It was frustrating to read Dan Rodricks' point-by-point discussion of the "typical" middle-class resident's perspective on the poor ("Let's help the poor, but not too close to home," Feb. 2).
Does he dispute the fact that property values fall and crime increases when low-income housing is brought into otherwise desirable areas?
He says the city blew up the old public housing projects because they were a bad idea, but he doesn't mention the primary reason for that, which was that they were too densely populated with low-income residents and crime was out of control.
He also excuses the poor, claiming that there are fewer opportunities available to them now than in the past. This is amazing considering how hard people had to struggle during the my parents' generation.
My in-laws barely had food on the table during the Depression and only lived to experience the very bottom of the working-class. Yet they took pride in what little they had (including their families) and frequently said "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty."
Has Mr. Rodricks driven through some of Baltimore City's low-income neighborhoods recently?
Moreover, the minimum wage was never meant to deliver a living wage for families. It was the wage typically designed for students, part-time workers and those starting at the bottom willing to work up. Anyone with common sense knows that.
Claire Corcoran, Baltimore