Dan Huff's "Nightmare In Tin" (July 22) contained several inaccurate and unfair comments regarding the Arizona Multihousing Association (AMA), the statewide trade group for the apartment industry.
The association strongly supports efforts to combat substandard housing and slum lords. We were instrumental in helping develop and pass the state's new Slumlord Abatement Act, which we feel is superior to what was proposed to the Tucson City Council last November. Members of the AMA are serving on the Council's citizens committee to evaluate and make recommendations on implementation of the new law that goes into effect August 6.
The AMA helped found and remains a strong supporter of the Arizona Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. It is a police-apartment management partnership designed to keep illegal activities out of multi-family communities.
Earlier this year, the association launched the AMA Five Star Program. It requires apartment developments to proactively work with homeowner associations and other groups to find ways to make their neighborhood a better place for all residents -- renters and homeowners. So far, 22 Tucson properties participate.
Another grassroots effort is the just-completed AMA Freedom From Hunger food drive, the largest summertime campaign in Arizona. It surpassed its goal of 250,000 pounds of food. Benefiting will be the thousands of children, senior citizens and working poor served by the Tucson Community Food Bank and eight other food warehouses across the state.
Yes, landlords want to make a profit on their rentals. Responsible, law-abiding owners do it by making sure their properties are an asset to the neighborhood.
-- Nancy Nicolosi
Dan Huff replies: Jeez, if you want an ad, Nancy, perhaps you should pay for one. But I don't recall making any statements about your organization, other than it's "politically powerful" and was opposed to the small fee proposed by the Tucson Housing Commission -- statements which were neither unfair nor inaccurate.
Both Mailbag respondents (August 5) to Tom Danehy's article in favor of gun control ("My Chat With Charleton," July 8) fault him for being too "clever." Here's another of those "juvenile," "witty" arguments.
The Second Amendment "rights" these writers fear losing have already been abridged. Yes, this amendment is intended to keep arms in the hands of private citizens. Not just guns, but arms. Arms enough to defeat foreign invaders. Even with Chuck Heston leading the charge, the gun owners of America would go down in quick defeat to the military of a modern nation (like Bangladesh, for instance). If you really want the Second Amendment applied, expect to have a tank parked in your neighbor's drive. Just pray his stash of tactical nuclear weapons doesn't detonate when you activate your garage door opener.
The Second Amendment is an anachronism. The abolition of private gun ownership is the rational thing to do, as even Samm Washington admits in his oddly reasoned letter. This is glaringly obvious from its success in virtually every other first world nation. If Americans insist on being the last holdouts of paranoia-inspired gun ownership (yes, the UN is brainwashing your children to become drones in a satanic, one-world government), then let's regulate and tax the heck out of it.
One more thing. If anyone ever busts in your door claiming to be a bail bondsman, SWAT, or what have you, I'd advise against reaching for that revolver on the nightstand. Did I say paranoia inspired? Maybe John Wayne-inspired is better.
-- David Wilson