s and average home buyers to motivate the public to act. Though no specific action is suggested as in Terners article, Inmans argument inspires action because the implications of not having affordable housing are so clearly laid out. In addition to spouting out the statistic that 33% of the average income goes towards a house, Inman spells out the situation by concluding, for everyone [not rich], a basic house can be a serious economic drain. (Inman, p. 7) Inman values proportional equality for American citizens as he points out the ludicrous gap between rich and not-rich home purchases.The way I see it, the amount one spends on a home is already proportional to what one earns. Inman argues in favor of equality between rich and not-rich families, but I believe this opposes the American Dream of earning your fortune and home. Inman bases his argument around the envy the average American might feel upon hearing that some people can afford a three-room library in their home. But how often will you really find such a three-room library? Inmans is an unrealistic comparison. Of course there are a few filthy rich individuals who can afford to buy and trade houses like the rest of us buy shoes and socks. (Inman, p. 7) This, however, is a biased simile on Inmans part because I seriously doubt rich individuals deal with their houses (however many they own) so casually so as to trade their houses like people trade foot wear. Though the problem of affordable housing is a serious one, I find Inmans attempt to lay out the situation over generalized and biased.Terner, on the other hand, lays out the situation in terms of solving the problem. He argues with the intention of giving deeper understanding of the problem, and with motivating individuals to help and not ignore the problem within their own communities. Terners response to questions from the floor encourage support for his company by explaining what it is they can do, and what th...
