I was going to ignore the obvious inaccuracies in the "Homeless for the Holidays" article (Jan. 11), but then I read the response of Andrew Bellard ("IndBox: Shaking with Anger," Jan. 25) and decided to amend my original decision. Instead of shaking with anger, Bellard should have read the article more closely. The article states that it was Claude Martin of C.A.R.E.S. that made the decision to move his clients instead of signing a lease.
The next telling point is Martin's comment noting Ashworth's commitment to nonprofits and "why would she play such hardball with a non-profit baffles me." Ashworth's commitments have been to nonprofits, and the problems with C.A.R.E.S., logically, is due to some other reason. Rather than turning people "homeless for the holidays," Kathy and her husband opened their home for months to people left homeless by the hurricane damage in New Orleans.
The entire article was sadly one-sided, and the afterthought of "Kathy Ashworth did not return multiple calls for comment" is not an excuse. If you call a person two hours before going to press and leave a message, this does not count as a contact. The article should have been tabled until both sides were told. There may be "hypocrisy" here, but not on Ms. Ashworth's part. She is, and remains, a talented lady with a huge heart.
Where Mrs. Goza is getting her information on when and how Kathy Ashworth was contacted for our story is a curious matter, and unsurprisingly, her assertions are false. The Independent Weekly called Ashworth three separate times ' at her business and on her cell phone ' three days before we went to press, and she did not respond. She responded only with a one-paragraph e-mailed statement the day we went to press, and her statement was included in the story. ' Ed.