The Davis Square Community

The question was not framed as "assistance for people who can't shovel." It was framed as assistance for x and y, and it was repeated precisely that way. I still maintain that the writing strongly suggests that z=y. But answering for x, ignoring y, and choosing instead to use the z term "shut-in" to encompass both y and whoever else, would also be irresponsible, and certainly not properly "inclusive." It's preposterous to either suggest that it is or (as I think you were arguing) that the fact that such may have been the writer's intent means that addressing the issue is pointless. If people with disabilities only advocated for themselves in situations where intent was clearly malicious, we would be nowhere. This ostensibly small stuff is deeply, deeply important, and the links between what is casually said in a widely read, officially sanctioned text and how PWD are treated in the world in ways both large and small are very, very real. If you're employed as a communicator on behalf of the city, it is part of your job to actually convey respect for all your residents in everything you write, and to be extremely careful not to contribute to already deeply entrenched attitudes of oppression toward minority residents. It's patently obvious that no such care was taken here, and yes, it absolutely does make a difference.