I’m not usually one to do any kind of commentary with regard to how our political *factions in the state conduct their business, but a recent article over on KRTV gave me somewhat of a reason for pause.

Upon after reading about what the Gallatin County Republicans had written in their event invitation I began to wonder since when did Bozeman suddenly become the land of peasants?

You can see the article here:

https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/gallatin-county-gop-warns-of-peasant-families-in-since-edited-event-invitation

… and trust me on this, my eyebrows weren’t raised because this sort of thing has pretty much been business as usual in the state lately.

My guess would be that our dear Republican friends can see the writing on the wall with regard to their less than stellar legislative sessions and can’t quite put their finger on exactly why they chose to use the term peasants.

At any rate, I find it pretty doubtful that the folks from Venezuela will be creating any problems for us any time soon. I think the problem we have here in the state originated a little closer to home.

Here’s a refresher for any Republican, or Democrat, in the state that might have slept through 8th grade history class.

It all started in Essex way back in 1381 … a rebellion that caught a young King Richard totally by surprise. The rebellion was over taxes — a poll tax to be more precise.

You see, the agricultural folks and the urban working classes had taken issue with what was known as the Statute of Laborers (1351) which attempted to fix maximum wages during the labor shortage following the Black Death.

Folks back in the day literally lost their heads over this, and though King Richard promised cheap land, free trade, the abolition of serfdom, and forced labor, thus convincing the many to go home, everything was quickly forgotten when things settled down.

Sound familiar?

Politics is to problem solving what a screwdriver is to pounding a nail.

Our Republican friends in Helena have seemingly gone down the path of Archbishop Simon of Sudbury, and Sir Robert Hales. I guess it’s just okay for Helena to cut a deal with Northwestern Energy on taxes while simultaneously removing the taxing authority from our counties with regard to property. Our local levies have failed and will continue to fail as long as the so-called sovereigns in Helena go-the-note on doing what they think is best for them.

So much for the history lesson I suppose.

We’ve got one party creating peasants in Gallatin County, and the other party rushing in to take care of those newly created peasants, all the while complaining about how unfair everything is (it’s sort of a Made in Montana cottage industry thing we’ve got going on here).

It’s a dynamic that has summed up the political environment here in the state of late.

What I’ve gotten from the Montana Democrats — It’s not fair that the Republicans are creating home-grown peasants right here in Gallatin County so we might, someday, have to do something about it. Maybe, when we feel like it, we’ll have to vigorously contest these HD and SD seats. But not right now though because we have to bitch about the problem for a while first before we go on about forcing our world view on to our citizens.

What I’ve gotten from the Montana Republicans — Oh well, we’ll go on about helping out our rich buddies (from out-of-state) until someone throws a fit about it. The we’ll back off and hold our hats in our hands for a while until everything settles down. We’re politicians so that means all we have to do is talk without saying anything while we’re forcing our world view on to our citizens.

The next time you see our state Republicans talking about the peasants, you might want to stop and take a look at why they might be talking that way and realize that the problems they are going on about are a little closer to home than you think.

This business with peasants in Bozeman is on the Republicans this time around. Next week at 2 o’clock it’ll be the Democrats turn to say something stupid.

Since I don’t align myself with any political party and just vote for the person based on merit, I might suggest that both the Republicans and the Democrats do a bit soul searching with regard to their respective platforms.

There are great people on both sides of the fence and I’d hate for them to miss out on great opportunities to do good things because they bought into a bill of goods that doesn’t even matter.

If the Republicans and the Democrats can ever expect to move forward in any meaningful way, I might suggest that the Republicans purge the Fascists from their ranks and that the Democrats do the same with their Marxist elements. Getting back to square one by eliminating these failed ideologies should be the order of the day as it might relate to Montanans and our Montana Values.

We aren’t Red, Blue, or Purple — we’re Montanans, and as such, we have a golden opportunity to unite and show the world how it’s done here in the land Under The Big Sky.

Originally published by Patrice Onwuka — September 14, 2023

Rent control is the wrong solution for housing affordability and here’s why:

My family moved to the United States from the Caribbean in 1985. About eight years later, my parents saved enough to purchase a two-family home in the quiet outskirts of Boston far away from our crime-ridden neighborhood. As landlords, my parents charged modest rents—enough to “help with the mortgage”—and ensured that the first-floor apartment was always well maintained for our tenants.

Three decades later, I am a landlady. I charge market rent prices to cover the mortgage, HOA fees, local property taxes, landscaping, maintenance fees, and other operating expenses. Some 44% of landlords are women. They seek financial security and to build generational wealth.

The argument that landlord “greed” warrants government intervention in private property contracts is specious. Months’ worth of modest profits can easily be wiped out by a broken water heater, tree removal, or roof replacement—situations I have dealt with.

Troublingly, the failed retro housing policy of rent control is experiencing a revival led by liberal activists, lawmakers, and regulators. Recently, 17 Democratic U.S. senators asked the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to limit rent hikes on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed multifamily properties.

From Los Angeles County, California, to Montgomery County, Maryland, cities and states are imposing or strengthening rent control policies.

It’s indisputable that rental costs are rising rapidly. National rental costs rose 8% in August year-over-year. This is up from 6.7% in 2022 and just 2.1% in 2021. However, prices for the services that landlords pay have also accelerated, forcing them to pass along those cost increases to tenants.

Rent control is not the solution to the lack of affordable housing; it creates more problems than it solves. The best way to reduce housing costs would be to increase the housing supply; sadly, rent control works against this.

Price controls restrict the supply of rental units, leaving renters with fewer options at higher prices. Rent control pushes mom-and-pop landlords, who own about 40% of the nation’s over 46 million rental properties, out of business. Most rentals are small (1-4 units) and managed directly by landlords. Finding tenants, performing routine maintenance, securing contractors, complying with local regulations, and many more responsibilities keep hands-on landlords busy.

The profit must outweigh the opportunity cost of owners’ time, operational costs, and investments; otherwise they will sell their properties. This occurred in the Boston area in 1970 when rent-controlled units were expanded nearby in Cambridge, MA. A tenth of rent-controlled units ended up being converted to for-sale condominiums. Meanwhile, uncontrolled rent prices surged.

Rent control also discourages the building of new rental housing. Although price control policies may exempt new construction, property investors reasonably fear that future policy changes could diminish their financial incentives. It’s not a coincidence that, following the lifting of rent control in Cambridge, residential property investment spiked. Building permits for improvements and new construction rose 20%, and permitted expenditures doubled.

Not all left-leaning policymakers want to revive rent control. The Seattle City Council recently rejected a proposal from an outgoing socialist council member to cap annual residential rent increases at the inflation rate. One council member explained, “the last thing that we should be doing during a housing affordability crisis is discouraging new housing production at any affordability level.”

I feel for low-income renters pressed by two years of high prices on essentials and living expenses. Limiting rental prices may appear to be financial relief. However, rental control experiments have led to unsavory outcomes: deteriorating properties, racial segregation, discrimination against younger renters and larger families, and greater income inequality. It’s hardly a policy success if renters in the top income quartile received more than twice the rent discount from market rates than renters in the bottom income quartile.

Our nation has a deficit in housing supply. Restrictive zoning and building policies have hampered the construction of new, much-needed housing. A blockbuster 2019 economic paper found that if New York, San Jose, and San Francisco had the permitting standards of Atlanta or Chicago, the U.S. would have millions more housing units today.

Landlords and tenants have something in common: they are both being squeezed by rising prices. Rent control’s promised financial relief for a few will come at the expense of quality housing and home ownership for the many—an outcome no one should live with.

Patrice Onwuka is the director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women’s Forum.

sourced –

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.