In response to Randy Rowse's opinion piece " City Council’s Latest Scheme ," the argument presented rests on a familiar but flawed premise: that rent control and tenant protections are the obstacle to housing availability, rather than a response to a long-standing market failure. This framing shifts responsibility away from systemic issues and places it squarely on renters — particularly working families and seniors — who are already struggling to remain housed.
First, the claim that rent control “accomplishes none of these goals” ignores substantial evidence that tenant protections prevent displacement, stabilize communities, and allow workers and seniors to remain near jobs, healthcare, and social support. Housing supply is not meaningfully increased when long-term residents are priced out and replaced by short-term rentals or luxury units that do not serve the local workforce. Stability is not the enemy of supply; unchecked speculation is.
Second, invoking short-term rental violations as a solution while opposing rent regulation is contradictory. If returning units from short-term rentals to the long-term market is a priority, then protecting those long-term renters from sudden rent spikes is essential. Otherwise, those “returned” units simply become unaffordable commodities, not workforce or senior housing.