Q&A: Taking Advantage of Rent Laws
Taking Advantage of Rent Laws
Question
In many places there are rent laws that prevent the landlord from raising the rent to the level accepted on the market. Many tenants take advantage of this and live in expensive city centers while paying rent far below its real value. Is there a moral problem with this? And is there a difference between a poor tenant and a well-off one?
Answer
Why is this “taking advantage”? That is what the legislature decided.
Discussion on Answer
That is speculation, and it sounds implausible to me. Landlords' votes matter to it no less. In any case, if that is the legal situation, I do not see any obligation to act differently.
According to what you’re saying, it would follow that there is no objection to a person refusing to enlist in the army if he is taking advantage of a loophole in the law or of the law itself (as in the case of “Torah is his occupation”), even though by doing so he is paying a lower price for the return he receives—is that not so?
How did you arrive at that bizarre conclusion? Or perhaps that was where you were aiming from the outset?
I was not talking about exploiting loopholes, but about acting according to a law that was legislated on this matter. The law that was enacted says that we do not go by the free market but by government regulation. What does that have to do with the duty to enlist? When the legislature exempts you from military service—not as a loophole—then indeed there is no obligation to enlist. But when the legislature does so arbitrarily for the sake of a narrow interest and causes others to be sacrificed for your sake, that is a different matter.
I am trying to understand how one evaluates the morality of conduct within the framework of the law—meaning, when taking advantage of a law (or legislating it in the first place) in a way that suits only my own interest is immoral, and when there is no problem with it. Seemingly, if tenants can legislate a law in their favor against landlords' interests, and taxi drivers can legislate a law in their favor against the interests of the rest of the public, why shouldn’t Haredim be able to legislate a law in their favor against everyone else’s interests?
I agree that sometimes there is a problem with this, but I have a hard time pinning down the definition (if there is one).
I don’t know how to give general definitions. There is common sense. When the legislature acted in bad faith for the sake of a guild interest, it is easier to cut corners and not be strict about it.
The legislature decided this because of the votes it wants to get from tenants… Is it moral for tenants to push for a law that lets them pay less than is appropriate for rent?