Your July 5 front page article, “City debates definition of ‘family’ in wake of housing woes”, described properties that have jerry-rigged student rental rooms inside houses.

Apparently, these properties are “overcrowded, generate noise problems, don’t adequately dispose of garbage, and are creating health risks with numerous fire and electrical problems not to mention causing an increase in rat populations.”

So, I ask myself, why debate the definition of ‘family’? Are not these electrical, construction, garbage and noise problems already covered by existing City regulations? If these problems are covered by existing regulations, why not enforce the regulations? If these problems are not covered, shouldn’t the regulations be updated? Why bring into the mix a factor (defining what is a family) that really should not be part of the solution but instead confuses the actual issues? It seems to me the real issues are not being addressed; that there is some other motive behind this misdirected debate. Is it no wonder the common voter gets confused, frustrated and then apathetic with the actions of government?

As for student housing, students renting a space to live should have the assurance they will not be exposed to electrical, construction, garbage and other health and safety hazards. When I was a poor student struggling with rent and other living expenses, never was I faced with such hazards as described in this article. One factor that insured adequate living space was the university required all single student housing be approved prior to allowing a student to register. So it seems to me there are already ways to solve these housing issues without debating side issues such as is the moon really made of blue cheese.

– John C. Hales