Question 8, CR p.336

"Columbia Council Should Support Mission, Homeless", an article published in The State, argues that the Columbia City Council should support the Oliver Gospel Mission in a relocation and expansion plan of their homeless shelter.  The author says that if the support for relocation is not possible, than the City Council has the responsibility of proposing a different solution for the increasing number of homeless and the crisis brought on by the winter months.  The author's argument is centered on the fact that helping the homeless, which includes food, shelter, medical attention, and drug rehabilitation, will in turn help the City of Columbia, its visitors, as well as its residents.  By rejecting and ignoring the issue, the author believes the City Council is in dereliction of its duties as a civil service.  

The author of "Columbia Must Care for Homeless as Well as Bantus" has a similar opinion of the City Council.  This author brings to light the same issue of the relocation and expansion of the Oliver Gospel Mission, however he is skeptical of the City Council's "stomach" for handling such issues based on its past history of actions and its recent resolution to support the expansion, but not relocation, of the OGM.  The author believes that the City Councils promises are superficial and far too dependent on residents' and business owners' desires.  To address the situation, the City Council's desire for political favor must be sacrificed as there is no way to find a solution that all will be pleased with.  It will take a combined compassionate effort of all parties involved to make a change in the city. 

A year later, the author of "One-Stop Proposal for Area's Homeless Looks Promising" discusses a new combined effort of local business leaders in a new plan to place a larger homeless and service center two miles from downtown Columbia on Shop Road.  The Columbia City Council again was of no help in coming to a decision about the issues at hand, yet the business leaders are still determined.  They will apply to a group of civil service providers in a joint attempt to solve the homeless issue, one of them being the Oliver Gospel Mission.  However this Mission has been rejected twice by the City Council and therefore wants to focus on its own private expansion.  

All three editorials have a common goal, being a solution for the homeless problem in Columbia.  However, there are certain differences in the three arguments.  The first editorial appeals to the City Council to be more reasonable in its decision making and to stop ignoring an issue that will continue to develop until action is taken.  The second editorial similarly appeals to the City Council, however it goes further to appeal to all the residents and business owners in Columbia.  Its position is that without a joint effort, such a large issue cannot be resolved.  The third editorial discusses the actions of business leaders in organizing a bigger, more effective shelter built with the combined efforts of many of Columbia's civil service organizations.

The differences and similarities of argument styles have a dual functioning purpose.  The differences widen the target range of readers, and the similarities focus all the differences to a common goal.  In this way, The State can draw the largest amount of support from the residents, business leaders, and political leaders of Columbia in an attempt to solve the homeless crisis.