Biased coverage; 'camping' ordinance | Letters to the Editor
Last updated 5/18/2022 at 7:32pm
Homeless ordinance coverage felt one-sided
I'm taking the time to write you to share my dismay in reading the latest Guest Views and Letters to the Editor on the homeless vote that took place Tuesday night.
I know you need to have a balance of di...
For access to this article please sign in or subscribe.
Deborah Arthur writes:
Its odd to me that people think we who support this ordinance are just people who don't want to look at it. That is not the case with me at all. It is the crime and the properties robbed and the fear of families to let their kids play in their yards. The distance to another place to provide shelter for a better healthier environment seems like a kindness to me. When we have shelter we can bring more back if they want to come back. I think trying to paint those as selfish who only want to live their lives too is not a bad thing. Insurance is not likely to pay and pay for this. So we must pay ourselves for broken windows and crashed car windows all of it or our rates will go up or we will be cancelled. This is logic. If we had this happen well we would just pay ourselves because of the Insurance. People on a fixed budget can't afford to do this all of the time with no assistance. Retirees unprotected and childless retirees no one to help. I just wanted to say this and say I do care.
05/22/2022, 4:40 pm