William Thomas
1440 N Street Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005

September 3, 1990

Dear Editorial Staff:

You've got this whole Initiative 17 thing upsidedown.

Initiative 17 was not part of some evil conspiracy to bankrupt the District of Columbia, as some readers of the Post might be led to suspect. Initiative 17 was just a mandate from the taxpayers of D.C. to their paid "public servants," instructing the public servants to provide "dignified shelter" to any human being requesting it.

Cindy and Louis Toth, their reason directed by "arguments in Post editorials," live in a ''reality" where, they claim, "the promise of free shelter" attracts lots and lots of "quarreling middle-aged-men" and "panhandlers" who then proceed to "live in our parks, and on our sidewalks." " Don't Promise Shelter," Post, letter-to-the-editor, Sept. 1.

The Toths betray absolutely no compassion for the "homeless." They articulate concern only for about "1% of the city's budget," some twenty-odd million dollars.

If the Post can be believed, the taxpayers' paid public servants gave some 3.5 million (approximately 17.5% of 1% of the city's budget) to "shelter vendors" in exchange for accommodating about 50 families in the Pitts. Pitts Post, editorial, Aug. 31.

By just reading Initiative 17, any literate person will realize that the taxpayer mandate for "dignified shelter" never was so "inflexible" as to force, or even suggest, that their well-intentioned public servants should fork out a $100 per dium per homeless head.

On the other hand, if the Post were doing a "good" job, its readers would also be aware that a certain community of local volunteers have long been providing dignified shelter, plus, largely through their own creative non-violence, food and clothing to 1,400 "homeless" at a cost to the taxpayers of some 70 cents per dium per head (approximately .175% of 1% of the city budget).

The Post and the Toths have the same simple solution, vote for " leaders with better ideas." Yet they offer no simple explanation why, for all these years, voters have insistanted on electing "leaders with worse ideas." I'm no Einstien, but finding "leaders" with better ideas" might not be as simple as some folks make it sound.

Thus, the Post/Tothian perspective of Initiative 17 seems, simply, upsidedown.

Sincerely,

/s/Thomas