By all means, the Seattle Times editorial board should feel free to argue that “rent control is not the answer for Seattle.” I look forward to a robust and informed debate on the issue. But they don’t. Rather, the editors insist that council members and candidates simply “should stop talking about rent control.”
I dunno, seems odd for an op-ed page to advocate for less opinion and editorials. But whatever. For the thing I really find silly in this op-ed is the second clause of their headline: “Rent control is not the answer for Seattle, and is illegal.”
Really? We should stop talking about rent control because it is illegal? You know what else until recently used to be illegal? Marijuana. Same-sex marriage. Charter schools. Private liquor stores. That’s the whole point of talking about rent control—it’s a conversation about changing the law!
Look, I can’t really say whether I support or oppose rent control, because I haven’t actually seen a specific proposal. Would I prefer to avoid price controls? Sure. They’re messy. But might a cap of some multiple of inflation prove useful as a temporary complement to a comprehensive affordable housing program aimed at dramatically increasing supply? Maybe. I welcome that debate. And so should all serious parties.
After all, if rent control is such an awful idea then the editors have nothing to fear, right?
ArtFart spews:
The Times ought to be talking about rent control, if it really has concerns about it. Certainly one of those concerns might be that our city’s leadership would do a really crappy job of imposing rent control, while ham-fistedly attempting to keep the general public out of the loop.
Colin spews:
It’s an “interesting” rhetorical choice for someone to say rent control is “illegal” versus “prohibited” or “currently not allowed under state law.” Seems like weak sauce.
RDPence spews:
Weak sauce indeed; more appropriate for a high school newspaper, not as major regional rag. Major reason I’ve stopped reading STimes editorials.
Willy Vomit spews:
This was always the excuse the Conservatives had for maintaining the prohibition on Marijuana. “We will not discuss this, because it is illegal, and anyone who attempts to discuss this will be investigated and imprisoned for doing so, because it is an illegal drug.”
It is a circular argument. Many, many people were put in prison for attempting to discuss the prohibition of marijuana. They were put under constant surveillance and arrested as soon as a felony case could be made against them. Felony charges based on possession of prohibited plant material. People were given life sentences for quantities as small as a gram. Not because they were in possession, but because they were known to be actively promoting legalization,. Many of them are still in prison.
One of my best friend’s father, a combat vet out of Vietnam with a silver star, two purple hearts, a rubber foot and a goddamn chain in his jawbone did 9 years at Corcoran being force-fed fucking Thorazine because he got caught with two ounces of Mexican dirtweed in his car.
Thank you, Ronald Reagan, you fucking Nazi Fascist bastard.
Roger Rabbit spews:
Recording abuse of farm animals in Idaho was illegal until Monday. Things change. Sometimes overnight. I’m not saying rent control is analogous, or the state law blocking cities like Seattle from enacting it is about to be struck down by a federal judge, or even a good idea. It just seems to me the Seattle Times is mentally lazy by saying “let’s not talk about it” instead of debating the issue on its merits. They easily could have said the same thing about Idaho’s departed “ag-gag” law; it was, after all, the law for a while and some farmers and newspapers thought it was a good idea even though it made free speech a crime.
Roger Rabbit spews:
@4 We’d all be better off today if Ronnie had smoked some decent weed instead of whatever the hell he was smoking.
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
But might a cap of some multiple of inflation prove useful as a temporary complement to a comprehensive affordable housing program aimed at dramatically increasing supply?
A nice, moderately deep economic recession could be similarly complementary. It’s temporary, stops the inflow of new employees who would need housing, might dramatically increase supply by suddenly reducing demand. And it wouldn’t be illegal under present law.
Remember how you worried about future Metro funding if all that growth you crow about now that it’s benefitting restaurants were to cease? Maybe you could go back to worrying about future revenues rather than cheering restaurant openings.
Willy Vomit spews:
A nice, moderately deep economic recession could be similarly complementary. It’s temporary, stops the inflow of new employees who would need housing, might dramatically increase supply by suddenly reducing demand. And it wouldn’t be illegal under present law.
That certainly has been the Republican method for the last 45 or so years.
Manufacture an economic recession by merely permitting the banks, real estate brokerages and hedge fund operations to loot and pillage at will, then when things go to shit, blame the guys who bought houses and tried to invest their savings in the stock markets. This has the effect of automatically driving down wages by increasing the number of people looking for work in their particular field.
One thing the Republicans really, really hate, is having to pay people for the work they perform on their behalf. The less they have to pay, the better. The optimum of course, is not having to pay the working man anything at all. This is the basic reason why we have gigantic prisons that are owned by private military corporations. They get their labor for free, and the State handles most of the costs of maintaining the workforce.
Roger Rabbit spews:
@7 So you’ve given up hope the $15 wage will drive the restaurant industry out of business?
Jack spews:
@4,
You can also thank the Roosevelt administration that made cannabis illegal back in ’37, and Richard Nixon for his ridiculous War on Drugs, back in ’71.
DistantReplay spews:
“Independence, Sir, is not the answer for Massachusetts, and is illegal.”
Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson to Assemblyman John Adams, 1772.
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
@ 9
I’ve given up on any hope of intelligent responses from you.
tensor spews:
@9 — Travis and his folks get really, really upset at the sight of well-compensated citizens working together to create new and pleasurable dining experiences for customers. Can’t we all just agree to respect his sincere feelings on this?
As Goldy pointed out, folks like Travis really hate to be proven wrong. And it’s far, far easier for them to be nasty and petulant about seeing their fellow citizens gainfully employed than it is for them to change their beliefs to fit reality.
LucasFoxx spews:
In Kansas, drug laws are even more bizarre. Interesting case of Jury Nullification. The defendant was charged with felony murder, for someone he didn’t shoot, when he tried to help someone score some weed. A “friend” of a friend shot him and killed the dealer in a botched robbery. I didn’t realize the defendant’s mom was “Jennifer Winn, who ran against Kansas Governor Sam Brownback in the 2014 gubernatorial election.” The deceased was “the brother of (a) former state senator.”
http://kansasexposed.org/2015/.....-is-wrong/
Not sure what to think about Rent Control. There should be a discussion, but it’s hard to communicate with people who think everyone should be playing their zero-sum game in pursuit of setting some financial high score. Some of these winners (losers) can’t seem to make a buck without preying on people who don’t have the time or resources to steer clear of them. I was in a Disqus discussion this week with someone who recognized that some people are forklift operators, some people are burger-flippers, and some people are CEO, but there was no reason the forklift operators or burger-flippers should make a living wage working full time until they have a college degree. At that point, they probably wouldn’t be forklift operators or burger-flippers anymore. But who can afford college (or rent for that matter) on those wages?
Steve spews:
“Travis and his folks get really, really upset at the sight of well-compensated citizens”
$15/Hr is roughly only 1/16 of what a radiologist averages in this state, but for some reason, to pay a hard-working employee a living wage is to pay them too damned much.