The logical fallacy of such an argument cannot be accidental because it is such an obvious fallacy.

“Too much housing…” is the bugaboo excuse for being against the Gateway Lofts project because it offers better housing, for at risk people, who would otherwise find themselves in substandard housing that shouldn’t be on the market in the first place.

It’s not an issue of “too much housing” that is keeping property values stagnant since the 1960s. It’s the steady decline in home ownership caused by unnecessarily low wages, the over-use of temp employment agencies, the lack of employment security, low building standards for what qualifies as “meeting code”, not requiring greater landlord/tenant training and regulatory oversight of the rental market, it’s the neglect of the City to disenfranchise the residents from making their own quality of life decisions, it’s the disparity the City fosters to protect the out-of-town “haves” at the expense of the in-town “have-nots”, it’s allowing the Jamestown economy to be owned by those who don’t live here. Jamestown and it’s economic resources (it’s people, it’s local economy, it’s built environment) are being treated like a colony. It doesn’t get to keep and benefit from the wealth it produces.

At no time did anyone attending the Planning Commission meeting discuss the quality of existing rental housing. If the Gateway Lofts project is competition for existing units then good. That would mean existing units will be made more desirable. Why wouldn’t the Planning Commission want existing units to have to become better because of competition? Why does the Planning Commission think the existing rental infrastructure is threatened by this one project? Is the existing rental infrastructure that fragile?

What has the City done to prevent rental housing from being substandard?
Does it make sure that every rental unit has a valid and up-to-date Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to make sure changes in plumbing and electrical, to convert the building into multiple rental units, were done according to Code? Were those conversions given prior approval and issued a proper building permit? Was the work inspected to ensure health and safety?

What has the City done to ensure landlords aren’t predatory?
Is being a landlord treated as a business that can have a significant impact on the health and safety of those who rent? Are they licensed like any occupation that can cause harm to others? Are the properties registered and periodically inspected to ensure they meet stringent criteria for health, safety, aesthetics, and a high standard of quality of life? Why are landlords permitted to be abusive and neglectful? Expecting a tenant to stand up to an abusive landlord is like expecting a domestic violence victim be solely responsible for standing up to her abuser. I get the impression the Planning Commission members might ask, “Yeah, what’s wrong with that?”.

Why is the Planning Commission being so adamant about making sure at risk people have no alternative to substandard housing provided by predatory landlords? Do they love predatory landlords that much? Or do they just hate at risk renters and the chronic homeless more?

Okay. I feel better.