Court: |
US Supreme Court |
|
Facts: |
San Jose has rent control: you can raise the rent up to 8%. If you
want to raise more, you need to justify it before a commission.
Pennell wants to assert this is unconstitutional. |
|
Posture: |
Appeal from CA Supreme Court rejecting the 14A claims. |
|
Issue: |
Is this per se unconstitutional? |
|
Holding: |
No. Affirmed. |
|
Rule: |
We only decide the constitutionality of statutes when an actual factual
setting warrants it. |
|
Reasoning: |
Rent control is not unconstitutional per se. Price control is related
to the rational goal of consumer welfare. This ordinance only
requires a hearing for additional increases-- it's sensitive to
the factual context. |
|
Dicta: |
Dissent: the fact that some renters are too poor to keep up with
the market isn't a landlord's fault, so why should we burden
them with it? If we want to subsidize folks, well and good,
but that should be via tax-and-spend (i.e., the public should
bear the cost). |