Three Cheers for Planning Commissioner and "Outrageous and Irresponsible"

January 10, 2003

Dear Editor,

Three cheers for Planning Commissioner Arlene Hopkins, (the only architect presently serving on the dais) who differed with the "group think" when the design of the "new," really new library, came before the commission for its approval and met with rejection instead! ("Planning Commission Sends New Library Back for Redesign," Jan. 10, 2003)

One cheer for her remarks that the existing structure might well be best remodeled instead of completely torn down and reconstructed in whatever form it may take in light of the delays the commission has imposed. (This while equipment and workers are left standing idle as the nation calls for economic stimulus and jobs)!

Another cheer for her fiscally conservative argument that the monies spent on this "new" new, I mean really, really new, library might be better saved during these uncertain economic times!

And a rousing third hurrah for her willingness and courage to speak it!

It is people like Miss Hopkins that government most needs to serve as a disciplined and trained person who knows what they are looking at and can be an objective and independent thinker.

Her statesman-like manner is needed in times like these, when the future is uncertain, and a steady and experienced hand is needed at the helm of the local ship of state, without regard to the political prevailing tides and course, stiff winds of an unseen peril that threaten to dash the city's financial standing on the rocks of ruin.

B Sudovar.

January 8, 2003

Dear Editor,

A recent Lookout article indicates that "Landlords Brace for the Impact of New Laws." (Jan. 7 2003) It is good news that conscientious business people are making every effort to familiarize themselves with their legal responsibilities.

However, the same organization which purports to offer such advice recently published an article that appears to recommend that landlords avoid renting to seniors, disabled persons, families with children and persons utilizing Section 8! (ACTION WAM: "Rent Board Stories," by James L. Jacobson) That suggestion, even if made in jest, is outrageous and irresponsible.

Any prudent business person is obliged to adhere to legal requirements affecting his or her business. For housing providers, this includes local, state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination in housing and access to housing. Refusing to rent to persons because they are seniors, have disabilities, have a household that includes children or utilize certain federal housing programs is a violation of law.

There are many long-term tenants in our community who fall into one or more of the categories of people that the WAM author would seek to exclude from local housing. If there is any doubt that such exclusion is wrongful discrimination, it may help to think of the recommendation in other contexts.

What if the WAM author were to suggest that seniors, persons with disabilities, adults who had children or Section 8 holders should be prevented from voting, obtaining employment, or gathering in public places? Housing discrimination is against the law.

Not only does such discrimination affect those individuals or families who are direct victims, it undermines our community's faith in equal justice. I am certain that most members of Action have no intention of violating fair housing laws. It makes no sense for their local organization to suggest that they do.