Backers of the St. Paul rent measure haven't made their case ("Feasible and fair," Readers Write, Oct. 29).
It is understood in every debate that the proponent of a cause bears the burden of proof. The proponents of the St. Paul rental regulation measure have not carried that burden. Here's why.
They've not clearly identified the problem(s) they seek to solve. Is the ordinance intended to prevent people from being turned out in the streets? Is it simply to ease the burden of paying rent?
They've not identified the size and scope of the problem they seek to solve. Which income levels are most affected, what percentage of those groups are affected, who are they (single, married, single-parent households), and what are the outcomes? If they have this information, they've kept it secret.
Assuming that the problem affects primarily low-income households, those earning say 40% or less of the area median income, what is the rationale for regulating rents paid by higher income groups? Why use such a blunt instrument as universal rent regulation?
What other options exist for addressing these issues, and why are they inadequate? Are they receiving housing assistance that is inadequate? I've seen nothing.
Even the studies that lend some support to the idea recognize the serious adverse consequences that may occur (e.g., conversion of units to owner-occupied single-family homes or to condominiums). Do you acknowledge that this has been seen in many cities that have adopted rent regulations? If so, how do you propose to avoid these problems? If not, what is the basis for your denial?
Some studies have reported a decrease in housing units affordable by the lowest-income households following the adoption of rent regulations. Why won't that happen here?