Above are the two headlines from the Times Standard today for a informative and detailed article by Will Houston, one from the print edition and one from the online edition. Both headlines imply something that isn’t in the reporting.
PRINT: “Could raise rents long term”: The only thing I could find to support this is that county staff lamented that V is linked to the Bay Area consumer price index rather than the state CPI because doing so
“is not necessarily in the best interests of the residents because it’s higher than the state level would have been”
So, point being V is important and will lower rents, but not as much as it would have if it was linked to the state CPI. That is not “raising rents long-term”, in fact the article shows that county staffers found rents have been raised higher than the CPI recently in Humboldt county.
INTER-TUBES: Also the ‘unintended consequences’ scare-quote in the headline of the online article refers to this…
“Mushrush also pointed out some “unintended consequences” of Measure V, including an estimated $6,200 annual cost to the county that would not be covered by the annual $5 fee mobile home park residents would have to pay to the county to cover operational costs of the ordinance.”
$6,200 dollars? That is about what Rockport’s parent company Brius just paid for it’s recent full-page articles in the Times-Standard. Is that amount really noteworthy? For a headline?
Btw, thank you for the informative article Mr. Houson, job well done. If you are also responsible for the headlines, can we talk?