From the LA Times: "In the 4-3 decision, the state high court ruled that landlords may stop renting their property, even if their purpose is to get rid of tenants who annoyed them by asserting legal rights."
"A contrary ruling," said Justice Baxter, "could permit tenants to force the landlord to remain in business indefinitely."
Exactly. But a 4-3 vote? This is good news, of course, but it's akin to the court declaring that, yes, we have a right to own property. Should this even have been a matter of debate? I agree with Eric Margolis who argued that perhaps the Bush administration ought to invade California.
