Dear Ms. Bagg et. al,
I found tonight's report to be an horrendous abuse of the public trust. It openly disparaged recipients of public assistance and clearly promoted a selfish and irresponsible NIMBY attitude at the expense of the well being of one's neighbors.
This report was ostensibly focused on the question of the effect that subsidized housing or section 8 householders had on property values. However, even a cursory glance at the facts involved shows that it was more about the perception of who is moving in next door rather than any substantive loss of investment value.
At no time during the report did anyone mention the fact that published reports show this particular condominium development had been in foreclosure proceedings as far back as March 31st of this year which as I will note below would have a much stronger effect on their property value than having renters or section 8 recipients as neighbors.
A recent study by the Metropolitan Studies Group at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte concluded that:
The importance Section 8 households in explaining the change in residential property values is weak. In the research model, less than 5 percent of the explanatory power is attributable to the this factor In the research, 12 other real estate and neighborhood variables displayed a much stronger capacity to explain housing price variability. The stronger performing variables included sales as the result of foreclosure, and the homeownership level of the neighborhood
The story stipulated the obvious fact that these 14 units weren't likely to be bought anytime soon. So home ownership rates in the area were not affected by the GHA purchase.
I found the anchor's suggestion that there had to be special zoning for public housing recipients offensive.
As I've noted previously I found the promo particularly slanted and objectionable.
As a former resident of section 8 and public housing I found the clear implication of this reporting which was "you don't want that element living near you do you?" to be especially vile. This is the kind of despicable product which appeals to your viewers' basest instincts.
No advertiser who values the integrity of their brand would knowingly associate themselves with this kind of tripe.
Perhaps contacting your advertisers might persuade you to correct the inaccuracies omissions, and deliberate misrepresentations that I've noted above.
Apparently we don't Get Answers from News 2 we get opinions. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact"