ShareThis Page

HUD & Larimer

| Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

I had to respond to Roberta Lebedda's “robbing Peter to pay Paul” letter “HUD at cross-purposes” criticizing the Choice Neighborhood Grant to Larimer as if it was taken from the Continuum of Care funds assisting the homeless. She also suggested the Choice grant was mainly about creating parks.

This is like criticizing a doctor saving a person from a heart attack by saying the doctor isn't saving another patient from cancer. Homelessness is a critical issue, but so is repairing declining housing and neighborhoods.

Most of the Choice funds will be spent replacing rundown public housing in Larimer with housing for low- and moderate-income families ($21 million of the $30 million.) That can prevent more homelessness. To be eligible for Choice funds, a community has to write a plan to transform a neighborhood (including providing services to children and families) and commit local funds to replace facilities like sewers.

The Continuum of Care funds aren't being reduced to build park benches. In reality, Congress is moving from directly assisting individuals (such as reducing food stamp funds). HUD and other agencies will be directed to reduce funding for Continuum of Care-type programs.

Sheryl Stolzenberg

Sanford, Fla.

The writer, a Pittsburgh native and Peabody High School graduate who earned her master's degree in urban and regional planning from the University of Pittsburgh, is a principal planner for Seminole County government in Florida.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.