The big question is whether "Seattle Homes Within Reach" will reach enough of the residents of the city to keep them from either being forced to live elsewhere or become part of the working homeless.

As Rebekah Schilperoort's story on Page One of today's West Seattle Herald outlines, the new housing relief plan proposed by Mayor Greg Nickels is supposed to permit developers to rent at a higher rate than the current program. The new program would target those making around 80 percent of median, which means singles making up to $49,000 and families earning no more than $62,300. It would extend tax exemptions for 12 years to developers on the portion of a new apartment building where 20 percent to 25 percent of the units are set aside for those income levels.

The monthly rent for an individual under the plan would be no more than about $1,170, between $50 and $250 below market rate.

Condo developers can be eligible by offering units affordable to those earning up to $74,760 a year for a two-person household; the income limits vary according to household size. Median income in Seattle is about $54,000 for a single person household.

The program would also expand to all 39 urban villages, to include the West Seattle Junction. See the story for details.

Something is wrong with an economy that says people earning $50,000 and more need help to rent an apartment or buy a condominium. We realize that the real estate market is hot right now all over Seattle. The time is not too far away when the mortgage crunch now felt in most of the United States will get here in some, hopefully small, form.

But it says a lot about employers who are not paying wages commensurate with the living costs of the area. No wonder there is increasing numbers of homeless and those living out of their cars or staying with friends while fully employed. We understand employers cannot pay more than others in the same business and costs must be kept low to compete. But what kind of society will we become if we cannot even pay enough for our workers to have a decent place to live and enough to eat?

Another very scary factor is the fast increasing numbers of people retired on small and fixed incomes. If they cannot rent or do not own, they can be out on the street. Add the constant and steep increase in taxes and more will be forced out of their homes.

Those who must find senior housing discover many retirement communities charge $3,000 and up to $7,500 for meals and a small apartment - and the for-profit retirement facilities simply boot the elderly out when their money is gone. Where do they go? How do they eat? We seem to talk a lot about taking care of our people, but it appears to many in the burgeoning retirement population that they are being shoved aside as an unwanted burden.

While Seattle's mayor and its City Council are making a stab at helping those still productive and making what once was considered strong incomes, what about those living in poverty, seniors and those who are simply poor. Are we to suggest they deserve their lives on the edges of our society because, as one loud-mouthed local talk show host calls "stupid decisions?"

The problem is far wider than just Seattle. People in this country no longer seem to want to worry about anyone but himself or herself. While this can be understood at some level, it speaks ill of the future of what once was a strong and vibrant nation.

- Jack Mayne