants.
The court would hear none of it, as it declined to review the case. Assuming that the Supreme Court would have granted the petition, the argument would have been a particularly difficult one to win.
A regulatory taking occurs when the government permanently restricts all use of an owners land, leaving all of the owner’s land economically idle – thus, depriving the owner of all economic value of the property. A taking has previously been distinguished from government regulation of land such as zoning, rent control on landlords, regulation of wetlands, or the landmark preservation of property, all of which are valid if the owner can obtain a “reasonable financial return.” Here, the Harmons were not deprived of all economic value of their property and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
Tough luck, landlords.
Read all of the briefs and documents, here.