And Richard and I both have some experience with Manhattan real estate, some.

I lived in it for 50 years, often and most entirely in rent controlled apartments on the upper west side. And now we have the

Supreme Court weighing in one more time with an issue that Richard has

explicated over the years. This is Skoda's blog headline, meaning very dry.

Justices reject New York Landlord's petition to end rent stabilization system.

In the plain language of somebody who's been in a rent controlled apartment, rent control

is the reason there's

a reason that people are paying wildly different rates is the reason there's tension

between landlords and those of us who rent for 50 years and still the court won't act.

Professor, when will they act?

When will they recognize that the market is distorted?

Never, I think is the short answer.

One of the things that happened is that there was a short comment, not at the scent by Justice

Thomas saying

if an appropriate case he thinks when we have the full facts and circumstances

of an individual set of circumstances,

we should consider this again.

His approach is essentially as disastrous with respect to

remedies and rent control as is that of a majority. Rent control is a

structural phenomenon. If you start saying we have to look at each case specifically to see whether or not the landlord is getting enough return, you're going to have 600,000 units and nothing is going to be done.

If somebody has to do is to look at this as a structural problem

and realize that when control is the following transaction.

...