Editor:
The story written regarding the differences between large company debt and individual debt treatment (“The Debt Divide,” Jan. 19) was educational and very saddening. I was particularly stunned by Mr. Brian Mitchell’s statement regarding the people who reside at Security National’s trailer park … that it’s housing for “the working class.” What the hell did he mean by that? He says he’s been there. … In what way has he been there, a fly by?
Now that he is aware of the condition of the bathroom in the Caughie’s trailer, will he see to it that the rest of their home environment is safe and livable? Will he have other homes inspected for safe living conditions and responsibly repair what is needed? Would that make the Aspen less affordable for “the working class?”
Mitchell says creditors will be paid (including Aspen tenants) 100 percent of what they are owed; there are ways to read into this. I surely hope Mr. Mitchell gets what he deserves … (wink, wink).
Additionally, just after reading this finely written article, I took my dog for a walk and passed a home recently boarded up with a notice displayed on the blocked door stating the house now belonged to Fanny Mae. There had been a family there. I don’t know where they went. A chill ran through my bones. It’s not just winter making the days sad and cold.
Kathy Travers, Eureka
Editor:
While I am glad to see this family having better times, I do have to wonder why when after going through foreclosure and other disastrous financial problems … why in the world would they go on and have not one, not two but three kids? … and still be $20,000 in debt?
Did they not learn anything?
How long until they are again without money?
Wait, I changed my mind. I don’t have any sympathy nor empathy for them.
Sammy Schlipschid, McKinleyville
This article appears in Burlesque!.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who blame the family from this story for having kids. If everyone waited until they had no debt and a fat bank account to have kids, this world would be populated by nothing but trust fund babies and Romneys. Let it go with this family’s choices. This story wasn’t even about this family. It wasn’t about their children. The family is a prop (although a local living one) to illustrate the different sets of rules by which financial inequality is maintained. Honestly, Sammy, if you can’t understand the point of a news story (and particularly one as pertinent as this) maybe you should stick to reading the Times-Standard.
So Mike, what is your feeling that we, the public, should support people who start or have families while not being in somewhat control?
Brian Mitchell is the biggest scumbag in Humboldt County
Don’t bait me Anon…I’m not Joel
I know, you’re Mike.
No family has ever been able to guarantee the safety and security of their children.
Long ago, civilizations realized the connections between poverty, crime and disease. They developed basic social services to provide educational opportunities and the housing, health care and jobs that youths need to contribute and prosper.
Even earlier, in 14th century Europe, the fat/grotesque royalty grew tired of young paupers stealing the affection of their trophy-wives, and they subsidized Europe’s first brothels.
Throughout history, individual’s greed inevitably threatens their own quality of life, health, and safety.
Hence, the conservative movement was born.