A Stitch in Haste

One of the many ways that basic constitutional rights have been blanked out over the decades has been through the disgrace of "regulatory takings," in which the government doesn't physically seize your property (as in Kelo v. New London), but simply forbids you to do what you want with it. See, e.g., "wetlands" preservation.

A pending example in New York:

State legislators announced a plan Sunday to ensure Starrett City apartments remain affordable by protecting the Brooklyn complex under the state's rent-stabilization laws.

Under current law, buildings that opened in 1974 or later — such as the 46-building, 5,881-unit Starrett City — are exempt from rent-stabilization rules if they leave [government subsidy programs]. Starrett, which was just sold for $1.3 billion, is enrolled ... but its new owners could potentially withdraw from the program.

The bill, sponsored by Assemb. Vito Lopez (D-Brooklyn), would automatically protect any property that leaves the programs with rent-stabilization, no matter what year the building was built and occupied.

For year after year, Starrett City played by rules and obeyed the law. Now, when they want to — gasp! — still follow the rules, by opting out of the game — suddenly they might not be allowed to? It's like the bully who, having lost the game, demands "two out of three," and then "three out of five," ad infinitum.

And for the consequentialists (of which I am not one): what kind of signal does this send to real estate developers and other entrepreneurs? "Do not build housing in this city. If you build it, they will come — and steal it (or its profit potential) from you."

The current and intended future owners of Starrett City did everything that was asked of them for over thirty years. They are entitled to the deal they were promised.

The fact that so many activist legislators can't grasp this simple truth is another reason why all politicians are, by definition, moral defectives.