The Star Tribune Editorial Board declares itself against the rent stabilization initiatives in Minneapolis and St. Paul because "it's market distortion" ("Reject efforts to add rent control," editorial, Oct. 9). But clearly the market is already distorted, in favor of property owners and against renters, or at least distorted in favor of market forces that drive up rents, making it difficult for people of lower incomes to stay in their homes. The market is distorted when swaths of otherwise livable land are turned into sports stadiums erected with the help of tax breaks or public subsidies. The market is distorted when middle- and upper-class families in single-family homes oppose the development of affordable or higher-rise apartment buildings in their neighborhoods. The market is distorted when cities require that developers meet off-street parking requirements (recently and appropriately rescinded in St. Paul), so that cars can "sleep" as well as people.
There has never been an undistorted market, and even a perfectly free market would not meet the needs of city residents for equal housing. The rent stabilization ordinances on the ballot in November would distort the market in favor of the more vulnerable among us, for a change.
Tim Dykstal, St. Paul
•••
Is it fair to ask the City Councils of Minneapolis and St. Paul to put a cap on what they control before asking private landlords to be subject to a rent cap on their at-risk investments? I have owned properties in the Twin Cities for over 50 years and have no control over the majority of my operating expenses. The largest of these is real estate taxes that have averaged significantly more that 3% annually over all those years. The other noncontrollable expenses are public utilities, natural gas and electricity. Together these three make up more than 50% of the monthly expenses passed through to tenants. So if our city councils push to cap rent increases, I support that they attempt to put a cap on their own spending first.
Kit Dahl, Wayzata
•••
The Star Tribune, business councils and chambers, landlords and their political allies are urging us to vote for a stronger mayor, a more robust police force and against giving any authority to the city over the dealings of private landlords and their tenants. These positions are entirely consistent with a broad pattern in American history analyzed by many historians. For example, labor historian Erik Loomis in his 2018 book "A History of America in Ten Strikes" offers countless examples of the pattern. Especially since the Civil War's ending in 1865, wealthy property owners and their political allies have consistently used the armed power of local police, state militia and/or federal troops to protect their own power and privileges against their employees and, often, the general public.