Where's the Racism?

Sully's title: "Racist Rent Regulation" and the post ties together an AM New York article on NY rent increases to a comment on an article from "libertarian blogger Kip" who begins his post with:

"How is this not a racist statement?


"The Rent Guidelines Board recommended increases between 2 and 4.5 percent for one-year leases and between 4 and 7.5 percent for two-year leases at a preliminary vote last month. That's a pinch many New Yorkers say will be hard to take."Minorities can't afford that," said Lakisha Brown, 29, a single parent who pays fully half her income for a two-bedroom apartment in Harlem.

"So all minorities are poor, and all whites are rich? (Or, alternatively: All renters are minorities and all landlords are white?)"

Wha, wha, what? Where did the racism come from? Brown, as quoted in the NY AM article makes a point about minorities but when looking at the entire AM article that's the only "racial" tid bit. Instead of seeing this as a personal opinion, or an aberration, Kip uses this as a spring board for his own anti-regulation debate:

"What the malcontent doesn't tell you, meanwhile, is that under New York rent regulation, a landlord may have to wait up to six months before he can begin an eviction procedure against a deadbeat tenant. An amoral rent-regulated tenant can, as result, pay rent whenever she feels like it, not when it's actually due. Alternatively, every rent regulated tenant could, if they so chose, simply get five month's rent free. Nice "housing crisis" if you can get it. Remind me again who's "exploiting" whom?"

Here we go again, let's make the exception the rule and the rule just vanishes. Kip was probably the same sorta dude who in the 80s would say that the greatest problem facing America was the "Welfare Queen." Yes Kip, there are poor whites and poor blacks, and both of them face incredible hardship in keeping their apartments in the city. And yes Kip there are some "amoral" people who abuse housing laws. But here's two points in the AM article you ignored:

"Half of the city's one million stabilized renters pay 32 percent or more of their income toward housing, Laurie said."

And,

"The city's homeless population is also on the rise, said Laurie. The Coalition for the Homeless estimated 35,000 people sleep in shelters every night, including more than 9,000 families."

But you cut off housing regulations and what? The market solves this problem? Gimme a break. The market is building multimillion dollar condos in the city like they were Starbucks. The market is about profit, and it should be, no one should expect a private landowner to build buildings just to lose money. But that doesn't change the fact that people need a place to live (you know, it's like decency and stuff) which means either finding a way to get more money in the poor's pockets, or finding them affordable places to live that aren't in Mexico. Ergo, rent control. There are problems in the laws that we have governing this policy, but introducing your issues of race, and pointing the finger at a minority of criminals isn't going to solve the problem or change the dynamic. That would be like me pointing at Ken Lay and saying all rich white people are corrupt and then concluding that capitalism should be abolished. Let's be serious about the issue and stop reading from this ultimately counter productive script.