this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
183 points (97.9% liked)

News

22896 readers
4358 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a major property-rights challenge to rent control laws in New York City and elsewhere that give tenants a right to stay for many years in an apartment with a below-market cost.

A group of New York landlords had sued, contending the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use.

The justices had considered the appeal since late September. Only Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago (3 children)

... violated the Constitution’s ban on taking of private property for public use.

Do they think that regulating the usage of private property is the same as having it taken away? Was their argument really "As long as it's on my property, I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want. Anything else is a violation of my rights!"

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Property can be "taken" by the government, this sometimes happens when zoning laws change. For example, if the zoning of the property was changed from residential to agricultural. Then the owner could argue that the value of the property was "taken" by by the government and they would likely win the case. Regardless of if the owner was a landlord or the owner of a vacant lot.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on the original issue, but intend to only provide information about the laws related to this issue.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 11 points 7 months ago

The argument is that there exists some level of regulation by the government at which point you can claim that you functionally do not have ownership of the thing in question.

That bar is definitely very high - consider landmark laws where you can be legally forced to maintain certain aesthetics or can be prevented from knocking down a money pit that you also functionally can't sell - hence this case failing, but it's not an absolutely absurd argument in general principle.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Regulating can be a violation of the Takings Clause. It just isn’t here.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Unpopular opinion of the day : I think the justice needed to hear this case.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 31 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Given how rapacious landlords have been for all of history, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To shoot it down and form precedent.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago

form precedent

That's a big ask from the same scotus that shot down a 50 year precedent.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

No you definitely don’t want the SCOTUS touching this until after Thomas and Alito die.

[–] mr_robot2938@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)