Re: “The reply is inexpensive housing, not criminalizing homelessness” [April 23, Opinion] and “Sleepwalking into civil battle” [April 24, Opinion]:
In her op-ed, Lauren McGowan wrote {that a} Supreme Courtroom case poses the query of whether or not to cope with homelessness with punishment or help. The “obtrusive lack of inexpensive housing” was cited as proof that “extra inexpensive housing” is the reply. The selection of help over punishment is correct on, however I recommend that this reply is overly simplistic and ignores one other side. There are individuals at decrease earnings ranges who merely should not have the assets to both purchase or hire housing, whether or not it’s out there or not. It’s no secret that the center class on this nation has shrunk whereas these at excessive earnings ranges have drastically elevated their share of the wealth.
The change within the distribution of wealth is said to far more than housing, even being a consider whether or not polarization slides into civil battle. Columnist John M. Crisp wrote about potential causes of civil battle, and cited earnings inequality as a type of causes recognized by the Political Instability Job Power.
Give attention to housing (supportive housing) will assist in “fixing homelessness,” however consideration have to be paid to the larger image and elementary causes.
Mary Wallon, Seattle
