This is exactly the kind of letter that we cannot let pass without comment. Ms. Hill never addresses the theme of the article - that sometimes a hard-line approach to solving the problems faced by homeless people is counterproductíve. She also never deals with the idea that the Shelter's 60-day policy could be responsible for people's needs ultimately being unmet. Instead she chooses to attack the credibility of the writers and the people quoted in the article whose viewpoint she disagrees with. As far as AGENDA'S article following the leadofThe Ann ArborNews, Hillagainmisses the point. Both anieles interviewed a surprisingly similar array of sources but the News article seems to have come down on exactly the other side of the fence: What some homeless people need - it implied throughout - is a good kick in the butt! Finally, I did speak to some of the Shelter workers off the record. If I had reported our conversations verbatim I would have included a comment made by a Shelter worker that all "people had to do was get off their lazy asses" and come see them if they wanted help. I'm sure there are many Shelter workers - paid staff and volunteers - who are outstanding at what they do. The article was about policy and philosophy, not about any one person or group of people. So it was sad that Hill's letter was so critical of people and not their ideas. Ultimately, shelters (and volunteering at shelters) w il 1 not end homelessness. AGENDA wil 1 continue to write about the economie and politica! causes and solu tions to homelessness.
Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-alike)
Rights Held By