MITCH SNYDER AND THE 'HOMELESS CAPITAL' (CONT'D.)

After devoting far too many column inches to the machinations of Mitch Snyder, The Post now inflicts upon us Mr. Snyder's peculiar pronouncements as a moral philosopher {letters, Jan. 9} . He asserts his right to trash the Metro gates because "property that needlessly threatens or destroys human life has no right to exist." What arrant nonsense! Must we drive our cars into the Potomac because they are sometimes (and needlessly) lethal? Liquor store owners, beware: Mitch's Minions are asserting their God-given right to destroy your inventory because it "needlessly . . . threatens human life." Outlaw cigarettes, guns, motorcycles, skis and hang-gliders. All of these are "property" that needlessly threaten human life.

Mr. Snyder, like many before him, justifies his lawlessness "in the name of a just and loving God." The trouble with such religion-based tyranny is not just that it presumes direct knowledge of God's will but that it also includes the misguided conviction that such divine access gives people the moral and legal authority to tell the rest of us how to behave. That includes, in this case, how we should go about protecting our private and public property from the likes of Mr. Snyder's marauding troops. They have no more right to destroy Metro gates than to rip off parking meters; neither action carries any "moral" authority.

The Post would better serve its public if it relegated the antics of these moral misfits to the pages of petty crime where they belong and instead focus on improvement of Washington's less fortunate citizens.

PHILIP D. HARVEY

Washington

Why do more homeless prefer the streets and grates to shelters? Would it be because the latter's security and cleanliness leave a lot to be desired? The stench is the same at most shelters as it was at the Metro stations before the fences were built.

If given a chance and the support they need, most homeless would police themselves. Now we have a platoon of, for the lack of better words, "do-gooders" tearing down fences, which were paid for by Metro, which answers to the taxpayers.

Mr. Snyder would truly help if he would see that the shelters remain clean, that food and medical assistance are given when needed, that security and a set of rules to live by are followed.

My problem is, forgive the expression, "freeloaders." The outpouring of help may not be enough, but of all the help that is given, how many of those really need help?

DANIEL J. MCQUAID JR.

Silver Spring

It is interesting that Mitch Snyder's solution to the homelessness issue appears to be to provide continually increasing numbers of beds for the increasing numbers of people who need (want) them. I suspect that the numbers of beds required will continue to increase indefinitely as more and more marginally ambitious individuals give in to their weaknesses and choose to avail themselves of free room and board at the taxpayer's expense. If Mr. Snyder gets his way, Washington, D.C., could become the Homeless Capital, providing shelter to anyone in the country.

While readily acknowledging the need to provide shelter to those who truly need it, I find it hard to stomach providing tax dollars to a growing number of individuals who choose not to work and who now have no incentive to look for work because their basic needs of food and shelter have been met.

Perhaps it is time for Mr. Snyder to reassess his agenda. He needs to take an honest look at those around him and determine how many people are there out of true necessity and how many are there because they choose to be. If he is truly honest with himself, he may want to redirect his effort, but I doubt it.

MICHAEL J. CASTILLO

Laurel

The letters about the homeless and Mitch Snyder are shocking. By now most people, I thought, would feel some compassion for other members of the human race. Instead come letters that sound like something out of Dickens. Jon Barrett's letter {Jan. 6} began "not implying that Mr. Snyder isn't hard working or tax paying . . . is he? . . . does he?" and continued by inveighing against the homeless who sleep in the Metro stations and "perform, unfortunately, other body functions without the proper facilities." He also suggested that Mr. Snyder's efforts are "just another way of . . . making the front page." The suggestion that an activist for the homeless is motivated by all that fame and fortune that comes with such a job is ludicrous. Can there be more wretched, more thankless -- more noble -- work than sacrificing one's own comfort, security and life itself to help others? Certainly it is more laudable to draw attention to their need than it is to object to it.

"Vagrants," Mr. Barrett calls them; "Yes, it's still a good word, though recently replaced by 'homeless.' " Webster's defines the good word, vagrant, as shiftless tramp, bum, hobo. These "vagrants," Mr. Barrett seems to fancy, live the way they do by choice. Why work when one can starve and freeze? Some of these "vagrants" are disabled veterans, sick people, children, people who cannot find jobs, and people who have jobs and still cannot afford homes.

Perhaps each person fortunate enough to need the Metro only to transport him to his house so that he can eat dinner, turn up the heater, perform body functions in privacy and sleep in a soft bed with little fear of having his possessions stolen should think, as he passes through the Metro, of the camel and the eye of the needle, and then ask what he himself can do to help those in the Metro who have no other home.

ALLAN PIPER

Falls Church

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.