LETTER: We don’t have to change the world to change Baker St.

From reader Will Evans…

Re: “Five points about the decay in downtown Nelson” (Letters, May 24)

The letter by Amanda Patt bothered me after I read it and initially I did not know why. It finally occurred to me that buzzwords had been substituted for analysis, making several impressive sounding, but illogical, statements. As an example: what does “sustainability,” “environmental degradation,” “reciprocal relationships” and “metaphorical packaging” have to do with panhandling on Baker Street?

The issue has been made to sound as large and complicated as possible by using phrases like the “economic paradigm,” the “business as usual paradigm,” “negative intentions” and “consumerism.”

Then it came to me — obfuscation. What a word. It’s almost as much fun to write as paradigm. The definition is: “the act of concealing something or making it more difficult to understand.” The way I see it, the problems with vagrants relocating to Nelson must be addressed here, in Nelson. I believe Ms. Patt’s letter sincerely expresses her kind intentions but I don’t agree with the premise that we have to change the whole world in order to save Baker Street.

Will Evans