Alan Gura, who successful argued District of Columbia v. Heller, is still fighting the District of Columbia for attorney fees. The District, who is opposing this request stringently, filed a protective order earlier this month to limit access to billing records from Pro Bono firms that assisted the district. Today in court, Gura replied in kind.
“Your honor, I would love to settle this. But we need a partner to negotiate.”
Many thanks to Ilya Shapiro, my co-author and fellow Harlan Institute board member for the lovely shout-out at Cato@Liberty.
And while I have you thinking about such high-fallutin’ theoretical matters, let me also direct your attention to a new article by an up-and-coming legal scholar, also a friend-of-Cato (and my sometime co-author), Josh Blackman. Josh argues that the Supreme Court’s relatively new “class of one” doctrine, by which a single person can present himself as a class discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, should be used to challenge eminent domain abuse. That is, homeowners can establish a class of one (i.e., the person whose home the government takes) if their property is singled out for condemnation while other similarly situated properties are not. The singled-out homeowner(s) can thus challenge the arbitrariness of the government’s taking of their property.
Josh obviously hopes that some court will accept this novel strategy of borrowing equal protection jurisprudence to check rampant eminent domain abuse and vindicate property rights. Here you can download his article, which is titled “Equal Protection from Eminent Domain: Protecting the Home of Olech’s Class of One.” Coincidentally, two years ago Roger Pilon wrote an essay on the Supreme Court’s most recent “class of one” decision, which you can read here.
Wake up in the morning feeling like P. Schwartzy,
Grab my kipa, I’m out the door, I’m gonna hit this city
Before I leave, say my prayers with a box on my head
‘Cause when I leave for shabbas, I ain’t coming back
I’m talkin’ generally conservative clothes (clothes)
yarmulkes on our domes (domes)
Jewish moms blowin’ up our phones (phones)
Playin’ his favorite Klezmer CD
Turn off the electricity!
Tryin’ to get everything done before 7:30!
Don’t stop, till I plotz
Rabbi, blow my prayers up
Tonight, I’mma light
Before we see the star’s light
Tick tock on the clock
But the shabbas don’t stop, no
Woah-oh-oh-OY (x2)
Ain’t got a sin in world, but got plenty of prayers
Ain’t got no shekels in my pocket, but I’m already here
And now, the rebbes are lining up cause they hear we got chutzpah
But we kick em to the kotel unless they bringin Moshiach!
I’m talking about everybody getting Jews, Jews
Mom’s tryin’ to marry my sis Sue Sue
Gonna circumcise him if he getting too much, much
Now, now, we go until they guilt us out, out
Or the lubavitch shut us down, down
Lubavitch shut us down, down
Lu-Ba shut us
Don’t stop, till I plotz
Rabbi, blow my prayers up
Tonight, I’mma light
Before we see the star’s light
Tick tock on the clock
But the shabbas don’t stop, no
Woah-oh-oh-OY (x2)
Kipa Tip to YR, AR, and JK
Rent control is not a treasure. It is a scourge on the free market.
The New York Times has a puff piece about how this “mythic[al]” program is slowly vanishing from Manhattan.
An informal survey of some major landlords and real estate agencies turned up an Upper East Side woman paying $156.20 for two conjoined studios, a Lower East Side man paying $60 a month for a walk-up and the octogenarians and nonagenarians sprinkled through Little Italy paying $58 to $102 a month
…
The roster of rent-controlled apartments, the ones with the most restrictions on rent, has shrunk to 40,000, according to the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. When these units are emptied, they become rent stabilized, and after a certain point the apartments can be liberated to the free market. According to the most recent figures available, the number of rent-stabilized units fell to 848,000 in 2008 from 900,000 in 2003.
Liberated to the free market? Liberated to the free market???? Seriously??? Well, at least this statement implicitly notes that previously, this apartment was enslaved by the welfare state. In that sense, I suppose it is an appropriate locution.
The articles tells the story of one tenant, John Burke, who pays $288 a month for a studio apartment on 218 East 84th Street. Other tenants in his building pay close to $2,000 for a similar apartment.
And despite such a statist boon, this ungrateful tenant is still unhappy. While his landlord renovates other apartments, for obvious reasons, he will not renovate Burke’s apartment.
Mr. Burke says he has spent $13,500 to repair his dilapidated apartment, and $11,000 on legal fees taking his landlords to court over the conditions.
“It’s been hell,” he said while walking among glass shards that construction workers left strewn in the backyard. “Now you see, it’s no bargain.”
He saves almost $2,000 a month on rent. In one year, he saves over $24,000 in rent. That is approximately the same amount he has spent on repair costs and legal fees. Now consider all of the years he has lived there, and the money he has saved. And he thinks there is no bargain? Seriously?
Rant over.