Measure C and denial
EDITOR: Climate change deniers and proponents of Measure C have something in common: a disregard for overwhelming intellectual research.
No one voting in favor of Measure C can honestly say that they have done their research in concluding that rent control would help without admitting that they are ignoring the overwhelming majority of experts on the issue, including the most liberal of economists. This is the same thing that climate change deniers must do when concocting an ill-formed argument that climate change doesn’t exist.
You can either be in favor of Measure C or have done meaningful research on rent control, but not both.
If you vote in favor of Measure C, please never complain about the fact that climate change deniers must ignore the overwhelming majority of researched and well-formed opinions, because you will have just done the same thing.
If you want your vote to truly benefit the housing crisis, please perform a simple Google search on the research surrounding rent control. Our elected officials should have, but apparently they did not.
Will on Trump
EDITOR: Once again George Will writes a column that makes sense to me (“Trump doesn’t know what it is to know,” May 4).
Citing a few recent examples of President Donald Trump’s comments on historical events — his take on Fredrick Douglass (as if he’s alive and well today) and his beliefs about Andrew Jackson’s take on the Civil War (which began 16 years after Jackson’s death) — Will outlines facts demonstrating that Tump has little or no “elementary knowledge of the nation’s history” and an unwillingness to be tutored to give him a better grasp of our history and the world events around him that should have influence on his decisions. Fascinating.
In the end, Will laments that Trump is a man “whose combination of impulsivity and credulity render him uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict.” This alone is reason enough to remove Trump from office.
Relief for some
EDITOR: You assert that Measure C is unfair because it would only benefit some renters while others would continue to be subject to huge increases (“No on Measure C: This is wrong tool for fixing SR housing crisis,” Editorial, Sunday). However, I fail to see how it is better that everyone continue to be subject to huge rent increases. Isn’t some measure of relief for some renters better than no relief for any renter?
If there were a cure for cancer that only worked on 20 percent of the people, should we refuse to allow its use, as it would be unfair to the other 80 percent?
As for your unsupported assertion that Measure C would make it harder to remove problem tenants, I read the measure, and that’s simply not true. Please provide some evidence.
Also, I am offended by your suggestion that low-income people and those with Section 8 vouchers are likely to be problem tenants. Shame on you for that.
Finally, your assertion that Measure C would divide the community fails to acknowledge that the community is already divided between the haves and the have-nots. That’s why Measure C is desperately needed to help narrow the gap, even just a little bit, for at least some of the have-nots.