Do you have a right to live where you work? CO med board OK's politicians telling them how to practice. Related: what if the media looked as deeply in to COVID as they do into abortion reversal?
“'Who says you have a right to live where you work?' said Todd Ruelle, a Virginia resident who has rented a home he bought in Summit County near Breckenridge since 1990 and is spearheading the lawsuit. 'You live where you can afford to live. I wish I could live in a penthouse in New York City. Does that mean I’m entitled to a penthouse because I work there?'”
The first line of the quote above (from the Sun article below) struck me when I read it. Hit hard.
I say that because it's a question I've been mulling over a lot as I read articles, social media posts, tweets, and etc. about the price of housing and how people can't afford to live where they work.
The quote itself is pretty abrupt (and if you're interested in the politics of regulating short term rentals the whole article and the lawsuit it covers is worth a read), but it does bring up the question(s).
Do you, in fact, have a right to live where you work? If so, what are you entitled to: a house? A shanty? Who pays?
I'm tempted to start in with a sermon about living in what you can afford to and getting a bigger/better house as your pay goes up, but let's try to focus in here strictly on being able to afford a basic house in the area where you work.
Given that restriction (which I think by rights Mr. Ruelle muddies up in his quote), should you be entitled to live in the city where you work?
First, I think it's worth acknowledging that not all cities are created equal. A tiny mountain town, bound by geography or my tiny little town on the Plains is pretty small. In town vs. out of town could mean then a difference of at most 10 miles for those places as opposed to Denver where you could in theory still be in Denver and have to drive 20 miles to work. On top of that you have the complication that you could live just over the border of, say, Aurora and travel only 5 miles to work in the (technically) different city of Denver.
That actually kind of helps narrow things down a bit if you think about it. After all, what we seem to be talking about here is whether or not you should be afforded the right to live in the community where you work.
So, for example, should a teacher at a school in Park Hill (one of Denver's most expensive neighborhoods) have a right to live in that same neighborhood, even if it were in a basic apartment? Should someone who flips burgers in Aspen have the right to a place in or near the city?
Rights are troublesome to consider here because, outside of the thorny pragmatic issues above (who pays, what defines "in" the city), you have to consider how you will actually define and argue out these rights.
If recent rulings about abortion and guns and other things have taught us anything, it's that (and I say this without regard to what you THINK about the rulings) it's not just a simple matter of saying you have a right to something and then the issue disappears from now til the end of time.
I'd argue then from that standpoint, then, that the idea that we should have a right to live in the community where we work is a can of worms best left unopened; that is, no, we should not even consider a right to live where you work.
What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Please add to the comments if you'd like.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/17/summit-county-homeowners-sue-short-term-rental/
Well, I spoke too soon apparently when I said the professional licensing board in this state would stand up to the Democrats and tell them that the professionals in an industry should be the ones who decide on a standard of care.
Quick update to an earlier post: apparently the Colorado Medical Board wasn't quite able to go so far as to push back entirely on the Democrats' desire to make a medication-abortion reversal automatically "unprofessional conduct" (something that could harm you license), they didn't quite go the full monty.
They did define it as basically not standard practice and then said they would look at other, similar treatments on a case by case basis.
Look, I'm not here to argue whether they work or not. I'm not here to argue about abortion either.
I am here to remind folks again and again about the manifold times we've said we should keep politics out of medicine.
Oh wait ....isn't that exactly what just happened?
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/colorado-medical-board-abortion-reversal/article_8ad8a4ec-3d38-11ee-84c2-777a50756e0a.html
Lastly, amid all the talk about whether medicine abortion reversal is possible and scrutiny of it, I ask you what would have happened if this level of scrutiny were applied by doctors and the media to COVID measures.
Imagine how the hole punched through our economy might have looked different.
Imagine how schools and learning might have looked different.
What would have happened if, for example the Sun, cared enough or took their role seriously enough to delve as deeply into our government's response to COVID as they did into medication-abortion reversal in the article linked below.
A shame they didn't frankly, and yet more reason why so few people trust them.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/17/colorado-abortion-pill-reversal-science/