Affordable Housing

* “Butterfly Protection Agreement Reached” (Jan. 9), on the Navy surplus housing in the city of Los Angeles, reminds us that the agreement reached, if implemented, will destroy over 100 good homes in order to put in a private prep school with a large athletic field. Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr.’s plan, which The Times correctly opposed in 1999, totally favors wealthy interests outside of the city at the expense of poor working families inside the city who need housing better than what they now live in: garages without plumbing. Unfortunately, some City Council members forgot their responsibility to the city as a whole and accepted the entire Svorinich plan.

Five years ago, the endangered blue butterfly lived in harmony with the Navy families. The butterfly is best protected by returning the homes to their original use, family housing.

JAMES E. HANSEN

San Pedro

*

* Re “Housing Strain Unravels Community Ties,” Jan. 7: How is it possible that you can publish such an extensive report about the increasing lack of affordable housing and not once mention the culpability of landlords in it?

You spotlight the experience of Matthew Gaetano and Julie Hoff-man of Mountain View, for instance, who were forced to move after their rent was raised 20% in a single month and then “hiked” another $200 the next month. Who is responsible for such an obscene rent increase--and why is it acceptable? After all, wasn’t their rental affordable before the landlord became greedy?

It’s understandable that landlords must make a profit from their investments, but no one should accept wheeling and dealing in the provision of human shelter as being equivalent to that of making money, for example, from a retail investment.

LUCIA M. CONFORTI

Los Angeles