Cruel Omissions

Where does Mr. Wessel [Letters, “Heartbreak Hotels,” June 30-July 6] get his information? He claims that rents have remained “stagnant” in Albuquerque. This is just not true. According to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (www.hudclips.org), rents in Albuquerque for a one-bedroom apartment have increased by 15 percent in the last five years, and rents for a three-bedroom apartment have increased by 20 percent. This compared to a zero percent increase in the minimum wage since 1997.

Let me be clear: Absolutely no one should live in substandard and unsafe housing, but simply tearing a place down without addressing the social problems that have come to roost within its walls — precisely those that our community has ignored for decades — isn’t a solution either. It won’t make my neighborhood safer, even if it would make space for pretty new lofts and attractive businesses.

In response to a letter from Mr. Cameron about Central motels, Mr. Wessel claims that “when a building does come down, the city works with residents to find them housing. No one is left on the street unless they want to be.” He cannot possibly know–as the city itself doesn’t know—how many people have been displaced or the composition of the households effected, including whether they are disabled or if they have children or where residents went after they were forced to leave. The “assistance” he refers to, by the way, consists of sending a few to local homeless service providers, where if they are fortunate, they receive a seven-day voucher for, wait for it, another motel! If they happen to qualify for subsidized housing, the wait is two years or more. Hardly solutions. I can only surmise that Mr. Wessel genuinely, if mistakenly, believes what he writes after accepting it unquestioningly from someone at the city. And he has the temerity to label others as “naïve.” Speaking of which, perhaps I am the naïve one, as I had hoped to believe that beating up on the poor and disabled would have fallen out of fashion by now. He apparently needs to believe that everyone living in motels is both intellectually inferior and morally deficient so he can justify his callousness. I can think of a few reasons why people live there. Perhaps they are disabled and have a monthly income totaling $561 from SSI and haven’t been able to save up enough money for the first month’s rent and security deposit required to rent an apartment. Perhaps it is because the $500 apartment Mr. Wessel cites as affordable would consume virtually their entire income, leaving $15 per week for food, transportation and medications. Even for those able to work full time at minimum wage, a $500 apartment would take over 60 percent of their pay, twice of what's considered “affordable.” Perhaps others have concluded that by being able to pay weekly, they can have a roof over their head for at least part of every month. Or perhaps they screwed up 10 years ago and have a criminal record from a drug possession charge when they had an untreated mental illness and now can’t pass a background check. Writing these residents off as not “smart enough” (and whatever implications we are to infer about their rights or worthiness) is not only flat-out wrong, it misses the point entirely.

No one should have to live in unsafe housing. And neighborhoods have a right to be free of nuisance properties. The point is that for those individuals and families that, for whatever reason, call these places home and who, through no fault of their own, are being forced to move, they deserve proper notification and assistance finding a better, more affordable place to live.

I could never understand why the Alibi was named the Alibi. For years I thought it was weird and inscrutable. Why? Why … the Alibi? Then, one day, I really wanted an Alibi … are you getting the idea? I was driving around in my car and wanted to know when a concert began. Thoughts were going through my head as follows: I want an Alibi. I need an Alibi. Where can I get an Alibi?!” So then, and only then, did I finally get it.