Reader Response to the Blog

In response to two of our articles in the Nov. 25 issue of the Buzz, a reader writes:

I just read "More Affordable Housing Thuggery" by Dale Tyler and Letter to the Editor by V. Dunn and W. Drudy, and I am feeling a little bit sick to my stomach. I bet you call yourselves "Christians.” Unfortunately, you lack basic human compassion. Can you remember a time when you were considered "low income"? I can. And I can assure you I did not leave a trail of "dirty diapers, not-always-empty six packs of beer, partially eaten fast food, containers, plastic water bottles.” And I always picked up after my kids and pets, which is more than I can say for my upper-middle class neighbors' teenage son who is left alone all weekend while his parents are off on a holiday weekend without him. He and his drunken and/or drugged friends party it up in the nice pad and dispose of their evidence at the end of the street down a slope which backs up to some innocent family's back yard. Don't you dare act like your own upper-middle class kids are not doing the same things you blame on "low income" kids, because I see them "riding their skateboards, bikes,"' and YES, even "old desk chairs down hilly city and private streets." Keep in mind that you can be moral and hard-working, and still be considered "low income" in Orange County. Just try to support a family on a new teacher's salary like my brother-in-law did. He would not have been able to do it without a housing subsidy. It was not forever, but it was necessary for a time. I do not want to pay the legal fees Mission Viejo will incur when we are in default of our legal obligation and I certainly hope that all my neighbors are not as narrow-minded as the three of you.

Mary Gonter
Stoneridge, Mission Viejo

Dale Tyler, Publisher of the Buzz, responds:

Thanks for responding to the articles you mentioned.

I think you have to realize there is a difference between individual compassion and government handouts. In the "More Affordable Housing Thuggery" article, I was simply pointing out that forcing the City of Mission Viejo to comply with what I believe to be unattainable goals should not occur. HCD has the capability (and has stated its intention to do so publicly) to specify that the city must zone areas for affordable units without regard to standards of appearance or location that have been the hallmark of Mission Viejo housing stock since the inception of this planned community.

I simply took the logical next step and proposed that we house the low-income residents in trailers inside a walled compound. While this is the extreme end of the spectrum of solutions, I wanted to show from the point of view of the poverty purveyors, they would be happy with this solution, because they do not care about the means or the people who would be living there, only the result.

It is my belief that it is not a government responsibility to provide housing for anybody. The United States is known as a competitive meritocracy. This is what drives our greatness and why people from all over the world aspire to come here and succeed in their chosen professions. Mission Viejo, now the third safest city of its size in the United States is a goal, not a birthright. I worked hard, as I'm sure you did, to afford to live in the houses we own today. I got some help from my Mom who loaned me part of the down payment. This allowed me to buy a house a few years earlier than I would have otherwise done. No government handouts were needed.

Now, I'm sure your brother-in-law is a good person, but why should the government pay his rent for him or buy him a house? He is free to buy anything he can afford, and if he cannot afford to live where he would like, then he needs to live somewhere else. I know of several places in the Midwest where nice houses in good areas can be had for less than $40K and they are looking for teachers. Instead, your brother-in-law took the easy way out and got welfare to pay for his housing. I have little respect for those who choose government assistance over hard work. Their "I'm owed a house, job, food, etc. by the government" is what is wrong with this country, in my view. It is the responsibility of the individual to make his or her own way, perhaps with the help of family, friends and church.

As to the description of the lower-income housing areas mentioned i the other article, the point was that some people, similar to those who would occupy the HCD housing, have not yet understood the connection between pride in one’s surroundings and success. I have been to the location in question and can see what they are talking about. As you point out, income and morality have little to do with each other. Yet, there is a close association between morality and a sense of self-reliance. If the government gives you a house, it undermines that feeling of accomplishment and self-reliance that we all need.

There are rich, spoiled brats as well as poor kids who trash neighborhoods, but drive around Mission Viejo and look at the neighborhoods that are well maintained and clean compared to those that are not. I find there is a strong correlation between areas that have a high percentage of owner-occupied residences, value of such residences and neatness. Conversely, less affluent and rental areas are often messier. Many of the people living in these areas are sick and tired of the mess caused by a few of their neighbors. Unfortunately, the bad apples have little or no stake in the community and cause problems for everyone around them. Adding to this problem by providing housing almost for free, thus sapping the pride and sense of accomplishment of those who live there, is not a viable solution to the problem.

HCD wants Mission Viejo to provide 94-plus additional, permanent housing units to low-income people. These units can be for-sale or rental units. If they are for-sale units, the 'buyers' (gift recipients) will own the units and. except for a sale covenant, they will profit from this gift to the detriment of everyone else. If they are rental units, the occupants may or may not change from time to time, but the “gift” and, thus, the loss to the community are still permanent. In addition, Mission Viejo will have to build several hundred more of such units every five years in perpetuity.

There are people of different means in America. Some are rich, some are poor, some are healthy. some are disabled and sick, some are young and some are old. Yet, none of them have a right to impose by government will on the assets or property of another. Each of us is responsible for our own wellbeing and that of our families. This country was founded on responsibility and self-reliance. We need to get back to that ideal and stop depending on the nanny state, because it will someday be unable to provide for all our needs.

In your letter you refer to the possible legal expenses of fighting HCD and the poverty purveyors. I liken their threats to those made by Iraq in the very war your brother-in-law participated in. We cannot permit these threats to ruin our community. As someone once said "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.” Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right. If you have a suggestion on how to solve this problem without paying millions of taxpayer dollars, I'd love to hear it.