Letter: City has too many apartments
To the Editor-
“To enable” has taken on the meaning of allowing or even helping someone continue to do something they really shouldn’t. That definition sums up the strategy of our local housing task force that is trying to tell us there is a critical shortage of affordable rental housing for residents.
The Salvation Army has referred to it as critical. The homeless population needs to be housed before winter.
Giving any group of people housing, healthcare, food, clothing, spending money, without any expectations, is to enable. This will not encourage individuals to seek jobs, take care of their needs, or encourage individuals to become independent citizens. Enabling is not the direction we should go.
Is it possible that this shortage is not a shortage at all, but an attempt by some landlords to refrain from “renting” to individuals that may not have great credit or personal history (background checks) and the landlords only say that they have no units available? Is it possible that the landlords have no interest in filling this need?
I would also suggest that changing the “family” number in current and future rentals to five unrelated people is a ruse to jam as many sardines into the can as possible in order to get as much rent from their properties. Landlords, including some city government officials, are just plain greedy.
To say there is a critical need for rentals is a notion that I cannot accept. Right now, there are 44 units available at North Side Yard with additional units that will be built to make 211, Point Motel (Banter) 79 units, Convent (Grove) 85 units and 17 townhouses, numerous units at the old Kmart location, along with many rentals throughout the city.
These numbers far exceed the need for housing at this time. (My previous letter indicated a downturn in our city population, along with the university.)
It is time to re-evaluate the call for more rental housing. A town of this size is not at any “tipping point” in rental housing.
Ruth Pfiffner
Stevens Point
