I was on my college debate team during the spring semester of 1974—a time when President Richard Nixon was fighting to stay in office amid the Watergate scandal. Coincidentally, the national college debate topic that semester was: “The Powers of the Presidency Should Be Significantly Curtailed.”

As we all know now, Nixon resigned in August of that year. But during those months leading up to his resignation, that debate topic sparked plenty of political fireworks at collegiate tournaments. More importantly, it taught a lasting lesson that remains vital in public discourse today.

Competitive college debate instills one critical discipline: to be effective, you must understand both sides of an issue. In a typical tournament, a team would argue the affirmative side of the resolution in the morning rounds and switch to the negative side in the afternoon. That rhythm required deep research, critical thinking, and a willingness to see the argument from another perspective.

That training served me well in my career as a journalist. Reporting on important public policy issues demands a similar discipline—you must grasp the arguments on both sides and explain them clearly and fairly to the public.

I was reminded of all this as I covered the debate leading up to the Fishers City Council’s decision in April to enact a rental housing cap. Starting in 2026, the city will limit the number of single-family rental homes to 10% per subdivision. Homes already being rented by the end of this year will be grandfathered in. There are also a number of exceptions, which are detailed at this link.

I hosted two podcasts exploring this issue. The first featured Mayor Scott Fadness and his Chief of Staff, Jordin Alexander. The mayor argued that the growing number of rentals is crowding out young families who want to buy homes in Fishers. He emphasized that most residents support the rental cap.

Another podcast featured an opposition group—led by former City Councilor Jocelyn Vare and real estate professional Steve Ladig—pushes back on that narrative. They contend that large investment firms and hedge funds haven’t been purchasing Fishers homes in significant numbers lately. They also warn the ordinance could reduce home values over time by limiting rental flexibility in many neighborhoods.

IndyStar opinion columnist James Briggs added his perspective in two columns, citing industry data that the average age of homebuyers nationally is now 56. In today’s lending environment, it’s increasingly difficult for younger families to qualify for a mortgage.

An important legal aspect of this issue is that Fishers is charting new territory, both in Indiana and potentially across the nation. Fishers is the first city in the state to adopt such a measure, and now Carmel is considering a similar ordinance. Given the opposition from homebuilders and real estate interests—who spent significant money opposing the ordinance—legal challenges are likely. City officials say they are confident the ordinance will withstand scrutiny in court.

If the City Council’s vote is any indication, Mayor Fadness was right about public sentiment. The ordinance passed unanimously, 9-0, and councilors reported that about 70–80% of constituent feedback was in favor.

There’s one more aspect of this debate that is more delicate—but important. Briggs argued that communities like Fishers and Carmel support rental caps not solely due to market conditions, but because they want to “scapegoat Wall Street so they can award affluent buyers and existing homeowners with exclusive access to single-family houses and keep away unsavory renters.”

I’ve lived in Fishers for 34 years, and when speaking with fellow residents, I often hear that Fishers is a welcoming city—open to all. But when I talk with people outside our city, I hear a very different impression.

Appearances matter—sometimes even more than reality. As we consider and defend the decisions made in our city, let’s not forget how those choices appear to those watching from outside our borders.