Page 2 of 2 Previous

Continued: Readers Write: (Sept. 27): Affordable Care Act, end-of-life care, disability housing, child-care unions

  • Article by:
  • Last update: September 26, 2013 - 6:56 PM

My daughter is a resident. Half the condo units are owned by families or trusts, and half are publicly funded and supported by Project-Based Section 8. All residents are people with disabilities, and PPL provides a modest level of service support. The project has worked for more than a decade.

The problem with the state’s “Olmstead Plan” is the rigid assumption that independent community living is the right option for all. It’s not. The real issue is the appalling lack of sufficient supportive affordable-housing options for people with disabilities with a variety of levels of support and independence. Failure to address this problem will simply mean that such people remain living at home with family, certainly not in the community as the Olmstead decision desires.

We created our project so that our daughter would have the most independent living arrangement she could manage. Olmstead would consider her living situation to be an institution. She would gladly tell you that’s simply nonsense.


* * *


Editorial portrayed supporters unfairly

I attended the meeting that Karla Scapanski hosted in her home (“An alarming pitch for day care unions,” editorial, Sept. 24). Her analogy of the bear and skunks was clearly a message about collective action. Providers want to join together so they have a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs — they all agree that rules and regulations are necessary in the work they do. The three providers named in the editorial are passionate, caring women who love the children in their care. To suggest otherwise shows that you don’t know them.

The National Right to Work organization is the third party pitting provider against provider. It is preventing this group of predominately female workers from exercising their right to vote on the question of unionization. The 19th Amendment gave women the constitutional right to vote in 1920 — a right that some of our grandmothers and great-grandmother didn’t have. Why are a group of out-of-state attorneys trying to push back the hands of time? What are they afraid of?

Child-care providers deserve the right to vote!

BETH WALTERS, Sauk Rapids, Minn.

  • related content

  • Illustration: Mailbox.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters