*legal codes* - -KINGDOM OF JOGA-

*WIKI-LIST*
(as of ’16 july 2020′)

By area of study and practice

Administrative law

Admiralty law

Adoption law

Agency law

Alcohol law

Alternative dispute resolution

Animal law

Antitrust law (or competition law)

Art law (or art and culture law)

Aviation law

Banking law

Bankruptcy law (creditor debtor rights law or insolvency and reorganization law)

Bioethics

Business law (or commercial law); commercial litigation

Business organizations law (or companies law)

Canon law

Civil law or common law

Class action litigation/Mass tort litigation

Communications law

Computer law

Competition law

Conflict of law (or private international law)

Constitutional law

Construction law

Consumer law

Contract law

Corporate law (or company law), also corporate compliance law and corporate governance law

Criminal law

Cryptography law

Cultural property law

Custom (law)

Cyber law

Defamation

Drug control law

Elder law

Employment law

Energy law

Entertainment law

Environmental law

Family law

Financial services regulation law

Firearm law

Food law

Gaming law

Health and safety law

Health law

Housing law

Immigration law

Insurance law

Intellectual property law

International law

International human rights law

International humanitarian law

International trade and finance law

Internet law

Juvenile law

Labour law (or Labor law)

Landlord–tenant law

Litigation

Martial law

Media law

Medical law

Military law

Mining law

Mortgage law

Music law

Nationality law

Obscenity law

Parliamentary law

Patent law

Poverty law

Privacy law

Procedural law

Property law

Public health law

Public International Law

Real estate law

Securities law / Capital markets law

Space law

Sports law

Statutory law

Tax law

Technology law

Tort law

Trademark law

Transport law / Transportation law

Trusts & estates law

Water law

See also[edit]

List of legal topics

List of legal terms

References[edit]

^ Vértesy, László (2007). “The Place and Theory of Banking Law – Or Arising of a New Branch of Law: Law of Financial Industries”. Collega. Rochester, NY. 2–3. XI.

SSRN 3198092.

From, one of the five capital lawyers in Roman Law, Domitius Ulpianus, (170–223) – who differentiated ius publicum versus ius privatum – the European, more exactly the continental law, philosophers and thinkers want(ed) to put each branch of law into this dichotomy:

Public and Private Law.

“huius studdii duæ sunt positiones: publicum et privatum. Publicum ius est, quod statum rei Romanæ spectat, privatum, quod ad singulorum utilitatem; sunt enim quædam publice utila, quædam privatim”.

(Public law is that, which concerns Roman state, private law is concerned with the interests of citizens.) In the modern era Charles-Louis Montesquieu (1689–1755) amplified supremely this distinction: International (law of nations), Public (politic law) and Private (civil law) Law, in his major work: (On) The Spirit of the Law (1748). “Considered as inhabitants of so great a planet, which necessarily contains a variety of nations, they have laws relating to their mutual intercourse, which is what we call the law of nations. As members of a society that must be properly supported, they have laws relating to the governors and the governed, and this we distinguish by the name of politic law. They have also another sort of law, as they stand in relation to each other; by which is understood the civil law.”[1]

en.wikipedia.org /wiki/List_of_areas_of_law
List of areas of law
4-4 minutes
The following is a list of major areas of legal practice and important legal subject-matters.

*RENT REGULATION*

en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Rent_regulation
Rent regulation – Wikipedia
24-30 minutes
Part of a series on
Living spaces
Vista-kfm home-alt.png
Main[show]

Issues[show]

Society and Politics[show]

v
t
e

Rent regulation is a system of laws, administered by a court or a public authority, which aims to ensure the affordability of housing and tenancies on the rental market for dwellings. Generally, a system of rent regulation involves:

Price controls, limits on the rent that a landlord may charge, typically called rent control or rent stabilization

Eviction controls: codified standards by which a landlord may terminate a tenancy[1]:1 [2]:1
obligations on the landlord or tenant regarding adequate maintenance of the property
a system of oversight and enforcement by an independent regulator and Ombudsman
The loose term “rent control” covers a spectrum of regulation which can vary from setting the absolute amount of rent that can be charged, with no allowed increases, to placing different limits on the amount that rent can increase; these restrictions may continue between tenancies, or may be applied only within the duration of a tenancy.[3] As of 2016, at least 14 of the 36 OECD countries have some form of rent control in effect,[4] including four states in the United States.[5][6]

Rent regulation is one of several classes of policies proposed to improve housing affordability, alongside subsidies (including vouchers and tax credits) and policies aimed at expanding the housing supply.[7] There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing.[8]

Forms of rent regulation[edit]
The loose term “rent control” can apply to several types of price control:

“strict price ceilings”, also known as rent freeze systems, or absolute or first generation rent controls, in which no increases in rent are allowed at all (rent is typically frozen at the rate existing when the law was enacted)
“vacancy control”, also known as strict or strong rent control, in which the rental price can rise, but continues to be regulated in between tenancies (a new tenant pays almost the same rent as the previous tenant) and
“vacancy decontrol”, also known as tenancy or second-generation rent control, which limits price increases during a tenancy, but allows rents to rise to market rate between tenancies (new tenants pay market rate rent, but increases are limited as long as they remain).[9]
Economics[edit]
Theory[edit]
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land ….”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776) Book I, ch 6

Rent price controls remain the most controversial element of a system of rent regulation. Historically, economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo viewed landlords as producing very little that was valuable, and so regarded “rents” as an exploitative concept.[citation needed] (Economists note that the land value tax is a way to capture this unearned value.)[10] Modern rent controls (sometimes called rent leveling or rent stabilization) are intended to protect tenants in privately owned residential properties from excessive rent increases by mandating gradual rent increases, while at the same time ensuring that landlords receive a return on their investment that is deemed fair by the controlling authority, which might, or might not be a legislature.

A number of neo-classical and Keynesian economists say that some forms of rent control regulations create shortages and exacerbate scarcity in the housing market by discouraging private investment in the rental market.[11][12] This analysis targeted nominal rent freezes, and the studies conducted were mainly focused on rental prices in Manhattan, or elsewhere in the United States.

The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that “rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing”.[13]

California studies[edit]
Historically, there have been two types of rent control – vacancy control (where the rent level of a unit is controlled irrespective of whether the tenant remains in the unit or not) and vacancy decontrol (where the rent level is controlled only while the existing tenant remains in the unit). In California prior to 1997, both types were allowed (the Costa/Hawkins bill of that year phased out vacancy control provisions). A 1990 study of Santa Monica, CA showed that vacancy control in that city protected existing tenants (lower increases in rent and longer stability). However, the policy potentially discouraged investors from building new rental units.[14]

A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas. Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy controlled cities over the 10-year period.[15]

A study that compared the effects of local rent control measures (both vacancy control and vacancy decontrol) with other local growth management measures in 490 California cities and counties (including all the largest ones) showed that rent control was stronger than individual land use restrictions (but not the aggregate effect of all growth restrictions) in reducing the number of rental units constructed between 1980 and 1990.[16] The measures (both rent control and growth management) helped displace new construction from the metropolitan areas to the interiors of the state with low income and minority populations being particularly impacted.

2019 study of the San Francisco housing market[edit]
In 1994, San Francisco voters passed a ballot initiative which expanded the city’s existing rent control laws to include small multi-unit apartments with four or less units, built prior to 1980. (about 30% of the city’s rental housing stock at the time). [17]:7 [18]:1 [19]:1 A 2019 study found that San Francisco’s rent control laws reduced tenant displacement from rent controlled units in the short-term, but resulted in landlords removing 30% of the rent controlled units from the rental market, (by conversion to condos or TICs) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents. [20][18][19][21] [22]:1 [23]:1 [24]I

Economists’ views[edit]
In a 1992 stratified, random survey of 464 US economists, economics graduate students, and members of the American Economic Association, 93% “generally agreed” or “agreed with provisos” that “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”[25]:204 [26]:1

A 2009 review of the economic literature[12]:106[better source needed] by Blair Jenkins through EconLit covering theoretical and empirical research on multiple aspects of the issue, including housing availability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution, for both first generation and second generation rent control systems, found that “the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves”.[12]:105 [27]:1 [28]:1 [29]:1[better source needed]

In a 2012 poll of the 41 leading economists by the Initiative on Global Markets (IGM) Economic Experts Panel, which queried opinions on the statement “Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them,” 13 members said they strongly disagreed, 20 disagreed, 1 agreed, and 7 either did not answer, were undecided, or had no opinion.[30] [2]:1 [31]:1

In a 2013 analysis of the body of economic research on rent control by Peter Tatian at the Urban Institute, he stated that “The conclusion seems to be that rent stabilization doesn’t do a good job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters—because the targeting of the benefits is very haphazard.”, and concluded that: “Given the current research, there seems to be little one can say in favor of rent control.” [27]:1 [2]:1 [32]:1

Many economists suggest housing subsidies as a way to make housing more affordable to renters without distorting the housing market as much as rent control, but expanding the existing subsidy programs would require sharp increases in government spending.[7]

Paul Krugman writes that rent control inhibits construction of new housing, creates bitter tenant–landlord relations, and in markets with not all apartments under rent control, causes an increase in rents for uncontrolled units.[26]

Thomas Sowell writes that rent control reduces the supply of housing,[33]:4 and has stated that rent control increases urban blight.[33]:5 [34]:1

History[edit]
[icon]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2019)

Early modern Europe[edit]
Rent control was used in Rome as early as 1470 to protect Jewish residents from price gouging. Since Jews in the Papal States were forbidden to own property, they were dependent on Christian landlords, who charged them high rents. In 1562, Pope Pius IV granted Jews the right to own property worth up to 1500 Roman scudi and enacted rent stabilization. In 1586, Pope Sixtus V issued a bull ordering landlords to rent out houses to Jewish tenants at reasonable rates.[35]

Politics[edit]
[icon]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2019)

California[edit]
A survey conducted in 2018 by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California found that 28% of eligible California voters believed that the lack of rent control was the main contributing factor to California’s housing affordability crisis. 24% of respondents believed that the most significant cause of the housing crisis was insufficient funding of low-income housing; only 13% believed it was insufficient new housing.[36]

In 2018, a statewide initiative (Proposition 10) attempted to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which, if passed, would have allowed cities and municipalities to enact “vacancy control” systems, allowed rent control to be applied to buildings newer than 1995, and would have allowed rent control on single-family homes. (All currently prohibited by Costa-Hawkins.)[37]:1 The proposition failed, 59% to 41%.[38][39]

Rent regulation by country[edit]
Canada[edit]
In Canada, there are rent regulation laws in each province. For example, in Ontario the Residential Tenancies Act 2006 requires that prices for rented properties do not rise more than 2.5 percent each year, or a lower figure fixed by a government minister.

Germany[edit]
German rent regulation is found in the “Civil Code” (the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) in §§ 535 to §§ 580a, and particular rights for tenants on termination are in §§568 ff.[40] The increases of rental price are required to follow a “rent level” (Mietspiegel), which is a database of local reference rent prices. This collects all rent prices in the past four years, and landlords may only increase prices on their property in line with rents in the same locality. Usury Rents are prohibited altogether, so that any price rises above 20 per cent over three years are unlawful.[41]

Tenants may be evicted against their will through a court procedure for a good reason, and in the normal case only with a minimum of three months’ notice.[42] Tenants receive unlimited duration of their rental agreement unless the duration is explicitly halted. In practice, landlords have little incentive to change tenants as rental price increases beyond inflation are constrained. During the period of the tenancy, a person’s tenancy may only be terminated for very good reasons. A system of rights for the rental property to be maintained by the landlord is designed to ensure quality of housing. Many states, such as Berlin, have a constitutional right to adequate housing, and require buildings to make dwelling spaces of a certain size and ceiling height.[citation needed]

United Kingdom[edit]

UK house prices 1975–2006.

Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party’s policy to deregulate and dismantle rent regulation. Regulation for all new tenancies was abolished by the Housing Act 1988, leaving the basic regulatory framework was “freedom of contract” by the landlord to set any price. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market.

United States[edit]
Rent regulation in the United States is an issue for each state. In 1921, the US Supreme Court case of Block v. Hirsh[43] held by a majority that regulation of rents in the District of Columbia as a temporary emergency measure was constitutional, but shortly afterwards in 1924 in Chastleton Corp v. Sinclair[44] the same law was unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court. After the 1930s New Deal, the Supreme Court ceased to interfere with social and economic legislation, and a number of states adopted rules.[citation needed] In the 1986 case of Fisher v. City of Berkeley,[45] the US Supreme court held that there was no incompatibility between rent control and the Sherman Act.

As of 2018, four states (California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia have localities in which some form of residential rent control is in effect (for normal structures, excluding mobile homes).[5][6] Thirty-seven states either prohibit or preempt rent control, while nine states allow their cities to enact rent control, but have no cities that have implemented it.[5][6] For the localities with rent control, it often covers a large percentage of that city’s stock of rental units: For example, in some of the largest markets: in New York City in 2011, 45% of rental units were either “rent stabilized” or “rent controlled”, (these are different legal classifications in NYC) [46]:1 in the District of Columbia in 2014, just over 50% of rental units were rent controlled, [47]:1 in San Francisco, as of 2014, about 75% of all rental units were rent controlled, [48]:1 and in Los Angeles in 2014, 80% of multifamily units were rent controlled. [49]:1

In 2019 Oregon’s legislature passed a bill which made the state the first in the nation to adopt a state-wide rent control policy. This new law limits annual rent increases to inflation plus 7 percent, includes vacancy decontrol (market rate between tenancies), exempts new construction for 15 years, and keeps the current state ban on local rent control policies (state level preemption) intact. [50]:1 [51]:1

See also[edit]
Affordable housing
English land law
Housing inequality
Public housing
Subsidized housing
References[edit]
^ Branco, Marc (20 February 2011). “Rent and Eviction Control Laws”. marcbrancolaw.com. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. Retrieved 19 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c Pender, Kathleen (10 September 2016). “Rent control spreading to Bay Area suburbs, to economists’ dismay”. The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 8 October 2016. Retrieved 18 August 2018.
^ See the section on Rent regulation#Forms of rent regulation for more detail.
^ “PH6.1 RENTAL REGULATION” (PDF). OECD.org – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 21 December 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 February 2017. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c “RENT CONTROL BY STATE LAW” (PDF). National Multifamily Housing Council. 21 March 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 August 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c “Residential Rent Control Law Guide By State”. LandLord.com. Archived from the original on 13 June 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Dougherty, Conor (12 October 2018). “Why Rent Control Is a Lightning Rod”. The New York Times. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
^ See the Economists’ views section for the references supporting this statement.
^ Cruz, Christian (19 January 2009). “The pros and cons of rent control”. Global Property Guide. Archived from the original on 27 February 2010. Retrieved 5 August 2018.
^ “The time may be right for land-value taxes – Beloved of liberals and economists, they have so far never caught on”. The Economist. 9 August 2018. Archived from the original on 27 August 2018. Retrieved 9 September 2018.
^ C Rapkin,The Private Rental Housing Market in New York City (1966) and G Sternlieb, The Urban Housing Dilemma (1972)
^ Jump up to: a b c Jenkins, Blair (1 January 2009). “Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?” (PDF). American Institute for Economic Research. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 September 2017. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
^ Fraser Nelson (2 May 2014). “Low-rent Labour is positioning itself as the Ukip of the Left”. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
^ Levine, Ned; Grigsby, J. Eugene; Heskin, Allan D. (1990). “Who Benefits from Rent Control? Effects on Tenants in Santa Monica, California”. Journal of the American Planning Association. 56 (2): 140–152. doi:10.1080/01944369008975755.
^ Heskin, Allan D.; Levine, Ned; Garrett, Mark (2000). “The Effects of Vacancy Control: A Spatial Analysis of Four California Cities”. Journal of the American Planning Association. 66 (2): 162–176. doi:10.1080/01944360008976096.
^ Levine, Ned (1 November 1999). “The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California”. Urban Studies. 36 (12): 2047–2068. doi:10.1080/0042098992539.
^ Diamond, Rebecca; McQuade, Tim; Qian, Franklin (11 October 2017). “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants,Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco” (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 August 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Murphy, Katy (2 November 2017). “Rent-control policy ‘likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco,’ study finds – As California debates rent caps, economists offer a cautionary note”. The San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 4 January 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Truong, Kevin (9 November 2017). “Rent control linked to gentrification in San Francisco, Stanford study says”. American City Business Journals. Archived from the original on 2 December 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2018.
^ Qian, Franklin; McQuade, Tim; Diamond, Rebecca (2019). “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco”. American Economic Review. 109 (9): 3365–3394. doi:10.1257/aer.20181289. ISSN 0002-8282.
^ Robertson, Michelle (3 November 2017). “Rent-control policies likely ‘fueled’ SF gentrification, Stanford economists say”. San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 3 December 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
^ Delgadillo, Natalie (14 February 2018). “Does Rent Control Do More Harm Than Good? – A new study suggests that policies meant to keep rents down actually jack them up overall, reduce the rental stock and fuel gentrification”. Governing. Archived from the original on 22 February 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
^ Misra, Tanvi (29 January 2018). “Rent Control: a Reckoning”. CityLab. Archived from the original on 1 February 2018. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
^ Andrews, Edmund (2 February 2018). “Rent Control’s Winners and Losers – With rents going through the roof in hot cities, the hunt is on for a better way to protect tenants from being priced out of their homes”. Stanford Graduate School of Business. Archived from the original on 9 March 2018. Retrieved 11 December 2018.
^ Alston, Richard M.; Kearl, J. R.; Vaughan, Michael B. (1 May 1992). “Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990s?” (PDF). The American Economic Review. 82 (2): 203–209. JSTOR 2117401. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 September 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b Krugman, Paul (7 June 2000). “Reckonings; A Rent Affair”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 6 April 2009. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Tatian, Peter (2 January 2013). “Is Rent Control Good Policy?”. Urban Institute. Archived from the original on 3 July 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2018.
^ Beyer, Scott (24 April 2015). “How Ironic: America’s Rent-Controlled Cities Are Its Least Affordable”. Forbes. Archived from the original on 19 July 2015. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
^ Valdez, Roger (18 December 2017). “Rent Control Doesn’t Help Renters: Some In Washington State Want To Try It Anyway”. Forbes. Archived from the original on 23 December 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
^ “Rent Control”. Initiative on Global Markets. 7 February 2012. Archived from the original on 11 December 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
^ Matthews, Dylan (20 August 2013). “Which economist do you agree with most? Take this quiz to find out!”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
^ Jaffe, Eric (9 April 2013). “Some People Will Do Crazy Things for a Rent-Controlled Apartment in NYC”. CityLab – The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 12 September 2018. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Sowell, Thomas. 2008. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-00349-4.
^ Sawhill, Ray (10 November 1999). “Black and right – Thomas Sowell talks about the arrogance of liberal elites and the loneliness of the black conservative”. Salon. Archived from the original on 7 December 2011. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
^ Willis, John W. (1950). “Short History of Rent Control Laws”. Cornell Law Review. 36 (1): 54–94. Retrieved 7 March 2019 – via Cornell University Law Library.
^ Dillon, Liam (21 October 2018). “Experts say California needs to build a lot more housing. But the public disagrees”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
^ Murphy, Katy (6 November 2018). “California’s rent-control measure defeated”. San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 17 November 2018. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
^ “State Ballot Measures” (PDF). Secretary of State of California. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 January 2019. Retrieved 3 March 2019. State Totals 4,949,543 7,251,443 Percent 40.6% 59.4%
^ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_10,Local_Rent_Control_Initiative(2018)
^ English translation available: BGB §§568 ff
^ M Haffner, M Elsinga and J Hoekstra (2008). “Rent Regulation: The Balance between Private Landlords and Tenants in Six European Countries”. International Journal of Housing Policy. 8 (2): 217–233. doi:10.1080/14616710802037466.
^ BGB §573c
^ 256 U.S. 135 (1921)
^ 264 U.S. 543 (1924)
^ 475 U.S. 260 (1986)
^ Pereira, Ivan (11 January 2015). “Battle looms over NYC rent stabilization law”. Newsday. Archived from the original on 21 February 2015. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
^ Weiner, Aaron (12 December 2014). “Losing Control – D.C.’s rent control laws are supposed to keep housing affordable. So how do landlords keep getting around them?”. Washington City Paper. Archived from the original on 26 May 2016. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
^ Cutler, Kim-Mai (14 April 2014). “How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF’s Housing Crisis Explained)”. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 30 April 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
^ Bergman, Ben (12 September 2014). “LA Rent: Has rent control been successful in Los Angeles?”. Southern California Public Radio. Archived from the original on 13 September 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
^ Ingber, Sasha (27 February 2019). “Oregon Set To Pass The First Statewide Rent Control Bill”. NPR.org. Archived from the original on 6 March 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
^ Njus, Elliot (28 February 2019). “Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signs nation’s first statewide rent control law”. OregonLive. Archived from the original on 5 March 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
Further reading[edit]
R Arnott, ‘Time for Revisionism on Rent Control?’ (1995) 9(1) Journal of Economic Perspectives 99
A Anas, ‘Rent Control with Matching Economies: A Model of European Housing Market Regulation’ (1997) 15(1) Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 111–37
T Ellingsen and P Englund, ‘Rent regulation: An introduction’ (2003) 10 Swedish Economic Policy Review 3
H Lind, ‘Rent Regulation: A Conceptual and Comparative Analysis’ (2001) 1(1) International Journal of Housing Policy 41
C Rapkin, The Private Rental Housing Market in New York City (1966)
G Sternlieb, The Urban Housing Dilemma (1972)
P Weitzman, ‘Economics and Rent Regulation: A Call for a New Perspective’ (1984–1985) 13 NYU Review of Legal and Social Change 975–988
M Haffner, M Elsinga and J Hoekstra, ‘Rent Regulation: The Balance between Private Landlords and Tenants in Six European Countries’ (2008) 8(2) International Journal of Housing Policy 217
External links[edit]

Rent Control Around the World: Pros and Cons – Including summaries of rent control laws in many countries

en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Code_of_law
Code of law – Wikipedia
Authority control GND: 4157093-5
7-9 minutes
(Redirected from Legal code)

This article is about exhaustive legislations. For municipal regulations, see legal code (municipal).

A code of law, also called a law code or legal code, is a type of legislation that purports to exhaustively cover a complete system of laws or a particular area of law as it existed at the time the code was enacted, by a process of codification.[1] Though the process and motivations for codification are similar in different common law and civil law systems, their usage is different.

In a civil law country, a code of law typically exhaustively covers the complete system of law, such as civil law or criminal law. By contrast, in a common law country with legislative practices in the English tradition, a code of law is a less common form of legislation, which differs from usual legislation that, when enacted, modify the existing common law only to the extent of its express or implicit provision, but otherwise leaves the common law intact. A code entirely replaces the common law in a particular area, leaving the common law inoperative unless and until the code is repealed. In a third case of slightly different usage, in the United States and other common law countries that have adopted similar legislative practices, a code of law is a standing body of statute law on a particular area, which is added to, subtracted from, or otherwise modified by individual legislative enactments.

History[edit]
The legal code was a common feature of the legal systems of the ancient Middle East. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BC), then the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), are among the earliest and best preserved legal codes,[2] originating in the Fertile Crescent.[citation needed]

In the Roman empire, a number of codifications were developed, such as the Twelve Tables of Roman law (first compiled in 450 BC) and the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, also known as the Justinian Code (429 – 534 AD). However, these law codes did not exhaustively describe the Roman legal system. The Twelve Tables were limited in scope, and most legal doctrines were developed by the pontifices, who “interpreted” the tables to deal with situations far beyond what is contained therein. The Justinian Code collected together existing legal material at the time.

In ancient China, the first comprehensive criminal code was the Tang Code, created in 624 AD in the Tang Dynasty. This, and subsequent imperial codes, formed the basis for the penal system of both China and other East Asian states under its cultural influence. The last and best preserved imperial code is the Great Qing Legal Code, created in 1644 upon the founding of the Qing Dynasty. This code was the exclusive and exhaustive statement of Chinese law between 1644 and 1912. Though it was in form a criminal code, large parts of the code dealt with civil law matters and the settlement of civil disputes. The Code ceased its operation upon the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912, but significant provisions remained in operation in Hong Kong until well into the 1970s due to a peculiar interaction between it and the British common law system.

In Europe, Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis, became the basis of the legal systems of many countries. Roman law was either adopted by legislation (becoming positive law), or through processing by jurists. The accepted Roman law is usually then codified and forms part of the central Code. The codification movement gathered pace after the rise of nation-states after the Treaty of Westphalia. Prominent national civil codes include the Napoleonic Code (code civil) of 1804, the German civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) of 1900 and the Swiss codes. The European codifications of the 1800s influenced the codification of Catholic canon law[3] resulting in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was replaced by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and whose Eastern counterpart is the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Meanwhile, African civilizations developed their own legal traditions, sometimes codifying them through consistent oral tradition, as illustrated e.g. by the Kouroukan Fouga, a charter proclaimed by the Mali Empire in 1222-1236, enumerating regulations in both constitutional and civil matters, and transmitted to this day by griots under oath.[4]

The Continental civil law tradition spread around the world along with European cultural and military dominance in recent centuries. During the Meiji Restoration, Japan adopted a new Civil Code (1898), based primarily on the French civil code and influenced by the German code. After the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 in China, the new Republic of China government abandoned the imperial code tradition and instead adopted a new civil code strongly influenced by the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, and also influenced by the Japanese code. This new tradition has been largely maintained in the legal system of the People’s Republic of China since 1949.

Meanwhile, codifications also became more common in common law systems. For example, a criminal code is found in a number of common law jurisdictions in Australia and the Americas, and continues to be debated in England.

In the Americas, the influence of Continental legal codes has manifest itself in two ways. In civil law jurisdictions, legal codes in the Continental tradition are common. In common law jurisdictions, however, there has been a strong trend towards codification. The result of such codification, however, is not always a legal code as found in civil law jurisdictions. For example, the California Civil Code largely codifies common law doctrine and is very different in form and content from all other civil codes.

Civil code[edit]
A civil code typically forms the core of civil law systems. The legal Code typically covers exhaustively the entire system of private law.

Civil codes are sometimes also found in common law systems, especially in the United States of America. However, such civil codes are often collections of common law rules and a variety of ad hoc statutes; that is, they do not aspire to complete logical coherence

Criminal code

A criminal code or penal code is a common feature in many legal systems.

Codification of the criminal law allows the criminal law to be more accessible and more democratically made and amended