Wherever it exists, rent control is an issue that splits public opinion, penetrating deep beneath individuals' mere political instincts into their philosophical marrow. It is viewed as the most effective protection the poor have against greedy landlords. It is seen by others as a violation of private property rights by governments that should, constitutionally, be protecting them. The issue attracts as much emotion as reason. In every city where it exists, it is defended as needed to protect the poor _ and simultaenously damned as the cause of inferior housing, and too little housing, for the poor. Never dormant, the issue has been heated to a boil again by a Feb. 24 Supreme Court ruling that seems to reaffirm a municipality's right to consider a tenant's finances before allowing or disallowing a rent increase. In the specific case, Pennel v. City of San Jose, Calif., the court upheld the constitutionality of an ordinance in which a city official would deem whether or not a tenant could afford an increase of more than 8 percent. Under the ordinance, if the city hearing officer so ruled, the allowable rent increase could be rolled back to 5 percent, plus an amount needed for improvements, maintenance and rehabilitation. Landlords boiled over, since most have for years contended that their industry has been singled out for exceptional treatment, that treatment being an unconstitutional taking of private property _ that is, theirs. But, as usual, even the institution of the Surpeme Court couldn't deal with the issue without splitting sharply. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, but Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing critique. Said Rehnquist: ``We have long recognized that a legitimate and rational goal of price or rate regulation is the protection of consumer welfare.'' But in Scalia's view, such regulation permits unfair transfers of wealth. Moreover, said Scalia, these wealth transfers have added dimensions that make them cause for additional concern. They are, for instance, relatively invisible, he said. They have ``relative immunity from normal democratic processes.'' And as a consequence, they allow government to subsidize a social group ``off budget.'' The National Association of Realtors filed a brief that added a practical dimension. Rent control, it said, it inherently irrational, since it exacerbates rather than relieves a shortage of affordable housing. The NAR can support its contentions with independent studies; it is no secret to anyone familiar with rent control that it scares apartment builders away and can cause landlords to abandon properties. Those who defend rent control contend that theirs is the best way since, as they see it, those members of society who need protection are granted it, while landlord interests are secured by regular and fair, albeit limited, increases. But William North, NAR executive vice president, states that the court has ``created the ultimate oxymoron: compulsory charity.'' Rental hardship cases, he argues, are a responsibility of the community, not just of landlords.