I take a little pill every morning. I take another pill at night. I take these pills because I have cardiovascular disease, a chronic condition. The pills don’t cure my disease, neither did the operation that put a small metal tube in my heart. My cardiologist made very sure I was aware of that when I was discharged — my disease was not cured and I had to carefully manage it for the rest of my life.
Many affordable housing advocates don’t support rent control because it doesn’t “solve” the “problem.” They view housing affordability as an acute disease we have to “cure.” But the lack of affordable housing is more like a chronic condition. It’s been a problem my whole lifetime. It was a problem for my parents’ generation. It was a problem for my grandparents’ generation.
Rent control is a tool that local communities can use to manage this chronic condition. It won’t “solve” the problem or “cure” the disease, but it will help real people who struggle every day to keep a roof over their heads. Yes on 21.
Good start to the analogy, Mr. Hitchcock, but let me continue the comparison. Suppose that little pill of yours sells for $1 per pill and this cost can only be increased by a fixed amount. If this cost increase cannot be profitably borne by the manufacturer, they will decide to: 1) stop producing this $1 pill because they cannot increase costs to make a profit, or 2) limit production of those $1 pills for the time being, reducing inventory, while focusing on producing a variant they can sell at a profit. Result of option 1? No pills for you, or for anyone else. Sure, another manufacturer can come along, but your pills will no longer be $1 per pill. Result of option 2? If you’re one of the first in line to get those limited production runs of $1 pills, that’s great for you, but eventually those pills will be phased out for a higher cost alternative. Vote NO on 21. I’d like Mr. Hitchcock, and others, to continue to be able to take their pills.
I hope you are sitting down and have 911 on speed dial and take any food out of your mouth. I don't want you to choke. I agree that we should vote NO on 21.
Wait, what? Hold the phone! I was sitting down, but still fell out of my chair. I pinched myself, got up slowly, and looked outside for any signs of flying pigs – none, so I’m definitely awake but now with some minor shoulder pain.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
Good start to the analogy, Mr. Hitchcock, but let me continue the comparison. Suppose that little pill of yours sells for $1 per pill and this cost can only be increased by a fixed amount. If this cost increase cannot be profitably borne by the manufacturer, they will decide to: 1) stop producing this $1 pill because they cannot increase costs to make a profit, or 2) limit production of those $1 pills for the time being, reducing inventory, while focusing on producing a variant they can sell at a profit. Result of option 1? No pills for you, or for anyone else. Sure, another manufacturer can come along, but your pills will no longer be $1 per pill. Result of option 2? If you’re one of the first in line to get those limited production runs of $1 pills, that’s great for you, but eventually those pills will be phased out for a higher cost alternative. Vote NO on 21. I’d like Mr. Hitchcock, and others, to continue to be able to take their pills.
Terence,
I hope you are sitting down and have 911 on speed dial and take any food out of your mouth. I don't want you to choke. I agree that we should vote NO on 21.
Wait, what? Hold the phone! I was sitting down, but still fell out of my chair. I pinched myself, got up slowly, and looked outside for any signs of flying pigs – none, so I’m definitely awake but now with some minor shoulder pain.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.