Archive for the ‘2016 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH — Edit Tagged with 2015Uncategorized2015UncategorizedAdverb’ Tag

HOMELESS THROUGH THE EYES OF A HOMELESS PERSON   Leave a comment

Posted January 4, 2018 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

TRUMP JUST KILLED AMERICA “BELOW” READ “WHY”   Leave a comment

Posted September 15, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THIS IS THE NEW H.U.D STORY!!!   Leave a comment

THIS IS THE NEW H.U.D STORY!!!


In mid-May, Steve Preston, who served as the secretary of housing and urban development in the final two years of the George W. Bush administration, organized a dinner at the Metropolitan Club in Washington, D.C., for the new chief of that department, Ben Carson, and five other former secretaries whose joint tenure stretched all the way back to Gerald Ford. It was an event with no recent precedent within the department, and it had the distinct feel of an intervention.
HUD has long been something of an overlooked stepchild within the federal government. Founded in 1965 in a burst of Great Society resolve to confront the “urban crisis,” it has seen its manpower slide by more than half since the Reagan Revolution. (The HUD headquarters is now so eerily underpopulated that it can’t even support a cafeteria; it sits vacant on the first floor.) But HUD still serves a function that millions of low-income Americans depend on — it funds 3,300 public-housing authorities with 1.2 million units and also the Section 8 rental-voucher program, which serves more than 2 million families; it has subsidized tens of millions of mortgages via the Federal Housing Administration; and, through various block grants, it funds an array of community uplift initiatives. It is the Ur-government agency, quietly seeking to address social problems in struggling areas that the private sector can’t or won’t solve, a mission that has become especially pressing amid a growing housing affordability crisis in many major cities.
Despite its Democratic roots, Republican administrations have historically assumed stewardship over HUD with varying degrees of enthusiasm — among the department’s more notable secretaries were Republicans George Romney and Jack Kemp, the idiosyncratic champion of supply-side economics and inner-city renewal.
Now, however, HUD faced an existential crisis. The new president’s then-chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had called in February for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” It was not hard to guess that, for a White House that swept to power on a wave of racially tinged rural resentment and anti-welfare sentiment, high on the demolition list might be a department with “urban” in its name. The administration’s preliminary budget outline had already signaled deep cuts for HUD. And Donald Trump had chosen to lead the department someone with zero experience in government or social policy — the nominee whose unsuitability most mirrored Trump’s lack of preparation to run the country.
This prospect was causing alarm even among HUD’s former Republican leaders. At the Metropolitan Club, George W. Bush’s second secretary, Alphonso Jackson, warned Carson against cutting further into HUD’s manpower. (Many regional offices have shuttered in recent years.) Carla Hills, who ran the department under President Ford, put in a plug for the Community Development Block Grant program, noting that Ford had created it in 1974 precisely in order to give local governments more leeway over how to spend federal assistance.
The tone was collegial, built on the hopeful assumption that Carson wanted to do right by the department. “We were trying to be supportive,” Henry Cisneros, from the Clinton administration, told me. But it was hard for the ex-secretaries to get a read on Carson’s plans, not least because the whisper-voiced retired pediatric neurosurgeon was being overshadowed by an eighth person at the table: his wife, Candy. An energetic former real-estate agent who is an accomplished violinist and has co-authored four books with her husband, she had been spending far more time inside the department’s headquarters at L’Enfant Plaza than anyone could recall a secretary’s spouse doing in the past, only one of many oddities that HUD employees were encountering in the Trump era. She’d even taken the mic before Carson made his introductory speech to the department. “We’re really excited about working with — ” She broke off, as if detecting the puzzlement of the audience. “Well, he’s really.”
The story of the Trump administration has been dominated by the Russia investigations, the Obamacare repeal morass, and cataclysmic internecine warfare. But there is a whole other side to Trump’s takeover of Washington: What happens to the government itself, and all it is tasked with doing, when it is placed under the command of the Chaos President? HUD has emerged as the perfect distillation of the right’s antipathy to governing. If the great radical conservative dream was, in Grover Norquist’s famous words, to “drown government in a bathtub,” then this was what the final gasps of one department might look like.
Nov. 9 brought open weeping in the halls of HUD headquarters, a Brutalist arc at L’Enfant Plaza that resembles a giant concrete honeycomb. Washington was Hillary country, but HUD employees had particular cause for agita. For years, the department had suffered low morale, and there was the perception, not entirely unjustified, that it was prone to episodes of self-dealing and corruption — most recently under Jackson, who was scrutinized for awarding HUD projects to companies run by his friends. But the department had experienced a rejuvenation in the Obama era, with morale rebounding under the leadership of his first secretary, Shaun Donovan, an ambitious, politically savvy housing administrator from New York. While it faced postrecession budget austerity — with its ranks dropping well below 8,000, from more than 16,000 decades earlier — the department made homelessness reduction a priority. Under Donovan’s successor, Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, HUD embarked on a major initiative to address residential segregation by requiring cities and suburbs to do more to live up to the edicts of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Before the election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sent over a large team of policy experts to study up on HUD and prepare to take the baton on these efforts. The Trump campaign sent one person. “And everyone was joking, ‘Well, he’ll be gone on November 9,’” one staffer told me.
So the stricken employees were slightly relieved when Trump’s operation announced a five-person “landing team” for HUD that included Jimmy Kemp, son of Jack. “There may be hope for us after all,” a veteran staffer in one local HUD office told his colleagues. The semblance of normalcy was short-lived. In late November, word got out that Trump’s choice to run HUD was Carson. To Twitter wags, the selection was comical in its stereotyping: Of course Trump would assign the only African American in his Cabinet to the “urban” department. But to many HUD employees, the selection of so ill-qualified a leader felt like an insult. “People feel disrespected. They see Carson and think, I’ve been in housing policy for 20 or 30 years, and if I walked away, I would never expect to get hired as a nurse,” said one staffer at a branch office, who, like most employees I spoke with, requested anonymity to guard against retribution.
Carson himself had some qualms about running HUD. His close friend Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator who was exposed for receiving payments from George W. Bush’s administration to tout Bush’s education policies on air, told The Hill in November that Carson had reservations about such a job. “Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience; he’s never run a federal agency,” Williams said. “The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.” Williams later said his remark had been misconstrued, but Shermichael Singleton, a young political operative who worked for Williams and became a top aide on Carson’s campaign, told me that Carson’s ambivalence was real. Trump’s offer, Singleton said, had provoked deep questions for Carson about his life’s purpose. “It was, ‘Should I do this? What does it all mean?’”
In the end, Singleton said, Carson accepted out of a sense of duty that came from having risen to success from humble origins: raised by a single mother, a housekeeper, in Detroit. “He’s someone born in an environment where the odds were clearly stacked against him, and he believes by personal experience that he could do a lot of good for others.” Kemp agreed. Carson accepted, he said, “because he wanted to do something about poverty.” If anything, Kemp said, Carson felt more suited to the HUD job than he would to a health policy one. “Being surgeon general or secretary of [health and human services], I don’t think he was fully equipped to do that, having been a neurosurgeon,” Kemp said. In other words, Carson knew how little he knew about health policy, an awareness he lacked when it came to social policy. “He thought with HUD, ‘It’s so clear that our approach to poverty has not been completely successful and we can do better, and I think I have some ideas that can be applied,’” Kemp said.
Underlying this rationale were two related convictions. One was the standard conservative bias against expertise and bureaucracy, according to which experts lacked the “common sense” that an outsider from the private sector could provide — a conviction shared, of course, by the man who nominated Carson for the job. The other was a more particular conviction that he, Carson, possessed extra doses of such common sense by virtue of his biography.
First, though, Carson had to survive his confirmation hearing. The prepping was intense. His top handler was Scott Keller, a longtime lobbyist who had served as chief of staff under Jackson and, in that role, become embroiled in the contracting scandals. Keller’s pupil was attentive, and his performance at the January hearing before the Senate Banking Committee was judged a relative success by the press, punctuated by Carson’s disarming remark that the panel’s top Democrat, Sherrod Brown, reminded him of Columbo. Carson’s family and closest aides took him to the Monocle, the lobbyist hangout on the Hill, to celebrate.
As Carson awaited confirmation, though, a leadership cadre was already entrenching itself in the administrative offices on the 10th floor of HUD. The five-person landing team had given way in January to a larger “beachhead” team. This was a more eyebrow-raising group. Its few alums from past GOP administrations were outnumbered by Trump loyalists such as Barbara Gruson, a Manhattan real-estate broker who’d worked for the campaign; Victoria Barton, the campaign’s “student and millennial outreach coordinator”; and Lynne Patton, who had worked for the Trumps as an event planner.
The most influential of the new bunch, it would quickly emerge, was Maren Kasper. Little-known in housing policy circles, and in her mid-30s, Kasper arrived from the Bay Area startup Roofstock, which linked investors with rental properties available for purchase. It partnered with lenders including Colony American Finance, a company founded by Tom Barrack, the close Trump associate. This link to Trump, combined with Kasper’s background in one sliver of the housing realm, was enough to win her a place as one of the minders appointed by the White House to keep an eye on each government department, a powerful role without precedent in prior administrations.
Kasper, the holder of an MBA from NYU’s Stern School of Business, took her new management role seriously, asserting herself as the final arbiter in the absence of a confirmed secretary. This led to friction both with career housing policy experts and with Carson loyalists, notably Singleton, who had also been hired on. At meetings, Singleton said, Kasper was often “misrepresenting” herself as standing in for Carson. “I made it clear, ‘You don’t speak for Dr. Carson.’ She said, ‘Well, the White House …’” To which Singleton said he responded, “I get what the White House has selected, and I respect that, but he’s the secretary and you need to make sure you understand that.”
That friction lasted only so long. In mid-February, an administration “background check” on beachhead team hires turned up an op-ed critical of Trump that Singleton had written for The Hill before the election. Security personnel came to notify him that it was time to go.
On March 6, Carson arrived for his first day of work at headquarters. In introductory remarks to assembled employees, after he’d gotten the mic back from his wife, he surprised many by asking them to raise their hands and “take the niceness pledge.”
He also went on a riff about immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, capped by this: “That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less. But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”
The assembled employees stifled their reaction to this jarringly upbeat characterization of chattel slavery. But in HUD’s Baltimore satellite, where many in the heavily African-American office were watching the speech on an online feed at their desks, the gasps were audible.
Carson’s arrival brought with it a reckoning for career employees: Yes, this person was really in charge. They responded in strikingly different ways. The most progressive-minded were thrown into a sense of crisis: whether to hightail it to avoid whatever radical shifts or indignities were in the offing, or to stay out for the sake of the department’s programs and the millions of people they served.
Then there were the opportunists, those who saw in the vacuum in the upper ranks, where it was taking unusually long to appoint political deputies, the chance to claim higher stations than career employees would typically be able to attain. “There were a couple people in some meetings who were bending over to ingratiate themselves” with the transition team, said Harriet Tregoning, a top Obama appointee in HUD’s Community Planning and Development division, who left in January. “For some, it might be their political leaning. For some, it might be an attempt to gain influence. I saw it happening even while the Obama people were still in the building.”
Finally, there were the clock-punching lifers, the “Weebies” (“We be here before you got here, and we be here after you’re gone”), who recognized a chance to start mailing it in. “It’s ‘I can now meet people for a drink at five,’” said Tregoning. Or, as a supervisor in one branch office put it: “As a bureaucrat, HUD’s an easier place to work if Republicans are in charge. They don’t think it’s an important department, they don’t have ideas, they don’t put in changes.” Left unsaid: that such complacency was an unwitting affirmation of the conservative critique of time-serving bureaucrats.
To the extent that the new leadership was providing any guidance at all, it was often actively discouraging initiative on the part of employees. Shortly after the inauguration, a directive came down requiring employees to get 10th-floor approval for any contacts outside the building — professional conferences, or even just meetings with other departments. Ann Marie Oliva, a highly regarded HUD veteran who’d been hired during the George W. Bush administration and was in charge of homeless and HIV programs, was barred from attending a big annual conference on housing and homelessness in Ohio because, she inferred, some of the other speakers there leaned left.
The department leadership was also actively slowing down new initiatives simply by taking a very long time to give the necessary supervisory approvals for the development of surveys or program guidance. In some cases, this appeared to be the result of mere negligence and delay. In other cases, it appeared more willful. For one thing, there was the leadership’s strong hang-up about all matters transgender-related. The 10th floor ordered the removal of online training materials meant, in part, to help homeless shelters make sure they were providing equal access to transgender people. It also pulled back a survey regarding projects in Cincinnati and Houston to reduce LGBT homelessness. And it forced its Policy Development and Research division to dissociate itself from a major study it had funded on housing discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people — the study ended up being released in late June under the aegis of the Urban Institute instead.
More upsetting for many ambitious civil servants than the scattered nays coming from the 10th floor, though, was the lack of direction, period. Virtually all the top political jobs below Carson remained vacant. Carson himself was barely to be seen — he never made the walk-through of the building customary of past new secretaries. “It was just nothing,” said one career employee. “I’ve never been so bored in my life. No agenda, nothing to move forward or push back against. Just nothing.”
On May 2, I went to the Watergate to see Carson address an assemblage of the American Land Title Association, title attorneys in town for a regular lobbying visit to buttress the crucial support that HUD and others in Washington provide to the American home-buying machine. I was hoping the speech would give me a better sense of what Carson had in mind for the department, which had been hard to elucidate in his few public appearances. Up to that point, he’d made only a few headlines — for getting caught in a broken elevator at a housing project in Miami; for declaring, on a later visit to Ohio, that public housing should not be too luxurious, a concern that the elevator snafu had apparently not allayed. This comment had drawn mockery but genuinely reflected his long-standing outlook on the safety net: grudging acceptance of its necessity only for those at their most desperate moments, a phase of dependency that must be as brief as absolutely possible. This philosophy was frequently intertwined with allusions to the Creator — so frequently that supervisors at one HUD division sent down word to employees that, yes, their new boss was going to talk a lot about God and they’d probably better just get used to it.
But Carson’s address to the lawyers offered little further clarity on his agenda. He opened with a neurosurgery joke. He touched on his vague proposal for “vision centers” where inner-city kids could come to learn about careers. He repeated one of his favorite mantras, that the government needs to make sure people don’t get unduly reliant on federal assistance, because “everybody is either going to be part of the engine or part of the load.” And then, in the heart of the speech, where a Cabinet secretary would normally get down to programmatic brass tacks, came this meandering riff:
“You know, governments that look out for property rights also tend to look out for other rights. You know, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of all the things that make America America. So it is absolutely foundational to our success … On Sunday, I was talking to a large group of children about what’s happening with rights in our country. These are kids who had all won a Carson Scholar [an award of $1,000 that Carson has sponsored since 1994], which you have to have at least a 3.75 grade-point average on a 4.0 scale and show that you care about other people, and I said you’re going to be the leaders of our nation and will help to determine which pathway we go down, a pathway where we actually care about those around us and we use our intellect to improve the quality of life for everyone, or the pathway where we say, “I don’t want to hear you if you don’t believe what I believe, I want to shut you down, you don’t have any rights.” This is a serious business right now where we are, that juncture in our country that will determine what happens to all of us as time goes on. But the whole housing concern is something that concerns us all.”
A few weeks later, it became clear that the “housing concern” perhaps did not concern everyone when the White House released its budget proposal for HUD. After word emerged in early March that the White House was considering cutting as much as $6 billion from the department, Carson had sent a rare email to HUD employees assuring them that this was just a preliminary figure. But as it turned out, Carson, as a relative political outsider lacking strong connections to the administration, was out of the loop: The final proposal crafted by Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney called for cutting closer to $7 billion, 15 percent of its total budget. Participants in the Section 8 voucher program would need to pay at least 17 percent more of their income toward rent, and there’d likely be a couple hundred thousand fewer vouchers nationwide (and 13,000 fewer in New York City). Capital funding for public housing would be slashed by a whopping 68 percent — this, after years of cuts that, in New York alone, had left public-housing projects with rampant mold, broken elevators and faulty boilers.
“By the time I left, almost 90 percent of our budget was to help people stay in their homes,” Shaun Donovan told me. “So when you have a 15 percent cut to that budget, by definition you’re going to be throwing people out of their homes. You’re literally taking vouchers away from families, you’re literally shutting down public housing, because it can’t be maintained anymore.”
The Trump cuts would mean that several programs would be eliminated entirely, including the home program, which offers seed money for affordable housing initiatives, and the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program that Carla Hills, Ford’s HUD secretary, had praised to Carson at the dinner. In New York, CDBG helped pay for, among many things, housing-code enforcement, the 311 system and homeless shelters for veterans. But the grants were also relied on in struggling small towns, where they paid for sidewalks, sewer upgrades and community centers. In Glouster, Ohio, a tiny coal town that went for Trump by a single vote after going for Obama two to one in 2012, officials were counting on the grants to replace a bridge so weak that the school bus couldn’t cross it, forcing kids from one part of town to cluster along a busy road for pickup.
“Without those funds, it would just cripple this area,” said Nathan Simons, who administers the grants for the surrounding region. HUD, for all its shrinking stature and insecurity complex, has over time worked its way into the fabric of ailing communities throughout the country, a role that has grown only larger as so much of Middle America has suffered decline, and as the capacity of so many state and local governments has withered amid dwindling tax bases and civic disengagement. On my travels through the Midwest I’ve seen how many federally subsidized housing complexes there are on the edges of small towns and cities, places very far from the Bronx or the South Side of Chicago. People living in these places rely on a functioning, minimally competent HUD no less than do the Section 8 voucher recipients in Jared Kushner’s low-income complexes in Baltimore. In an age of ever-widening income inequality, the Great Society department actually plays an even more vital role than when it was conceived.
But if Carson was troubled by the disembowelment of his department, he showed no sign of it. Even before the final numbers were out, he had assured housing advocates that cuts would be made up for by money dedicated to housing in the big infrastructure bill Trump was promising — a notion that his fellow Republican Kemp, among others, found far-fetched. “I’m not sure he understood how that would work,” Kemp told me. “He was probably repeating what had been told to him.” Then, a day after the budget was released, Carson downplayed the importance of programs for the poor in a radio interview with Armstrong Williams, saying that poverty was largely a “state of mind.” This, more than anything, seemed to be a crystallization of the Carson philosophy of HUD: that privation would be solved by the power of positive thinking, that his own extraordinary rise was scalable and could be replicated millions of times over.
Two weeks later, Carson went to Capitol Hill to testify on the budget proposal before congressional panels that would have the final say on the numbers. With Kasper perched over his shoulder, he told both the Senate and House committees that they shouldn’t get overly hung up on the cuts. “We must look for human solutions, not just policies and programs,” he said. “Our programs must reach out and so must our hearts.” The budget, he added, would “help more eligible Americans achieve freedom from regulations and bureaucracy and the ability to govern themselves.”
Members of both parties on the panels seemed dubious. Even conservative Republicans challenged the elimination of CDBG and dismissed Carson’s repeated claim that those and other cuts would be made up for with “public-private partnerships,” noting that such partnerships depended on exactly the public seed money that the budget was jettisoning.
Carson remained unruffled. The cuts were made necessary by the “atmosphere of constraint” created by a “new paradigm that’s been forced on us,” he said, presumably referring to the desire for tax cuts for the wealthy and an even larger military. “The problem that faces us now as a nation will only be exacerbated if we don’t deal with them in what appears to be a harsh manner,” he told the Senate panel. “We have to stop the bleeding to get the healing.”
As I watched the hearings, it occurred to me that Carson was the perfect HUD secretary for Donald Trump, the real-estate-developer president who appears to care little for public housing. He offered a gently smiling refutation to accusations from any corner that the department’s evisceration would have grave consequences. After all, Ben Carson had made it from Detroit to Johns Hopkins without housing assistance, a point of pride in his family. Not to mention that Carson’s very identity — theoretically — helped inoculate the administration against charges of prejudice. (Just last week, Carson said, in the wake of racially tinged violence in Charlottesville, that the controversy over Trump’s support of white supremacists there was “blown out of proportion” and echoed the president’s “both sides” language when referring to “hatred and bigotry.”)
Even better, Carson could be trusted not to resist Mick Mulvaney’s budget designs. At one moment in the Senate hearing, Carson noted that Congress’s recent spending package for the current year had given the department more than it had been expecting. “I’m always happy to take money,” he said, smiling. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee’s top Democrat, was unamused. “You have to ask for it first,” he said.
Over at headquarters, the department remained rudderless. By June, there was still no one nominated to run the major parts of HUD, including the Federal Housing Administration and core divisions such as Housing, Policy Development and Research, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and Public and Indian Housing, not to mention a swath of jobs just below that level. (Across the administration, Trump had by the end of June sent barely more than 100 names to the Senate for confirmation, fewer than half as many as Obama had by that point in 2009.) Even the stern hand of Kasper was gone — she had been moved to a perch at Ginnie Mae, the arm of HUD that provides liquidity to federal home ownership programs.
The rank and file (whose department book club reading for the summer was “The Employee’s Survival Guide to Change”) took comfort that the two senior nominations that had been announced, for deputy secretary and the head of the Community Planning and Development division, were conventionally qualified. But appointments further down the ranks were alarming.

There was the administrator for the Southwest region: the mayor of Irving, Texas, Beth Van Duyne, who had gained notoriety by warning against the gathering threat of Sharia. She had asked the Texas Homeland Security Forum to help investigate the legality of an Islamic tribunal in North Texas and had taken to Glenn Beck’s talk show to defend the arrest of the Muslim boy who’d brought a homemade clock to school. There was the conservative commentator John Gibbs, who was hired as a “special assistant” in Community Planning and Development. Sample headlines from his columns in The Federalist: “Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s the Proof”; “If He Really Wants to Help Blacks, Colin Kaepernick Needs to Put Up or Shut Up.”
Then there was Christopher Bourne, the retired Marine Corps colonel who’d served as the policy director of Carson’s presidential campaign. He suddenly showed up as a “senior policy adviser” in Policy Development and Research. “We don’t know what his job is, and as far as I know, he doesn’t know what his job is,” said one of his new colleagues.
In the context of such hires, it did not stun many HUD employees as much as it did the broader public when news broke of the selection of Lynne Patton, the Trumps’ event planner (whom tabloids gleefully referred to as a wedding planner, for her unofficial advisory role on Eric Trump’s nuptials), as regional administrator for New York and New Jersey. It had been plain to see that Patton had been striving to prove that she was no mere hanger-on. She had been visiting senior career staff for a crash course on housing policy. She had helped organize Carson’s listening tour trips, for which her event planning background had prepared her well. And she eagerly tweeted out defenses of him — “Let’s be clear: You can make life too comfortable for anyone — rich or poor — when you do, it’s a disservice,” she declared after his comments on cushy public housing.
Yes, she would now be the chief liaison from HUD headquarters to a region with the largest concentration of subsidized housing in the country — including the huge Starrett City complex in Brooklyn co-owned by Trump — a job once held by Bill de Blasio. (“Normally, these positions go to people who know what they’re doing,” said one longtime staffer at headquarters.) And yes, she would, just a few weeks later, respond to liberal criticism of the department’s decision to approve Westchester County’s long-litigated desegregation plan with a tweet that ended with the words “P.S. I’m black.”
But there were many other things for career employees to worry about that weren’t getting as much attention. Such as what Carson had in mind with the vague “incentivized family formation” push (which falls under the community building part of HUD’s antipoverty mission) that his team had included in a briefing for Hill staffers.
Also worrisome was what the new leadership might do with major Obama-era initiatives, like its desegregation initiative, which, in a 2015 rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, required local jurisdictions to come up with ways to reduce segregation or risk losing HUD funding. Carson had written an op-ed against this during the campaign, calling it a “mandated social engineering scheme” and comparing it to a “failed socialist experiment,” and Republicans in Congress were dying to kill it, but so far, the department was still going through the motions with it.
Then there was the mystery of why Carson’s family was taking such a visible role in the department. There was the omnipresent Mrs. Carson. Even more striking, however, had been the active role of the secretary’s second-oldest son. Ben Carson Jr., who goes by B.J. and co-founded an investment firm in Columbia, Maryland, that specializes in infrastructure, health care and workforce development, was showing up on email chains within the department and appearing often at headquarters. One day, he was seen leaving the 10th-floor office of David Eagles, the new COO, who was crafting a HUD reorganization to accompany the cuts.
And finally, there was the beginning of what appeared likely to be a stream of committed career employees quitting. Ann Marie Oliva, the anti-homelessness director, had met with mistrust from the 10th floor, and she was startled when she wasn’t asked to offer input for a speech Carson was giving on homeless veterans. She gave notice in late May, prompting calls from both parties on the Hill saying how sorry they were to see her go. “It is sad,” she told me, “because it’s not partisan and it could’ve been different from the beginning.”
In early July, Ben Carson went on the next leg of his listening tour: Baltimore. I was expecting the department to make a big deal of his return to his longtime home city. But instead, after the poor press coverage from the previous rounds of community outreach, the itinerary for the first day was kept private.
I managed to get my hands on the schedule and tagged along with a photographer. This did not please Carson’s entourage, which included, among others, a high-strung advance man in a bow tie, several security officers, Candy Carson, Ben Jr. and even his wife. When we arrived at the café where Carson and his family were having lunch with the mayor of Baltimore, Bow Tie arranged to have the Carsons rush out through the kitchen area to a back alley to avoid us. When, at the next stop, I was accidentally allowed into a meeting that Carson was holding at the city’s housing authority, Bow Tie leaped across the room to eject me. By the next stop, at a tour of the redevelopment near Johns Hopkins Hospital, one of the federal agents guarding Carson took my picture as I stood on the sidewalk chatting with a neighbor. By the last stop, dinner with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan at a deluxe waterfront restaurant opened by Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank, I was unsurprised when a Carson aide went to the maître d’ to report my presence at the bar. This was Trumpian anti-press spirit taken to a new level: protectiveness of a government executive to the point of seeking invisibility.
The day had had its awkward moments. In his visit to the Baltimore HUD office, Carson caused friction with his suggestion that staff needed to work harder, comparing the federal work ethic unfavorably with the long hours he put in as a surgeon. Employees were also struck by how he kept seeming to look to his wife for cues as he spoke. At a later meeting with public health officials and researchers, which his wife, son and daughter-in-law also attended, he kicked things off 15 minutes early and referred to those who arrived on time as being late. He demurred when asked by the city’s former Health Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein if he’d commit the department to an ambitious reduction in child lead poisoning, saying something to the effect that he needed to be careful about setting big goals because he “worked for a guy who, if you don’t meet your goals, he’ll so skewer you.”
The next morning, Carson held photo ops at two homes that had undergone HUD-funded lead abatement. At the first home, he looked confused when workers explained that one of their first steps had been to make sure the home’s doors closed properly in the door jambs. “What does that have to do with lead?” asked the nation’s secretary of housing. The workers explained that a key to reducing lead paint flaking was to reduce the friction involved in opening and closing windows and doors. A moment later, a deputy housing commissioner noted that the work had been made possible in part by Community Development Block Grants, which Trump’s HUD budget eliminated.
Ben Carson Jr. resurfaced at the second day’s other open event, a visit to a health fair in East Baltimore. I watched with some amazement as the younger Carson, clad in tinted aviator shades, circulated among those seeking his father’s attention. At one point, Carson Jr. was approached by two entrepreneurs he knew who were hoping to pitch HUD on a proposal to use public housing as the site to pilot their for-profit venture replacing cash bail with the relinquishing of guns. Carson Jr. heard them out and then said, “Have you talked to Dad?” He then led them over to a clutch of Carson’s HUD aides to make introductions.
A moment later, I asked Carson Jr. why he was taking such an active role on the Baltimore trip. “With anything where we can be helpful, if Dad asks us to come along and help out, we’ll always do that. We’re here to offer support, whatever we can do,” he said. I asked about all the time he was spending at HUD headquarters. “If you’re a concerned citizen and you’re not spending time in D.C. trying to actually make sure the right things are happening, then you probably could do more,” he said. “You should have access to your public officials, and if that’s not allowed, then there’s a big problem with how the representatives are handling their relationship with citizens.” (Never mind that in this case, the “public official” was his own father.)
Later, I asked Ben Carson for a comment on his son’s role. “Ben Carson Jr. has visited me, but he has no role at the department,” he said through a spokesman. It was hard to know what to make of it all. On the one hand, it bore obvious similarities to the proliferation of Trumps and Kushners inside the White House, with all their attendant business conflicts.
But it was also possible that Ben Jr., and his mom, were so often at his father’s side for just the reason Ben Jr. claimed, to provide support. Because it was not hard to see why Carson would feel insecurity. He had been chosen for a job he had few qualifications for by a man who had few obvious qualifications for his own job, and he was now being left to his own devices to defend the dismantling of the department he was supposed to run, with an underpopulated corps of deputies at his side. (Even by mid-August, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, which spends tens of billions per year, did not have any senior political leadership whatsoever.) It was as if the White House were ensuring that whatever mere starvation failed to accomplish at HUD, indifference and mismanagement would finish.
The day before, as I waited outside the school building where Carson was meeting with the public health experts, a young mother, Danielle Jackson, had come along with her three young daughters. She asked me what was going on inside, and I told her. She said she herself had been on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher for three years, and she seemed to take the fact that the famous Baltimore doctor was now running HUD as an omen. “I hope something good happens,” she said brightly.
Her optimism was shared by Carson himself. When I asked him at a brief press conference behind one of the lead-abated homes the next morning how things were going so far for him at HUD, running a big federal department with no prior experience in government, he shrugged. “It’s actually a challenge to inject common sense and logic into bureaucracy, there’s no question about that,” he said. “But it’s coming along quite nicely.”
Do you have access to information about the federal government that should be public? Email alec.macgillis@propublica.org, or here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

Posted August 27, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Walking DEAD (HOMELESS PEOPLE IN AMERICA)   Leave a comment

As the title say’s the Walking Dead, I think of the last year’s were I walked with the homeless people around Arkansas, and when I went to New York, and Georgia, South Carolina, and Denver.   I want people to see through my eyes, and maybe you will see something you never thought of or ever heard before.  This is away of saying good-by to a friend, he loved his vodka, but not always, he hated it sometimes, and could not be around people that was drinking anything, I find that to be true about homeless people, they hate where they are, but to get that next leg up, is almost impossible,  you feel a rush to find something fast, but a system that moves as slow as a snail going up hill in the winter time.  When what your fighting for does not come, you go back to what you know, and that being drug’s or drinking.  It is easier to drink or do drug’s then to live in the real time, I don’t understand this, but for the time, I listen, and hope I learn with out jumping into those thing’s.  I have heard it all, to “WELL Marijuana is not additive to it CURE’s.  Anything that makes you not know what is going on around you is not good.  We are HUMAN, and that is a hard thing to begin with, the stress of life that we have made for ourselves is overwhelming, so it easy to over look the hazard of drinking and drug’s, But as HUMAN’s we must look at what CAN. that word is a strange word, but it is so TRUE (CAN) we can be more then what we think of ourselves, build thing’s, use part’s of our mind’s that no other creature on EARTH does. When most people see homeless people they only see the outer shell, some ask WHY? I have asked the same question why? over time I found over time most were mom’s and dad’s, they were very smart, they had goal’s, they had real lives.  So to tell you, what changed! many thing’s that fast pace life will catch you, the drug’s slow everything down, the drinking will slow thing’s down and put you in a lot of trouble, Our law’s is another problem, if you have a felony of any kind, then it is hard to find work, you lose creditability.

CO-DEPENDENCY: A big word when you think about it, the origination’s that were made to help people out of a problem, has become a business, where ever a homeless person go’s there is a sign-in sheet, to prove that they have helped people. Most of them turn this in for “GRANT MONEY”” I call them Money Hawk’s” they can only give enough to keep the poor and homeless enough to stay alive today.  Some is a small bag every two week’s some are one time a month. some is just a hot meal for the day.

HOMELESS CENSES:  a BIG JOKE, they ask question so not to show light on the real problem, the question’s are made to see where some group’s can pull more money (Money Hawk’s) again.  The number’s are so wrong, if it was not so serious I would laugh, there are three times what they think there is, many find shelter at a friends home, or a barn, or a abandon building, never see a censes taker, The group that made the CENSES what’s the problem to be small.   When in fact it is to big for them to understand.

PAN-HANDLING:  IT IS TRUE THERE ARE SOME THAT PAN-HANDLE THAT ARE VERY RICH.  But there are many that are not, they don’t even have two penny’s to rub together, If you see a homeless not waving a sign, he most likely is homeless and has nothing, the ones that show off, most are just trying to make money with out working for it, the ones with a sign, I will give money to, the one with sign I will give food.

Posted July 15, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“GRANT’s” that agency’s get to help the homeless and the Poor!!!   Leave a comment

These are some of the money hawk’s in AMERICA!! they feed off the poor and homeless!! LET’s stop the MADNESS!!! help the poor to work, in anyway they can and earn enough to live a good life instead of giving to a group of “MONEY HAWKS”

 

 

 

Recommended Articles

Grants for Women
Every year over 500,000 women start their own businesses. Two out of every three new businesses are started by women.Women have a 75% chance of success in business ownership. That’s why the Federal, State and Local Governments offer thousands of programs that give out money, help and information to women who want to start or […]
By admin
Read More →

Private Grants
US Private and Foundation Grants Over 1000 Direct Links to Foundation Grants Websites giving away billions each year. Access these Grants instantly. A foundation is a non-governmental, non-profit organization which has a fund or endowment that it uses to aid charitable, educational, religious or other agencies serving the public good. It makes grants primarily to […]
By admin
Read More →

How To Apply For Grants
For the Year 2017 there are over 1,000 Federal Programs, 24,000 State Programs, 30,000 Private Foundations and 20,000 Scholarship Programs. There are over 1500 Government Grant Programs administered by 57 different Federal Agencies! Cash Grants Small and Large Business Grants College and Scholarships Grants Federal & State Grants Private Foundation Grants Grants for Women Housing […]
By admin
Read More →
Advice

Government Grants for College
Going to college isn’t always as simple as just getting the right grades at school; there are usually all sorts of circumstances that affect whether you even consider applying to college in the first place. Unlike in the films where the only concerns students have are either partying or cramming in studying for an exam, […]
By admin
Read More →

Information

Government Grants for Individuals
A Government Grant in USA is an economic aid given to either execute a Purpose, support the Purpose or stimulate the Purpose for which it was given to which the Government is not a beneficiary.Government Grants could be issued by a State Government or the Federal Government. Grants given by the Federal Governments are referred […]
By admin
Read More →

 

Other Recent Posts

Free Government Grants
For the Year 2017 there are over 1,000 Federal Programs, 24,000 State Programs, 30,000 Private Foundations and 20,000 Scholarship Programs. There are over 1500 Government Grant Programs administered by 57 different Federal Agencies! Each day millions of dollars in Free Government Grants are given for Business, Personal, Housing and Educational needs. Government Grants Availability: Small […]

By admin
Read More →

Apply For Government Grants Online
Free Grants For Personal, Business, Housing and Education Needs.You select the proper grants and implement them meticulously step-by-step. This post will provide you with an intro regarding how you can make an application for the government grants online.Learn about the information The government department features a wide variety of grants, and you may utilize them […]

By admin
Read More →

Government Grants to Pay off Debt
Last spring when the economy of the United States bottomed out,a huge number of individuals lost their occupations, reserve funds and discovered themselves scarcely ready to make the minimum payments on their credit cards. This left these individuals without a safety net. One small sudden issue, for example,unexpected sickness or a car breakdown could wreck […]

By admin
Read More →

Tips on How to Obtain Government Grants for Home Repair
Our home is probably one of our most precious possessions because it where we shelter our beloved family. We always want to keep our home in top condition so that it continues to be a beautiful and safe haven four your family. But if your home is one of the 40% of American homes that […]

By admin
Read More →

 

 

 

Recent Articles

Grants for Women
Every year over 500,000 women start their own businesses. Two out of every three new businesses are started by women.Women have a 75% chance of success in business ownership. That’s why the Federal, State and Local Governments offer thousands of programs that give out money, help and information to women who want to start or […]

 

Private Grants
US Private and Foundation Grants Over 1000 Direct Links to Foundation Grants Websites giving away billions each year. Access these Grants instantly. A foundation is a non-governmental, non-profit organization which has a fund or endowment that it uses to aid charitable, educational, religious or other agencies serving the public good. It makes grants primarily to […]

 

How To Apply For Grants
For the Year 2017 there are over 1,000 Federal Programs, 24,000 State Programs, 30,000 Private Foundations and 20,000 Scholarship Programs. There are over 1500 Government Grant Programs administered by 57 different Federal Agencies! Cash Grants Small and Large Business Grants College and Scholarships Grants Federal & State Grants Private Foundation Grants Grants for Women Housing […]

 

Government Grants for Non-Profit Organizations
A grant refers to a contribution offered to assist a program, project, organization, or an individual. It is usually given to a non-profit entity from a government agency, corporation, or foundation. Grants are normally awarded for a specific purpose or program. Government grants for non profit organizations will focus on giving: · Specific kinds of […]

 

Housing Grants
Are you looking for your dream house? Are credit problems holding you back from buying that new home or starting a real-estate venture. Here’s great news! The U.S. Government has recently released over 140 million dollars in Housing Grants. They are also relaxing the credit requirements to make it easier for people with low credit […]

Government Grant Video Tips

 

 

 

 

Featured Articles

Grants for Women
Every year over 500,000 women start their own businesses. Two out of every three new businesses are started by women.Women have a 75% chance of success in business ownership. That’s why the Federal, State and Local Governments offer thousands of programs that give out money, help and information to women who want to start or […]

 

Free Government Grants
For the Year 2017 there are over 1,000 Federal Programs, 24,000 State Programs, 30,000 Private Foundations and 20,000 Scholarship Programs. There are over 1500 Government Grant Programs administered by 57 different Federal Agencies! Each day millions of dollars in Free Government Grants are given for Business, Personal, Housing and Educational needs. Government Grants Availability: Small […]

 

Personal Grants
Apply Now For Free Personal Grants If you are in need, out of work, working part time and income doesn’t cover basic expenses, or are ill, all types of grants, loans and in-kind services are provided by the federal government and by private foundations. These funds are available on an emergency basis or long-term basis. […]

 

Site Navigation
Advice
Articles
Featured
Featured Articles
Information
More Articles
Tips
Uncategorized
Home
Programs
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Copyright 2017 : http://govgrantsusa.org : All Rights Reserved

Posted June 29, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in shopping blue jenes

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“SIMPLE” to end “homelessness” American people and “GOV” “STOP” giving MONEY AND GRANTS!!!   Leave a comment

Here in Fayetteville Arkansas there is a place called “LIFE SOURCE” they take no “GRANT”S!!!

Only what the area PEOPLE give them, This what the CHURCH’s did when I was a CHILD.

YOU give a “HAND_UP” not a hand-out so many homeless get GOV MONEY and do nothing but buy DRUGS and they know next month they will get it again.

STOP the madness!! make them work for there “MONEY” and they “WILL” do it.

MAKE WORKSHOP’s so they can earn there way, not just give like we give to the illegals “THAT IS CRAZY”

 

ALVIN

Posted June 29, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“TRUMP” can we end HOMELESSNESS!!   Leave a comment

We have around 20 million illegal “PEOPLE” in AMERICA!! we support them!!?

WE have 2.4 million American HoMELESS? But TRUMP!! no one is supporting them to get out of homelessness!!!!

LET”s end homeless!! FOR THE AMERICAN’s in OUR COUNTRY!!

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/giftlist/2LOUYO8JRPAB8/ref=nav_wishlist_lists_2

Posted June 29, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NWA “WILL” you “HELP” the “HOMELESS?”   Leave a comment

How come there are Homeless? LAZY? no not all of them, some are trying t find job’s without ID’s, Some lost there job’s.  Some are lost and need someone to just “CARE”!!!

I have formed a group of “HOMELESS” to build thing’s in a workshop, so that not only do they learn how to build thing’s but to sell them and keep themselves off the street’s. PLEASE” help by buying the thing’s they need to build item’s to sell.

 

https://www.amazon.com/…/2LOUYO8JR…/ref=nav_wishlist_lists_2

This list, is thing’s they need, “HELP” the homeless to get out of homelessness!!!

 

Thank-you

God bless

 

Alvin

Posted June 29, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in shopping blue jenes

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Homeless Solution) To have homeless “BUILD” things to sell and the money made is there’s to keep!!   1 comment

https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/giftlist/2LOUYO8JRPAB8/ref=cm_go_nav_recip_gl

https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/giftlist/2LOUYO8JRPAB8/ref=cm_go_nav_recip_gl

Hi “FRIEND’s And to be friends!  My name is Alvin Davis I was homeless for 8mo. living in a TENT on a hill YES…(FREEZEING) Brrrrr

So I laid out a “PLAN” first to find someone to let the homeless use there Commercial Building, so there the homeless can work on making craft’s like Tables, Art’s CRAFT’s

All kind watch videos

 

https://youtu.be/eZugBR8ArkY  two kind’s of paint

 

 

 

Now I need your “HELP” I have a Amazon wish list:  This way you can see what we need and buy them and have them sent to the workshop for the homeless, we have 600 homeless here and everyday 20 to 40 more show up.

 

Tray: is the forman over the wood shop

Stephanie is over the craft’s Quilt’s, reused item’s and art’s

 

I am Alvin just a helper.

 

If you can see it in your heart to buy just one thing that is enough, we love you as god has always loved us.

 

Thank-You and may GOD BLESS YOU!!!!

Posted June 11, 2017 by Teacher Alvin in shopping blue jenes

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Flag Burning Illegal?   Leave a comment

Posted July 1, 2016 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The new unwanted Jews in America “HOMELESS”   Leave a comment

imgS1

The new unwanted Jews in America “HOMELESS”

A DREAM DENIED:
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS IN U.S. CITIES


NARRATIVES OF THE MEANEST CITIES

#

1 Sarasota, FL

In February 2005, the City Commission unanimously approved an ordinance prohibiting “lodging out of doors.”  The previous “no-camping” rule was ruled unconstitutional by a state court last year because it was too vague and punished innocent conduct.  The new rule prohibited using any public or private property for “lodging” outdoors without permission from the property owner.  While not completely mitigating the negative impact of the law, the city took a more positive approach to the issue in this law by including a requirement that police officers, once a year, offer people who violate the law a ride to the shelter, instead of jail.  The commissioners said that the ordinance would protect public safety and property while helping homeless people find shelter.  Although the city was confident that this ordinance would stand up in court, critics said that it was still too vague.  It was not clear how many “lodging” activities, such as making a fire, laying down blankets or a sleeping bag, and putting up a tent, would have to be happening in order for a person to be arrested.  Moreover, the police were not required to give a person a ride to the shelter if the person was intoxicated, using drugs, or did not have proper identification.

Like its predecessor, this ordinance was short-lived.  In June 2005, a state court found the “no lodging law” unconstitutional.  County Judge David L. Denkin said the ordinance gave police officers too much discretion in deciding who is a threat to public health and safety, and who is just taking a nap on the beach.  The judge, however, recognized the “good intention” of the city commissioners.  The city claims it is important to the city’s residents. City commissioners have long insisted that the ordinances are about protecting people, but the ordinance has been used toarresthomeless persons.  Assistant Public Defender Chris Cosden believes the city should give up: “The city has tried twice, and failed twice [with its ordinances]. The city has to step back and realize there are some things you just can’t do.”  On a positive note, Fredd Atkins, a Sarasota City Commissioner, agreed that the city has “spent enough money trying to do the wrong thing right,” suggesting the money be committed to solving the root causes of homelessness.

Nonetheless, in August 2005, the city commissioners passed yet another ordinance, strangely similar to the previous two that were ruled unconstitutional.  The new ordinance makes it a crime to sleep without permission on city or private property, either in a tent or makeshift shelter, or while “atop or covered by materials.”  The city commissioners invented a list of criteria to determine if a person violates the new law.  One or more of the following five features must be observed in order to make an arrest: “numerous items of personal belongings are present; the person is engaged in cooking activities, the person has built or is maintaining a fire, the person has engaged in digging or earth-breaking activities, or the person is asleep and when awakened states that he or she has no other place to live.”

Advocates are shocked that the ordinance actually includes being homeless, or having “no other place to live” as itself a criterion for arrest.  Advocates argue that this ordinance, like its predecessors, targets homeless people.

The new law has been challenged in state court by defendants who were charged under the law.  The court upheld the law, finding it constitutional.

#2 Lawrence, KS

Downtown street merchants complained to city officials in December 2004 that homeless people were intimidating customers with “aggressive panhandling,” and that groups of people regularly spent the night camping on the rooftops of their businesses.  Downtown Lawrence, Inc. members gave city officials copies of many ordinances used in other communities against homeless people to encourage similar measures in Lawrence.  Some of the proposed ordinances make sitting on the sidewalk from 7 A.M. to 9 P.M., and closely following someone to solicit money illegal.  In addition to these suggested ordinances, a few businesses proposed cutting social services, arguing “We didn’t have this problem until we had a handout on every corner.”  Shelters were viewed as hurting downtown Lawrence’s image rather than providing invaluable and scarce services to homeless people.  Loring Henderson, Open Shelter’s director, disagrees, stating that “it doesn’t seem logical to me that when you have a place where there are 21 people who have a place to stay for the night, rather than being on the streets, that you’re contributing to the problem.”

According to Phil Hemphill, a downtown business owner who addressed a meeting of the City Task Force on Homeless Services, efforts to help homeless people are useless without sanctions imposed on the ill-behaved individuals among them.  He described how he regularly saw homeless men and women urinate, defecate, and fornicate in public.  Hemphill said it was wrong to expect the public and private sectors to finance services for homeless people when such behavior is tolerated.  Hemphill later complained that the Task Force balked at imposing sanctions on trespassing, panhandling, and public drunkenness.  Several Task Force members replied that Hemphill was misinterpreting their deliberations.

At a January 2005 meeting of the Task Force on Homeless Services, downtown business owners proposed that homeless service providers require people who want to use shelters, soup kitchens, and other services to obtain an official identification badge.  The badges would require people to go through an application process and a policebackground check.  This would give police and service providers a way to punish people by denying certain services over a specific period of time. Moreover, business owners argued, the badges would help ensure that homeless services are not enabling people to remain homeless.

In July 2005, city commissioners approved three “civility” ordinances, responding to concerns from downtown patrons about aggressive panhandlers.  However, in a more positive step, they rejected an anti-camping law in spite of neighbors’ concerns about homeless camps along the Kansas River.  Commissioners approved ordinances that would prohibit panhandlers from asking for money in an aggressive way, make it illegal for people to trespass on rooftops, and limit how people could sleep or sit on city sidewalks.  Yet, Kalila Dalton, a member of Kansas Mutual Aid, views panhandling as a logical response to a basic need: “If it is cold outside and if you have no warm place, it seems reasonable to build a fire. If you have no money, it seems reasonable to ask someone who appears well off for money.”

The anti-panhandling ordinance will ban aggressive panhandling by prohibiting repeated attempts to solicit money from the same individual, blocking someone’s path or touching them, or soliciting within 20 feet of an automatic teller machine or a bus stop or from anyone in a vehicle.  Another of the newly-passed ordinances makes it illegal to lay or sit on a sidewalk in a way that blocks the path of a pedestrian or requires pedestrians to reroute their course, with the exception of protests or other activities protected under the First Amendment.  This ordinance was approved on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioner Mike Rundle and Councilman Highberger opposing.  Highberger said he thought the ordinance simply addressed “things that people didn’t want to look at,” rather than genuine public safety concerns.  Lastly, the council approved an ordinance that prohibits going onto the rooftop of a building without the permission of the building owner.  The passage of this ordinance was motivated by complaints from several downtown merchants that homeless persons camp on their rooftops.

Fortunately, the Commissioners unanimously rejected the bulk of the proposed anti-camping ordinances because they said the city’s current criminal trespass ordinance allowed them to address the issues when problems arose.  The main difference between the trespass ordinance and the proposed anti-camping ordinance was that under the trespass ordinance, campers have to first be given a warning to leave before they could be ticketed.  However, the Commissioners did agree to approve a portion of the ordinance that would make it illegal for people to camp on private property without the express permission of the property owner.

#3 Little Rock, AR
           
In March 2005, Saint Francis House, a daytime homeless center, was forced to reduce its hours for the second time in one month due to decreased funding. The cutback in hours came as police began cracking down on “professional” panhandling in the downtown area.  An undercover task force arrested 41 people.

The city’s agenda with regard to homeless people has become more aggressive and blatant in the following incidents.  The only day shelter, and only place where homeless people could wash their clothes, Saint Francis House, closed in 2005 after a long history of police harassment of homeless people using that facility, as well as a withdrawal of funds for its operation.  When asked to comment upon the closing of Saint Francis House, Sharon Priest, a spokesperson for the Downtown Partnership, said that she was “glad” it was gone, but was still not satisfied, because of “thatsoupkitchen [Stewpot] which is right there.”

Other reports compiled by Hunger-Free Arkansas indicate the criminalization of homeless men and women throughout the city.  In a case of illegal search and seizure, a state trooper illegally searched and detained a homeless man, by claiming he suspected the homeless man was dealing drugs.  The state trooper arrested the individual, who spent the night in jail and missed work the next day.  The homeless man had no record of any drug-related offenses.  Upon release from prison, only his driver’s license was returned. He did not receive his wallet or other property before he was told to leave.  Due to the arrest, the homeless man was suspended from work for 30 days and taunted by employees for having to spend the night in jail.

In another incident, two homeless men reported officers of the Little Rock Police Department, in separate incidents, had kicked them out of the Little Rock Bus Station. Both men were holding valid tickets and transfers.  Despite showing the police their tickets, both men were told that although the buses they were awaiting would arrive within 30 minutes, they could not wait on the premises because they were loitering.  The police subsequently evicted the men.  In some instances, others have been told that they could not wait at the bus station “because you are homeless.”

Over the summer in 2005, a free public event was held at Riverfront Park in Little Rock, at which various businesses and manufacturers of goods (including the Tyson Chicken Company) set up booths and tents to give away free samples of their merchandise to the public.  Vendors encouraged homeless persons at the event to take free samples, which many homeless people gratefully did.  However, officers of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department told the homeless individuals, including a handicapped man at a picnic table, that they had to leave the event immediately or be subject to arrest for loitering in a park.  Another homeless man was denied entrance by tour operators to the free and public tour of the Old Statehouse Museum.

#4 Atlanta, GA

Amid waves of public protest and testimony opposing the Atlanta City Council’s proposed comprehensive ban on panhandling, the city and mayor passed a bill in August 2005.  The ban made panhandling illegal within the “tourist triangle” and anywhere after dark.  The ordinance also prohibits panhandling within 15 feet of an ATM, bus stop, taxi stand, pay phone, public toilet, or train station anywhere in the city.  Many opponents believe the ban outlaws panhandling virtually everywhere, rendering it unconstitutional.  The new ordinance also states that anyone who asks for help, both monetary and non-monetary, can be detained until an outreach worker either evaluates the detainee or refers him/her to social services.  State Senator Vincent Fort, said the 12-3 vote “was an unabashed rush for campaign support.”

Two days after the signing, the Atlanta Police Department announced in The Atlanta Journal Constitution that homeless people would be rounded up and identified for entry into the City’s new facility called The Gateway, which provides 250 shelter beds and supportive housing.  The Gateway, the recipient of $10 million in private and public funds, was developed to provide a constructive solution to coincide with the panhandling ban.  Unfortunately, although The Gateway houses homeless people, there is an overall net loss of places to sleep in Atlanta; 125 emergency beds for women and children were closed by the Mayor at the end of May 2005.  Up to eighty of those women and children now sit up all night, waiting for shelter at the Task Force for the Homeless.

The business community and the city administration claim that many homeless people are “service-resistant” and should be forced to receive the services they need.  However, more than half the current requests for shelter and services in Atlanta go unmet because of insufficient resources.  Most shelters and support service agencies report turning away dozens of desperate people daily.  In addition, the Mayor’s Commission is persuading service agencies to relocate into the Gateway, making formerly independent, voluntary services available only there.
           
“This ordinance affects a huge population of the poor and homeless who just ask for help to eat everyday. We do not need a blanket law for one person asking another person for help,” said Murphy Davis of the Open Door Community.  According to Anita Beaty of the Task Force for the Homeless, “Atlanta planners seem to believe that if you remove people’s housing, eliminate emergency shelter that they will then need, and then make asking for help illegal, their necessary support services available only through an incarceration program, the poor people will go someplace else.”

Jason Gibbes, a resident of the Peachtree-Pine facility, testified before City Council, stating, “I work every day.  In two weeks, I will have enough to rent my own apartment, and I have it all picked out.  I’m sure not proud of it, but when I first got my job, I begged for MARTA fare to get to work — a couple of times.  If I hadn’t been able to ask for help, I wouldn’t be working today.”  He also reported that the police stopped him and forced him to produce identification while merely walking down the street.

In the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Atlanta has stood firm in its resolve to criminalize panhandlers.  James Scott was sleeping in his car with his brother, his sister, and her two young children after seeking refuge in Atlanta.  After living in their car for several days, the family panhandled at a mall in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood.

Police arrested Scott for solicitation about a half hour later, even after he showed them his Louisiana driver’s license, car tag, and registration as proof that he was a Katrina evacuee.  “It’s the most expensive mall in Atlanta, I thought I could get some help,” Scott said.  According to Atlanta Police Department spokesman John Quigley, while soliciting on a public sidewalk is allowed, soliciting in traffic is prohibited.  According to Kevin, a homeless man interviewed by the Task Force for the Homeless, “nobody has the right to expect people to help.  It’s their money to decide what they want to do with it.  I just think I have a right to tell somebody what I need, and let them decide.”

A homeless woman with children was arrested in Atlanta for “impersonating” a Katrina survivor in order to get help for her children.  There was an outpouring of emergency assistance from churches that only offered help to hurricne evacuees, thereby creating a desperate competition for much needed shelter.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a lawsuit against Atlanta once it finds a suitable plaintiff because of the ban’s potential violations of the First Amendment.  Gerald Weber, the legal director of the ACLU’s Georgia branch, calls Atlanta’s ordinance “too broad,” likening it to a similar ban in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1999.  City Councilman C.T. Martin believes the threat of a potential lawsuit has caused the city to withhold aggressive enforcement of the panhandling ban.

#5 Las Vegas, NV

Although homeless advocates in Las Vegas stated that shelters are overcrowded, city officials have done little to increase resources for individuals experiencing homelessness. Due to a lack of funding, the city’s Crisis Intervention Center was recently closed. Similarly, charitable organizations scrambled – albeit unsuccessfully – to replace the services the Crisis Intervention Center provided.

The police conduct habitual sweeps of encampments, which lead to extended jail time for repeat misdemeanor offenders.  Homeless inhabitants of a campsite on Owens Avenue were forced to vacate the area just before Christmas 2004.  Las Vegas’s Department of Neighborhood Services gave the order to clear the lot, because the property owner was “in violation of Las Vegas Municipal Code…dealing with nuisances.”  Many social service providers were caught off guard by the notice, wishing the city had informed them before the sweep to ensure they could find places for homeless men and women to stay.  Former residents of the campsite worried about finding a bed in one of the shelters because most of them are reserved for older men and women.

Despite reports that city, county, and state agencies were working together to provide homeless persons displaced by a January 2005 sweep of a downtown bridge, only 45 people out of 150 residents of the camp were placed in temporary housing.  The site was declared a health hazard in August 2005 because people were urinating and defecating in the area around the camp.  Bob McKenzie, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, commented, “we need to do whatever we can to help the homeless, but we need to take care of public safety first.”  Transportation crews threw away inhabitants’ possessions, including tents, blankets, and family photos.

City officials’ attempt to break up another homeless camp in February 2005 was met with criticism by local homeless advocates, who argued that breaking up the camp would only create another camp elsewhere.  They also noted that homeless people need treatment, supportive services, and permanent housing, all of which are not available.  Several homeless people were unable to receive help from local agencies, because they were already receiving money from the federal government.

An analysis of Las Vegas police records revealed that arrests for charges such as trespassing, jaywalking, and pedestrians failing to obey traffic signals increased after a recent cleanup of a homeless camp.  When homeless people are ejected from the camps, they move to other public places where they interact more with members of the community.  The ACLU of Nevada suggested that Las Vegas police went out of their way to cite and arrest homeless people as a part of the sweep.  According to Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, “It will take political will to dedicate the resources needed to move this situation in a positive direction. I haven’t seen anything from any jurisdiction to indicate that exists.”

In April 2005, plans to clean up a homeless encampment that had previously been swept at Owens Avenue were postponed due to lack of organization.  Officials attempted to avoid criticism by posting signs at the site in both English and Spanish, warning people that the authorities were going to clean the area.  The Southern Nevada Homeless Coalition was not informed of the sweep.  Linda Lera-Randle El, director of Straight from the Streets, believes the sweep was “like penalizing the homeless for the shortcomings of the city, county, and state.”

Frank Wright Plaza, a small park across from City Hall, was a favorite daytime spot for homeless people seeking a place to nap.  Regular visitors to the park said that it is a safe and comfortable place to recover from a tough night on the streets.  However, city officials saw the park as a public nuisance, and have assigned marshals to patrol the area several times daily.  In order to keep homeless individuals out of future parks, the city considered privatizing the parks, enabling owners to kick out unwanted people.  Mayor Oscar Goodman fervently supported the idea, saying, “I don’t want them there.  They’re not going to be there.  I’m not going to let it happen.  They think I’m mean now; wait until the homeless try to go over there.”

In a more positive step, Metro Police are expected to begin seeking a liaison for homeless people, raising its level of commitment after being criticized for its handling of the homeless situation.  The Metro Police have been at the center of the homelessness controversy on many occasions in recent years.  In addition to their role in homeless camp sweeps, the Metro Police have faced allegations that officers were targeting homeless people for misdemeanor crimes, such as urinating in public.  The new liaison would work with both public and private agencies to help homeless people, and will hopefully prevent future arrests and sweeps.

#6 Dallas, TX

Officials attempted to address the growing homeless population by making it illegal to take a shopping cart off store property.  Instead of acknowledging the root causes of homelessness, the new law only spurred homeless people to become more creative.  Fleets of damaged baby strollers and shopping carts are now common in the area.

The Dallas Homeless Neighborhood Association investigated sweeps that occurred in December 2004.  A positive result of its investigation was that the Interim City Manager, Mary Suhm, vowed to replace the personal property, including blankets, identification, and medication, that the city officials confiscated during those sweeps.  Suhm also promised to provide oral or written notices at least 24 hours in advance of sweeps, giving homeless people time to relocate.

In an attempt to gain more federal aid for homeless services, volunteer canvassers surveyed and counted homeless people in the Dallas area.  Volunteers accompanied by the police walked the streets to gain knowledge and “humanize the condition of homelessness.”  The count itself was not an attempt to chase people from their shelters, but the police and transportation crews later evicted dozens of homeless people from their encampments.

One of Dallas’ most elaborate homeless camps, with cardboard shacks, tents, porta-potties and a microwave powered by electricity tapped from a billboard was raided in May 2005.  The city bulldozed the camp several times before, but the inhabitants kept rebuilding their homes.  City officials hoped that demolition would give the residents an incentive to seek help for their drug and alcohol addictions, as well as mental illnesses. James Waghorne, a formerly homeless social worker, disagrees with the city’s logic, saying “more residents may seek help if the city offered a higher level of services instead of driving people from the only homes they know.”

Starting in September of 2005, a new ordinance will penalize charities, churches and other organizations that serve food to the needy outside of city designated areas.  Anyone who violates this ordinance can be fined up to $2000.  Romano’s Hunger Busters pledges to feed homeless people “wherever they are,” and will violate the new ordinance. Romano worries that many people experiencing homelessness will be unable or scared to go to the new feeding locations, falling “through the cracks.”  The city claims portable feedings both enable homeless camps to exist and generate litter.

Currently, the city is considering Mayor Laura Miller’s suggestion to ticket people who donate to panhandlers, because a blanket ban on panhandling has proved largely ineffective since its inception two years ago.

#7 Houston, TX

A coalition of businesses and residents, called the Avondale Association, is petitioning city officials to protect the near-downtown neighborhood from homeless persons by using a so-called “civility ordinance” passed by the Houston City Council in late 2004.  The Avondale Association has gathered enough signatures to require a public hearing on whether the ordinance should be expanded beyond the Central Business District.  The ordinance, which is currently confined to downtown, prohibits people from sitting or lying on sidewalks between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., as well as placing items of bedding or personal possessions on the sidewalk.

Paul Luccia, owner of Keystar Events Complex, says the conduct of homeless people at nearby Interfaith Ministries hurts his business, which provides a venue for business meetings and weddings.  Luccia also claims many of his customers are intimidated by the daily overflow of sidewalk trash and illegal activity around Interfaith Ministries’ site. Luccia sees the ordinance as the city’s main line of defense against the growing encroachment of homeless people on struggling business.  Others contend that if local business paid a living wage people could work to get themselves off the streets.

The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County believes the civility ordinance is ineffective, as well mean-spirited.  “This is just more or less shuffling people around [and we] do not support any laws that somewhat outlaw or consider homelessness a crime,” said Anthony Love of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County. Love also argues “blaming service providers for an increase in homelessness is like blaming hospitals for an increase of sick people. If service providers weren’t there, the problem would be worse.”

Citing a need to “reflect changes in society,” the Houston City Council also passed new regulations under which patrons with offensive bodily hygiene that constitutes a nuisance to others will not be allowed inside the library.  In addition, these laws prohibit people from sleeping or putting their head, feet or legs on tables, using library restrooms to change their clothes, bathe, or shave, as well as outlawing large backpacks and blankets in the building.

In opposition to the new laws, City Councilwoman Addie Wiseman noted, “When we have heat waves, they encourage people, including homeless [people], to go into public buildings, including our libraries.  What is the plan now?”  She also said, “I understand what they’re trying to do but when you start targeting a community like the homeless [population], I think that’s a poor policy.”

#8 San Juan, PR

Cieni Rodriguez, Executive Director of La Fondita de Jesus, expressed that “no significant positive advances have been made during the calendar year of 2004.”  She further states, “it is ironic how frequently city officials publicly say how they are working on behalf of the homeless population, while at the same time they are supporting the passage of new legislation that further countermands civil liberties.  Anti-constitutional laws that, if passed, would permit the governments [central and municipal] to intervene with a person’s liberty by transporting them somewhere else against their will.”

Osvaldo Burgos, attorney and Executive Director of the Commission for Civil Rights stated, “There has been an alarming increase in city ordinances and city codes designed at targeting […] homeless [people].”  A recent study by the commission revealed that over half of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities have passed anti-homeless ordinances into laws. Sweeps of homeless people are also becoming commonplace in Puerto Rico.  Sweeps have taken place in Sicardo, Old San Juan, Caguas, Yabucoa,  and Vega Baja, during which 17 homeless people were arrested for violating “quality of life” ordinances.  At least five homeless deaths have been attributed to these sweeps.

People experiencing homelessness have also reported being victims of police violence and intimidation.  One man reported that he has frequently been a victim of police violence including being assaulted with nightsticks and pepper sprayed for the fun of it and having his bicycle tires slashed while being mocked by police.  Another man also reported verbal abuse by the police while they trashed the place where he slept.

#9 Santa Monica, CA

Under a new proposal soon to be floated by City Council Member Bob Holbrook, city groups that provide meals to homeless people in parks may be fined for clean up costs.  Food providers may be required to pick up the yearly-estimated tab of $40,000 that Santa Monica spends annually providing park rangers and a cleaning service after meals.  The free meals are currently being handed out in Reed Park, Palisades Park, and on the City Hall lawn.  Holbrook contends that the new “clean up law” would be enforced equally so that it doesn’t target one person or group.  Moira LaMountian, co-founder of Helping Other People Eat (HOPE), has been feeding homeless people in Palisades Park for over 13 years.  She fears that going after the food providers’ pocketbooks could cause nonprofit groups to stop providing food to those who need it.  She also contends that they leave the park cleaner than when they arrive each day, and that there is no need for park ranger supervision.

The city of Santa Monica would also like to move meal dispersion indoors to connect the food programs with other services offered to the homeless people.  City officials who work on the issues surrounding homelessness admitted that there is no such indoor location available at this time.  An ordinance, enacted in 2002, reduced outdoor feeding locations from 26 to 4, and bans feeding more than 150 homeless persons without a permit, because some official believed food providers were only exacerbating the homeless problem by handing out free meals.  Human Services Manager, Julie Rusk, said that moving handouts indoors was essential in stopping what she called the “revolving door” of homelessness.  Nonetheless, only one of the feeding sites in the city is linked to established homeless services.

Recently, with the election of Bobby Shriver to the city council, homeless people in Santa Monica are facing what may be the single biggest push in the nation to pass a massive wave of new anti-homeless laws.  The new collection of proposed city laws would
make it illegal for any homeless person to set down a backpack for more than ten minutes on any sidewalk, lie, or sit, on any sidewalk in the city, shave, bathe, wash clothing items in any public restrooms, and sleep anywhere in a vehicle.  The laws would also sweep homeless individuals from all freeway sides and ramps.

In addition to the new local laws, anti-homeless forces are proposing to close all showers that open before six a.m., many of which serve homeless men and women who work. Santa Monica Memorial Park Gym Director, John Hines, estimates that nearly fifty homeless people shower at the park, many before work.  The city cites complaints and growth of sports activities at the park as their reasons to close the facilities.  The displaced bathers may seek refuge at St. Joseph’s Center, where shower-seekers must sign up a day in advance.  Furthermore, they propose that the Santa Monica city police now transport anyone found intoxicated in the city to a new “sobriety center” five miles out of town in Culver City.

Laws in the city already attempt to ban all outdoor meals from groups, like Food Not Bombs, which serve up to half of the city’s 1,000 homeless people.  Another notorious law literally bans even the giving of a cookie to any member of the “public” without a city permit.  According to the manager for the City’s Human Services Division, “[…] groups [that] continue to sponsor these [feeding] programs [run] counter to the policy that the City has been trying to promote.”

#10 Flagstaff, AZ

Soon anyone camping or sleeping in a car or in public within the Flagstaff city limits may be subject to trespassing and camping violations, totaling up to $2,500 in fines and six months in jail time.  The current ordinance’s wording only allows prosecution of people arrested in city parks.  City Attorney Patricia Boomsma supports the new, stricter ordinance, because “[…] prosecutors need to prosecute the person actually doing the camping.”  The proposed ordinance aims to eliminate litter, human waste, and illicit campfires.  According to Flagstaff chief of police, J.T. McCann, the ordinance is intended to promote public safety.  However, local service providers, such as Stephanie Boardman of Hope Cottage, believe these ordinances are counter-productive, especially to the domestic violence victims that Hope Cottage takes in.  Boardman said, “A lot of them are embarrassed to go to shelters. They just want their freedom. You penalize the people in crisis because 10, 15, 20 people are really causing an upheaval.”  While Flagstaff law enforcement officials have written 162 citations for camping, all charges were dropped because camping is not yet illegal in the city.

#11 San Francisco, CA

After responding to complaints of homeless people loitering outside the San Francisco Public Library, the police decided to provide homeless individuals, unhappy living in the city, with one-way bus tickets.  The plan would “reunite them with loved ones for the holidays.”  The Police Department recommended coordination with the bus companies and local businesses to fund tickets, along with boxed lunches.

L.S. Wilson, coordinator for the Coalition on Homelessness, believed that such a plan would only give the police an opportunity to harass homeless people.  “If they need a one-way ticket out of here and they can get it, good, but it’s saying they can’t come back. It’s another PR thing…Just try to hide or get rid of our homeless problem.”  The Department of Human Services offers bus tickets to anywhere in the continental U.S. if the recipient has housing or a job to go to.  While some 10 to 30 people use the program each year, the Director of Human Services pointed out that it was difficult for homeless individuals to start a new life just by moving to another city.

Under Mayor Newsom’s “Care not Cash” ballot initiative, panhandlers who are supposed to be getting services are sometimes going to jail instead.  Instead of Care not Cash, San Francisco panhandlers are receiving citations, which, are translating into jail time.  In his argument for Proposition M in August 2003, Gavin Newsom wrote, “Prop. M seeks to divert people who aggressively panhandle because of addiction or illness away from the jail system and into the public health system.”  However, this is not the case as arrested panhandlers spend the time before their court date in jail instead of in service programs.

Under Proposition M, panhandling and solicitation is prohibited in five locations: near ATM machines, in parking lots, on public transit, on median strips, and on freeway on-ramps. Section F of Prop. M gives the Department of Public Health the mandate to “establish, administer and/or certify diversion programs appropriate for treatment of violators.”  Nonetheless, “people are going to jail because there aren’t enough services for everyone that needs them.”  Panhandling is an infraction that does not bring jail time; after three infractions, future cases are handled as misdemeanors, making the defendant eligible for incarceration.  Critics contend that this process of racking up citation convictions does not help homeless people get services.  Since Mayor Gavin Newsom took office in 2003, the number of camping citations among the homeless population nearly tripled.

Just the presence of homeless men and women is stirring up negative reactions in the city. In the heart of San Francisco’s downtown shopping district there have been complaints of people loitering outside of a charity organization, St. Vincent DePaul Society, that serves free lunch daily to those in need.  The meal service provides for over 100 people a day, most of whom are experiencing homelessness, but many are disabled or elderly.  The city has been trying to relocate the charity for over 15 years, nearly as long as it has been in existence.  There is heavy criticism from business owners that the sight of homeless people lined up on the street is not conducive to attracting new businesses and customers to the district.  The city manager of San Francisco, Barry Nagel, commented, “We know the need to serve [homeless people] is there, we just don’t need them in the downtown area.”

Court records show that the police are writing more tickets for illegal camping in city parks outside the downtown area, and homeless advocates point to the trend as proof that the city’s February homeless count was wrong when it showed that the population dropped by more than 2,000.

#12 Chicago, IL

In September 2004, the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibits panhandling within 10 feet of a bus stop, ATM, or bank entrance, at sidewalk cafes and restaurants, and fines panhandlers $50 for first and second offenses and $100 for each additional offense in the same year.  Chicago modified its criteria after a 2002 ordinance banning all panhandling was challenged in a class-action lawsuit, which resulted in a $474,000 settlement for the plaintiffs, as well as a repeal of the law.  According to Deputy Police Chief Ralph Chiczewski, Chicago police fine about 50 panhandlers a month, although collect far few fines.

However, many advocates, including Julie Dworkin of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, believe this ordinance does not provide a solution either.  She argues, “If you ticket them, they are not going to have money to pay the ticket.  So, you haven’t solved the problem.  People are panhandling out of great need […]  To get rid of panhandling, you must deal with the issue of homelessness.”  Amy Bishop, a downtown worker, believes that “[you] can’t legislate away all the things you don’t want in a city,” demonstrating that even some business owners are skeptical of Chicago’s second attempt in two years to curb panhandling.  The city’s initial attempt was repealed after a class-action lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the ordinance violated panhandlers’ civil rights.  Even the police chief, that suggested the strict ordinances, recognizes that they will not completely dispel panhandling.  Homeless activist, John Maki commented that, “Once people believe that panhandlers represent all homeless [people], it is very difficult to engage them in productive conversation about the reality and causes of homelessness. Too often, such encounters devolve into debates for and against panhandling, which then easily play into the stereotypes and fears many people have.”

#13 San Antonio, TX

After the city passed new ordinances targeting aggressive panhandling, sleeping in public, urinating in public, and camping without a license (including sleeping in vehicles), many local homeless people complained that the City Council was persecuting them.  These violations are class C misdemeanors and carry up to $500 fines.  However, District 1 Councilman Roger Perez said that these laws would be applied to everyone equally because they target behaviors rather than people.  According to West side Councilwoman, Patti Radle, 400 people have been cited for illegally sleeping on sidewalks or “urban camping” and 82 people have been cited for urination on sidewalks since these activities were criminalized earlier this year.

Reverend John Flowers of Travis Park United Methodist Church said that the ordinance presents a justice issue because of the lack of public restrooms and shelter space downtown, stating “If we’re going to tell people you can’t do this in public, then we need to provide them options.”  Instead of spending money on enforcement, the city could use it to strike at the root causes of homelessness.  Flowers and other advocates argued that the city has an obligation to provide better facilities for homeless people before cracking down on their activities.  Texas Homeless advocate Richard Troxell noted, “As long as people are forced to live on the streets of America due to the lack of affordable housing, adequate health care and livable incomes, we cannot allow their condition to be criminalized.  The same things that these people are being targeted, fined, and arrested for in public, are found to be acceptable and considered to be the norm when conducted in the privacy of our own homes.”

#14 New York, NY

In response to a New York Times article attributing a January 2005 fire in the subway to the extensive use of the subway tunnels as shelters for homeless men and women, Mayor Bloomberg’s Administration argued that police routinely patrol the tunnels and rarely find any homeless people.  When officials do find anyone, they are transported to shelters or arrested.  Arrests of homeless individuals “have skyrocketed in the past few years,” totaling 3,086 last year compared with 737 in 2000.

The New York City Police Department took aim at minor crimes like unlicensed street peddling and fare-beating on buses in an attempt to deter more serious crimes. Undercover police officers began riding the M35 bus at night to arrest those who do not pay the $2 fare.  Many of the arrested bus riders were on their way to homeless shelters. They could not walk to these shelters, because the only footbridge from Manhattan is closed in the late fall and winter.  Five criminal court judges, including Kathryn Freed, questioned the wisdom of the arrests, because they interfered with the services the homeless persons were seeking: “I consistently put on the record how outraged I am by the whole thing.  It’s a complete waste of the court’s time [to prosecute the illegal bus riders].  It takes a lot of person-power to process them, house them, and feed them. Meanwhile, the shelter, where they’re heading, is set up to do just that.”  Shaver, one of the men arrested on a M35 bus, told police “You’re setting me up. They’re the easiest victims, the homeless. It’s entrapment. Why don’t you [the police] go fight some real crime?”

In June 2005, an individual who panhandles filed a suit on behalf of a class of individual panhandlers who had been charged with violations of a New York state law that prohibits begging.  The Second Circuit had found the law unconstitutional in the Loper case in 1993.  The plaintiffs allege that arrests and prosecutions under the unconstitutional law violate their First Amendment rights.  On June 11, 2005, the day after the suit was filed, the Bronx District Attorney’s office admitted that they should not have prosecuted any arrests made under the unconstitutional part of the state penal code and issued a written agreement with the City and the police to stop arresting and prosecuting people under this statute.  According to the agreement, police officers received notice that the statute is void.  As of November 2005, the lawsuit is ongoing.

#15 Austin, TX

In late 2004, the city was considering four proposed changes to ordinances concerning public sleeping, panhandling, and loitering.  The proposals are a response to increased pressure from downtown business owners for the city to address the “transient problem.” Highlighted by new restrictions on panhandling, the proposed ordinance would criminalize all door-to-door and roadside solicitation throughout town, sleeping in public, blocking sidewalks, and panhandling near schools, childcare facilities, and outdoor restaurants. On December 14, 2005, council members will vote to fine anyone found lying, sleeping, or sitting anyway in the Downtown area $500.

Richard Troxell, president of House the Homeless, worries about the potential impact of this ordinance on the Austin Advocate, the local newspaper produced by homeless people and sold on the street for donations.  He also comments that, “another ordinance they wish to address is the sidewalk ordinance; what they intend to do is outlaw [all] sleeping or resting on the sidewalk whatsoever.”  On November 19, 2004, the Austin Area Homeless Task Force voted to adopt a Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, saying, “strategies to solve the problem lie in affordable housing, access to health care including mental health and substance abuse treatment, and livable wages.”  On the other hand, downtown business owners are complaining of increased problems with loiterers and panhandlers in the area.

In July 2005, an Austin municipal court found the city’s roadside anti-begging statute unconstitutional, in which panhandling in select roadside locales was illegal.  While defending a homeless Austin citizen, who was arrested for carrying a sign that read “Donations of any kind will help,” the Texas Civil Rights Project argued the panhandling ordinance violated the First Amendment rights of people experiencing homelessness. Under the panhandling ordinances, anyone “[…] who is in or next to a street, on a sidewalk, or in a private parking area commits an offense if the person solicits, or attempts to solicit, services, employment business, or contributions from an occupant of a motor vehicle.”  According to Wayne Krause, the goal of these ordinances is to decrease visibility of the homeless.  He says, “Officials at the city are very anxious to promote 6th Street and their perception of Austin’s tourist image, and they’ll sweep the undesirable urban realities out of sight to do it.”  Other advocates say we need to work toward solutions that combat the problem of homelessness rather than targeting homeless people.

In December of 2005, the Austin City Council passed ordinances that ban panhandling after 7 p.m. in the downtown area, ban panhandling totally near schools, child-care facilities, and outdoor food and drink establishments and prohibit sleeping, sitting, and lying down in public areas downtown.  People violating the no sleeping/sitting ordinance face a $500 fine.  Only one Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem Danny Thomas, voted against these ordinances.  The new ordinances went into effect on December 25.

#16 Anchorage, AK

In April 2005, Ed O’Neill, an advocate who helps maintain homeless camps, wanted to establish a corporate-sponsored legal homeless camp.  The camp would include toilets and garbage facilities, as well as require a small fee for residents to live there.  After consulting with homeless people, O’Neill concluded that some could benefit from being allowed to camp—safely, legally and securely—at an established place.  People would not be allowed to drink in a legal, organized camp.  However, Fairview Community Council president, Darrell Hess, does not share O’Neill’s enthusiasm, citing the adverse effects a camp would have on the neighborhood, such as the difficulty of monitoring inhabitants.

In Anchorage, camping anywhere, including both government and private property, is considered trespassing.  Police have trouble dealing with camp inhabitants; if they move them on, homeless campers will turn up somewhere else.  O’Neill continues to work closely with campers, advising them where to move and how to address the police.  For him, having people camp in the woods is perfectly fine, as long as they do it right: haul out trash, use proper toilet facilities, do not drink, and do not disturb others.  Even if the legal camp never wins local approval, O’Neill thinks he and like-minded supporters are improving the living conditions in the city woods.

The city and the Anchorage Downtown Partnership are trying to discourage motorists from giving to panhandlers.  The citywide program is titled “Change for the Better” and uses slogans such as “give change in ways that make change.”  Local businesses and buses sport the signs.  The Partnership is urging motorists to give donations to social service agencies rather than panhandlers, because public officials believe voluntary donations to homeless people pay for alcohol or drug addictions.  A 2004 law makes panhandling or giving to panhandlers from a motor vehicle stopped on a public street, as well as aggressive panhandling, illegal.  According to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, “The idea [of the program] is to dry up the source of funding so street people will seek help that might let them to improve their lives.”

While Anchorage considers alternatives to proposed homeless camps, Anchorage’s SAFE City Program used funds from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to implement the Pathways to Sobriety project.  According to a 2005 evaluation of the project by the University of Anchorage, “the primary components of this project include involuntary engagement by chronic public inebriates from the target population into detoxification and substance abuse treatment services via individualized intensive care management services; increased access to therapeutic court for the target population involved in criminal act; and invigoration of the alcohol involuntary commitment program.”  In this way, Anchorage’s “sleep-off” center not only shelters public inebriates from potential health risks of cold weather, such as hypothermia, but also the potential risk of being targeted for a quality of life violation.

#17 Phoenix, AZ

The Phoenix City Council voted to ban camping in all city parks in order to preserve the parks as “family places” in December 2004.  The measure was aimed at keeping homeless people from areas where children and others gather.  Even though few of the homeless people caused trouble, “many people are intimidated by the homeless and won’t use the park.”  Homeless advocates argued that the ordinance would not solve the problem.  According to Jeff Taylor of the Phoenix Rescue Mission, “If you close the parks, homeless individuals will gravitate to another area.  This will squeeze individuals into other areas where they may be more invisible.”  The Executive Director of the Phoenix Rescue Mission, Jerry Sandvig, doesn’t see any alternative with such an overwhelming homeless population in Phoenix, saying, “There really isn’t any place for them to go.”

#18 Los Angeles, CA

In February 2005, the L.A. City Council unanimously passed a law that prohibits loitering outside of public facilities, such as libraries, between 9 P.M. and 9 A.M.

Six homeless individuals also filed suit to prevent the Los Angeles Police Department from ticketing and arresting people who sit, sleep or lie on public sidewalks pursuant to city codes.  They argued the codes were in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as applied to homeless persons.  The plaintiffs argued that homelessness in an involuntary condition, as long as homeless people outnumber the number of available shelter beds.  The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and granted summary judgment for the city.

In September 2005, the mayor of Los Angeles ordered an investigation into allegations that other jurisdictions were “dumping” homeless people, mentally ill persons, and criminals onto the streets of Los Angeles’ Skid Row.  Skid Row is a 50-block area of downtown Los Angeles containing between 8,000-11,000 homeless people.   A week later Police Chief William Bratton vowed to get tough and clean up the area he refers to as “Dante’s Inferno.”  His department has conducted sweeps of the area looking for parole violators and strictly enforces “quality of life” statutes such as public urination and sleeping on public sidewalks.

Many believe that the outrage over the “dumping” of homeless people and the increased enforcement are a result of gentrification in the area.  “That’s why there’s a big brouhaha about the ‘dumping’ now.  Five, six, seven years ago there weren’t any plans to gentrify Skid Row with condos and lofts that sell for $700,000 or more and a Grand Hotel a few blocks away.  The rich simply don’t want the homeless to be part of the landscape anymore,” commented a local social worker.

Police Chief Bratton insists that his department does not target homeless people.  “What we focus on is behavior, he said.  “If the behavior is aberrant, in the sense that it breaks the law, then there are city ordinances…. You arrest them, prosecute them.  Put them in jail. And if they do it again, you arrest them, prosecute them, and put them in jail.  It’s that simple.”

#19 St. Louis, MO

In October 2005, the City of St. Louis settled a lawsuit filed against it by twenty-five homeless and impoverished people, claiming they were illegally “swept” from the downtown area before the city’s Fourth of July festivities.  The city paid $80,000 in damages to the plaintiffs.  The payment of damages will be shared by the city, the police department and the Downtown Partnership, all of whom were defendants in the case.  The plaintiffs claimed that homeless people and those who appeared to be homeless were abused, harassed, and illegally detained in order to clear the city streets before the holiday festivities, and alleged that the defendants have a policy “of intimidating and driving homeless people and homeless-appearing people from downtown St. Louis.”  Plaintiffs also alleged that some of them were told they would be released if they performed free community service – cleaning up after the festivities – even before they saw a judge.  City Counselor Patricia Hageman admitted these accounts were accurate.  Attorney for the plaintiffs, Steven Gunn, stated, “This agreement makes it clear that sweeps violate the law and human dignity.”  Although the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in granting a preliminary injunction and the city agreed to the settlement, the city has not admitted any wrong-doing.

As a result of the settlement, the police department has agreed to do the following: avoid arresting homeless people or removing them from downtown areas without probable cause that a crime was committed; institute a policy, where under most circumstances, a summons to court will be issued for “quality of life” violations rather than arrest; re-affirm to its officers that an “individual’s status (homeless or non-homeless) will not be considered in any of [their] decisions;” and acknowledge begging is not a crime, if it is not “aggressive.”

In early November 2005, police officers swept a downtown park, instructing homeless people to leave.  No arrests were made but park workers removed belongings for temporary storage.  The sweeps sparked a protest march from the park to City Hall.  The marchers demanded an end to sweeps and more services for homeless people.

#20 Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh city leaders recently amended its panhandling ordinance.  The new law expands on the existing panhandling ordinance by restricting solicitation for charity to daylight hours.  The bill also bans panhandling within 25 feet of an outdoor eating establishment, 25 feet of an admission line, 25 feet of the entrance to a place of religious assembly, within 25 feet of money dispensing areas, and 10 feet of a food vendor or bus stop.  The bill also outlaws “aggressive panhandling” and solicitation of money that hinders traffic.  Activist groups, such as the ACLU, believe such a comprehensive ban infringes on free speech rights.

The ordinance classifies solicitations from religious groups and other charities as panhandling.  According to Major Deborah Sedlar, “If we [the Salvation Army] raise less, that could mean we have less resources to support the services we provide.”  Dr. James Withers, a medical doctor and founder of Operation Safety Net, believes that services, rather than laws, are what Pittsburgh’s homeless population needs.  Dr. Withers said, “The needs of street people are so much more intense than current agencies can grapple with.  A lot of people have such complex psychological issues, it’s very difficult to get them off the street.”

The ordinance stems from complaints from downtown business owners.  “Our stakeholders feel that panhandling is becoming a bit more of a problem than it used to be,” said Regina Casey, an employee of Jenny Lee Bakery, which is a member of the Downtown Partnership.  Police Chief Robert W. McNeilly, Jr. added that crimes, including robbery, retail theft, defiant trespass, simple assault, and disorderly conduct, are “typical” of panhandlers.  However, Officer Charles Bosetti, who patrols the Market Square area, sees it differently.  Bosetti maintains that businesses were demanding that police drive “grubby looking” people from the area.  Bosetti feels that this is outside of law enforcement’s role and should be left to social agencies.  “Are you using aggressive police tactics where social solutions are more appropriate?” he asked. Bosetti also believes that writing more citations would take officers off the streets for hearings and would require the city to pay more overtime.  District Attorney Stephen Zappala, Jr. contends the successful panhandling ban would fine or jail aggressive panhandlers, while directing homeless persons to social services.


HOME | FULL REPORT (pdf) | Acknowledgements | Executive Summary | I. Trends in the Criminalization of Homelessness | II. Criminalization Measures Violate Constitutional Rights | III. Criminalization Measures Violate Human Rights Norms | IV. Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization | V. T op 20 Meanest Cities | VI. Meanest Cities’ Narratives | VII. Other Cities’ Narratives | VIII. CASES: Challenges to Restrictions on Sleeping, Camping, Sitting or Storing Property in Public Place [FEDERAL] [STATE] | Challenges to Anti-Begging, Anti-Soliciting and Anti-Peddling Laws | Challenges to Vagrancy, Loitering and Curfew Laws | Challenges to Restrictions on Feedings|Miscellaneous | IX. Prohibited Conduct Chart | X. APPENDIX:Survey Questions | Sample Know Your Rights Card |Sources for City Narratives |

Posted October 31, 2015 by Teacher Alvin in LEARNING ENGLISH

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“DO NOT” HELP the Philippines don’t send “ANYTHING” be smart USA   2 comments

Philippine volcano spews lava; thousands evacuated

 

List of active volcanoes in the Philippines

Jump to: navigation, search

Active volcanoes in the Philippines, as categorized by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), include volcanoes in the country having erupted within historical times (within the last 600 years), with accounts of these eruptions documented by man; or having erupted within the last 10,000 years (holocene) based on analyses of datable materials. However, there is no consensus among volcanologists on how to define an “active” volcano. As of 2012[update], PHIVOLCS lists 23 volcanoes as active in the Philippines, 21 of which have historical eruptions and two strongly fumarolic volcanoes – Cabalian and Leonard Kniaseff.[1][not in citation given]; the Smithsonian Institution‘s Global Volcanism Program categories 20 Philippine volcanoes as “historical” and 59 as “holocene”.[2]

The Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism Program (GVP) list volcanoes with historical, Holocene eruptions, or possibly older if strong signs of volcanism are still evident through thermal features like fumaroles, hot springs, mud pots, etc.[3] GVP currently lists 50 Philippines volcanoes.[2] The eruptions from the table below were based more on GVP which gives a more detailed eruption history for a particular mountain. The frequency of Historical Eruptions are based on definite historical eruptions and excludes questionable or Uncertain accounts based on the two sources mentioned.

The list below shows 25 active volcanoes in the Philippines was based more on the PHIVOLCS list with some included from the GVP list. The number is not a definite number and could depend on someone’s definition of “active” or historical timeframe. Also, volcanoes listed as inactive or potentially active could renew activity after long periods of dormancy such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) introduced the” Information Portal for Philippine Earthquake and Volcano” during a seminar-forum on Sept. 15, 2014 at the institute’s auditorium, Quezon City. Led by its Director, Renato U. Solidum, Jr., the heads of the 4 technical divisions gave brief descriptions on the content of the portal.

Following a series of joint meetings with partner-agencies Japan International Cooperation Agency-Japan Science and Technology Agency (JICA-JST) and National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED), PHIVOLCS has come up with a prototype of the Information Portal for Philippine Earthquake and Volcano which will be available for public viewing in the near future.

Continue reading..
 PHIVOLCS and Province of Albay Commemorate 200-years of 1814 Mayon Volcano Eruption, 26-27 June 2014, Legaspi, Albay
Friday, 18 July 2014 06:53

Legaspi, Albay. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) in partnership with the Province of Albay commemorated the 200-years anniversary of the 1814 Mayon Volcano Eruption on 26-27 June at the La Piazza Hotel, Legaspi, Albay.

Eruptions from Mayon Volcano that people remember date back to 1968, 1978, 1984, 1993, 2000-2001, 2006 and 2009. What most people are probably not aware of is that, two hundred years ago, on 01 February 1814, Mayon Volcano gave one of its biggest, most destructive eruptions. This event affected the southern slope of the volcano, specifically Camalig, Cagsaua, Budiao and Guinobatan and resulted to 1,200 casualties. The ruins of Cagsaua Church wherein only the bell tower remains standing is a reminder and testimony of this disaster.

The 2-day conference was held to provide venue to hold a meeting of experts from different fields to share knowledge and experience. To have a science, historical and social perspectives, invited presentations ‘had topics ranging from understanding Mayon

Earthquake Impact Assessment Methodologies: Exposure Database Development and Calculations Workshop for Region II and III State Universities and Colleges
Monday, 16 June 2014 01:20

PHIVOLCS conducted another workshop entitled “Earthquake Impact Assessment Methodologies: Exposure Database Development and Calculations” for the Region II and III State Colleges and Universities (SUCs). This activity is in line with the Regional Disaster Science and Management S&T Capacity Development Project, which is being funded by DOST-PCIEERD, and which PHIVOLCS is providing the technical expertise.