from “voluntarily band[ing] together to stabilize rents in the city,” but the local law involved no “concerted action.” 475 U.S. at 266, 106 S.Ct. 1045. The Court ruled that “[a] restraint imposed unilaterally by government does not become concerted action within the meaning of the [Sherman Act] simply because it has a coercive effect upon parties who must obey the law.” Id. at 267, 106 S.Ct. 1045. Nor does a government restraint become concerted action because certain citizens benefit from it, see id. at 264, 106 S.Ct. 1045 (“[T]he function of government may often be to tamper with free markets, correcting their failures and aiding their victims.... ”), or even have urged it, cf. City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Adver., Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 375, 111 S.Ct. 1344, 113 L.Ed.2d 382 (1991) (<HOLDING>). As we recognized in Freedom Holdings I,
recognizing inevitability and desirability of public officials acting in response to private citizens requests in rejecting argument for narrowing state action immunity recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under  1983 recognizing private right of action holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation