3 ms·
Edit: I stand corrected, the legislation will indeed harm tenements. I would suggest that arguing against legislation by showing a supporter's hypocrisy may not
by TomMckenny 7y ago
Edit: I stand corrected, the legislation will indeed harm tenements. I would suggest that arguing against legislation by showing a supporter's hypocrisy may not be the strongest approach. It is a tad fallacious after all.
Full disclosure, my incorrect original post:
Find a guy with dirt that supports protecting rent controlled units. Use that to attempt to discredit legislation that helps tenants.
If the best argument against protecting rental units is a weak Tu Quoque, then perhaps protecting duplex rentals is a good idea.
- akanet 7y agoI am the author. I did not bother with a refutation of the terrible piece of legislation being proposed, because others have done a better job elsewhere. One could check out https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Peskin-s-bill-is-San-Francisco-s-attempt-to-13618207.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Peskin..., for instance.
- jamestimmins 7y agoWhat tipped you off that this was happening?
- akanet 7y agoI got a tip from a friend that something was off with the whole duplex/sfh situation, and I guess I have a reputation for pushing through to publication with stories like this.
- jamestimmins 7y agoInteresting. How much research did this take?
- Lazare 7y ago> Use that to attempt to discredit legislation that helps tenants. This legislation will hurt tenants.
- mistursinistur 7y agoRent controlled duplexes are already protected by the regulations that were violated here. You can't remove rent-controlled units without a permit! Obviously some onlookers don't understand current laws and don't understand the proposed legislation. It's important for them to know that their trust in the legislator to do this for them is misplaced.