Mr. Lewis writes about what he calls "single-family residence neighborhoods," apparently basing his comments on his own neighborhood [“Poor and Poorer,” Aug. 18 Xpress]. Implicit in his comments are some generalizations about "renters" and what he calls "have-nots."
He notes that he has been troubled by "at least" five houses that have been rented to "several unrelated occupants". He doesn't mention how many houses in total there are in his "neighborhood" (20, 50, 200?), or how many rental units house "unrelated occupants." He also doesn't mention if any dwellings housing a single family have been problematic (grass too high).
I grew up in a rental apartment and don't feel that being a renter sharing space with others in a single building makes one a worse person than an individual who resides in a single-family home that he or she owns.
[Lewis] also contrasts what he calls the "have-nots" with "folks who've worked hard.” I know "folks who work hard" who I would call "have-nots," so I don't consider that a valid contrast. "Haves" and "have-nots" or "folks who've worked hard" and "folks who haven't worked hard" are valid contrasts.
I do [agree] that neighborhoods [can] be nice places to live in. As a neighborhood advocate, he can help strengthen ties between his fellow residents, helping to solve problems.
— Stephen Rinsler
Arden
Before you comment
The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.