As far as driving goes, I prefer to be alert when on the road and be relaxing in the comfort of my home.
Letter took dim look at low-income issue
Regarding Frank Epstein’s Mailbag letter Wednesday, “Pro-low-income views don’t hold water”: Affordable housing does not automatically lead to an increase in crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Many of these residents will be people who already work in Burbank as preschool teachers, food service workers and other entry-level and low-wage jobs, or are senior citizens on fixed incomes.
To assume that they will be pick-pocketing graffiti artists who hang out on the corner and smoke (is that still legal?) is understandable, given the fear-mongering media’s portrayal of the people who live in low-income neighborhoods. But step outside of your xenophobic bubble and think honestly about this.
For those local residents lucky enough to own a home in Burbank, think about all of the entry-level and low-income workers you will depend upon this week. From your tall latte in the morning to the clean bathrooms at work, all of these people must commute to work every day from areas where they can afford to live. They share the same roads as you and contribute to the ever-popular traffic situation, not to mention the environment. Where, exactly, do you propose the cashier at Target live?
Parents who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, spending all of their waking hours either working or commuting, can’t possibly expect to raise “good kids.” Is it really so bad that they be given a chance to improve their situation? Is this not better for the kids, and therefore everyone?
In answer to Epstein’s argument that he should not have to subsidize the uneducated masses, I would like to point out that a large housing subsidy in the United States is the federal homeowner mortgage interest tax deduction, which benefits high-income families.