From the Floor: How to Save Me from Angry Firemen

Got yelled at by a fire man on-shift last night, bless his cantankerous and surprisingly loud little heart. One of my clients had a stroke and we go into a disagreement about police presence in our men's dorm during the incident. The debate was something like the following:

Noah (timidly): Please, sir, but I believe it scares the bejesus out of our many ex-con clients to have an officer with a gun present while your associates resuscitate our gasping friend there.

Fireman Spartacus: I will you eat you and your family post haste, spindly runt!

Noah: You have a point.

So it was. And, indeed, I would like to add an additional point. Though I've noticed people generally tend to yell at me inside the shelter (something about the fetid air or my annoying habit of speaking to clients exclusively in pig latin), I can't help (pardon my bleeding heart) that his unprofessional-ism was partly due to the frustration of seeing our clients again and again. It gets exhausting.

Since we ignore the evidence and choose not to treat the supportive housing option seriously, the street community and chronically homeless suck a positively massive proportion of the resources spent by emergency personnel. Yes, serial inebriates are part of the problem. I know a client who's been to the Alcohol Recovery Center over 500 times. Yup.

But consider too the cost of an ineffective health care system. The homeless repeatedly make use of emergency rooms or ignore pressing medical conditions because nothing better is available, or sometimes (in the case of the chronically disabled, addicted, or mentally ill) because they lack the necessary functioning to ensure a reasonable degree of preventative care. This is unsustainable. From a social standpoint, it's positively evil.

This means my voluble friend from the fire department spends a lot of time bringing my clients back from the dead. Not a bit fun. No wonder he's pissed.

So do me a favor. If you want to save me from getting strangled by a large and unnecessarily imposing pair of suspenders, please contact your senator and encourage her to push universal health care. It's the best thing for the homeless. And me.

Image courtesy of http://www.americanlegionalabama.org

Read more...

Another Reason to Hate Perez Hilton

Ass.

Read more...

Policy Review: Health Care Reform Essential to Ending Homelessness

Neil Peirce at the The Denver Post contributed a perfect example of how commentators can use the health care debate to keep homelessness on the political radar. He writes:

By failing to restrain medical system costs or guarantee care for all Americans, we've forced thousands of families to go into bankruptcy. Today, alarming numbers are being forced to take to the streets where their health is even more endangered by extremes of pelting rain or stone-cold nights, unsanitary conditions and sometimes violence.

This is an essential approach, I think, one that grounds the health care debate in something more substantive than emotional screeds. Peirce rightly points out that what's at stake isn't our souls, as might be at issue in the question of whether or not health care is a human right (though I agree that it is). Instead, to frame a broken health system as root cause of multiple (expensive) social ills is to highlight the possibility of sweeping improvements for all levels of society.

It goes both ways. To strengthen and reform programs that prevent homelessness is to reform the health care system. That's an angle I wish more advocates would deploy. Peirce quotes HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, "Simply put, if we want to tackle health care reform - if we want to lower costs - we must tackle homelessness. It's that simple."

Image courtesy of The Denver Post. Stephen Titus, who served in the Army in 1982-92, tries to read a newspaper clipping to see whether his glasses, donated by Navy veteran Frank Montijo, right, are the correct strength at Thursday's Homeless Veterans Stand Down. (Andy Cross, The Denver Post)

Read more...

Policy Review: Healthcare Reform, and Does Pelosi's "Victory" Make a Damn Bit of Difference for the Homeless?

Let's say the Democrats are right. This is great for just about everyone. Healthcare reform passed: holy shit. If that means my girlfriend and I don't have to worry so much the next time we're fantasizing about moving to a Native American potter's commune in the deserts of New Mexico, that's positively lovely. But what difference will this make for my clients at the shelter?

Here's what the Democrats say , in summary:

The House measure — paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare — would extend coverage to 36 million people now without insurance while creating a government health insurance program. It would end insurance company practices like not covering pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they become ill.

Fuckin-A. That sounds great. Just about every homeless guy and gal I know has some form of chronic illnees. Not surprising, if the President and CEO of United Way Los Angeles, Elise Buik, knows what she's talking about:

While “housing first” programs help people move out of homelessness, access to affordable housing could keep them from becoming homeless in the first place. But those investments must be part of a bigger picture that also focuses on fixing our nation’s health care, investing in employment services and improving our education system.

In other words, it's a bit of a misnomer to claim that fighting homelessness is about the homeless as such. We're not talking about a homogeneous humanity clump whose defining characteristic is an inability to secure housing. This is a vast and diverse cross-section of Americans for whom our government has not provided basic necessities and who, as a consequence, must spend most of their resources on food, medicine, and so on. So this healthcare bill is, yes, pretty wonderful.

There's a fly in the ointment, however. Wait, no- a roach. Okay, an elephant to be exact. Democrats made a Faustian bargain with conservative Christian stakeholders:

The representatives of the nation’s bishops made clear they would fight the bill if there were not restrictions on abortion. In an extraordinary effort over the last 10 days, the bishops conference told priests across the country to talk about the legislation in church, mobilizing parishioners to contact Congress and to pray for the success of anti-abortion amendments.

This pressure from Christian conservatives and Republicans resulted in an amendment that would prohibit the public funding of women's health services like abortion. Ann Friedman at The American Prospect's Tapped blog points out that such a political sacrifice to the altars of the Religious Right points to something more vital and troubling:

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

But it isn't. If I were a betting man, I'd point out that the reason women's rights were expendable in this case has much to do with the following qualification: poor. Public funding for women's health is, of course, for poor women. Pelosi's daughters don't have to worry about trips to the OB/GYN.

But this bill also represents forward momentum for LGBTQ (disproportionally represented among the homeless) rights as Michael A. Jones at Change.org points out:

The bill is historic, and it's a piece of legislation that LGBT rights supporters are celebrating for several good reasons. Among those reasons include provisions that categorize LGBT people as a "health disparities population," ensuring that down the road, data collection and grant programs can focus on health concerns uniquely experienced by the LGBT population in this country.

And that's only the tip of this good news iceberg.

The Human Rights Campaign's Backstory blog breaks this bill down as imperfect, but largely good for the LGBT rights movement. In addition to the health disparities language mentioned above, the bill will also end an unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose.

Wonderful. Now the Senate. Just let me know when I can move to the desert.

Image courtesy of the New York Times. Caption: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic leadership at a Capitol news conference after the health care vote.

Read more...

News: Fighting Criminalization of Homelessness

Homelessness is illegal. Have you heard? By that, I don't mean to say any member of congress has the audacity to suggest a bill guaranteeing housing as required by Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

As an American, suggesting something as reasonable as this would be a little stupid. Here, thanks to a firm belief in possessive individualism, it's the individual citizen's responsibility/fault if, say, the market fails to provide infrastructure necessary to support its consumers.

Consider Boise, Idaho. There, a camping law prohibits citizens from sleeping in public spaces at night. There are other details, but that's the gist. Who else but the homeless would this target? How interesting- I always feel this itch behind my ear before a begin to hear a distant voice chanting "Equal Protection Clause." Probably best to ignore it.

But not everyone is. Victims of this camping ticket legislation fought back with a lawsuit against the city. From the Associated Press:

On any given night, the suit contends, between 2,000 and 4,500 people are homeless in Idaho's capital city, and only about 700 of them will be able to get a bed or a mat on the floor in one of the area's shelters. The others have no choice but to violate city ordinances against camping or sleeping in public, the filing states.

This is one of many cases of a growing and increasingly organized resistance to laws that target the homeless. According to Tulin Ozdegre, legal advocate with the National Center on Homelessness and Poverty:

Many communities around the country are seeing a dramatic rise in the number of homeless people, and most cities don't have the resources to meet the need. Currently we're involved in a couple other lawsuits as well: In St. Petersburg, Fla., we're challenging a number of laws and practices there targeting homeless people. And we have another lawsuit in the city of Dallas with a different twist, over a law that restricts groups from sharing food with homeless people in public spaces.

Excellent work. More is needed. Legal attacks on the civil rights of the poor and homeless are also enforced in Hawaii, Portland, Santa Barbara. The New York Times, "New laws prohibiting loitering have increased 11 percent and bans on public camping are up 7 percent, according to a survey of more than 200 cities and towns by the National Coalition for the Homeless. Grass-roots meanness is too often on display." So-called progressive towns aren't excluded from this embarrassing trend. Here in Boulder, Colorado, home of the sustainable living movement, there are a little over 1100 homeless in the county and 1 shelter of 160 beds. You do the math. Meanwhile, it's illegal to sleep outside a home in the county. This isn't only unjust, it's irrational.

What could the real reasons be? It certainly doesn't make sense from the standpoint of fiscal responsibility- good luck getting money from someone who's been ticketed for having nothing. Add to this court costs, jail time, and this homelessness quick fix appears to be something less than logical. Camping ticket legislation and other measures are hurried and childish attempts at making invisible the wrong side of the American dream.

Consider the case of a woman homeless in a small town near Sioux Falls, South Dakota. There, the ubiquitous presence of sole homeless citizen Deb Leichtnam prompted city leaders to pass a law making it illegal to sleep in cars. Here's a lovely quote from one of the town fathers, attorney Steve Smith:

"I see Deb walking, and I see someone who makes me feel uncomfortable." He compares that uneasiness to what one might experience when visiting a friend dying in a hospital, "someone you know is less fortunate than you."

There you have it. Laws against the poor are there because many just want the underclass out of sight. Meanwhile, strength to the homeless in Boise. If you feel inspired by the struggle against laws targeting people who can't fight back, contact the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and lend a hand.

Image courtesy of the Argus Leader. Caption: Deb Leichtnam lives in a motel in Chamberlain. But when it closes for the season later this month, she will return to something she's done before - sleeping in her car. The city of Chamberlain wants to make that illegal. (Elisha Page / Argus Leader)

Read more...

News: Sacramento Pushes Housing First While Massachusetts Cuts Services

The Sacramento Bee reports their mayor has responded to this year's furor over tent cities, massive homelessness, and a statewide economic apocalypse with a plan to increase total beds in the city:

At an event that resembled a raucous pep rally, Johnson and other leaders kicked off the "Sacramento Steps Forward" initiative, with a goal of establishing and fully funding 2,400 housing units for homeless people during the next three years.

Sounds good. But Tom Armstrong at the Sacramento Homeless blog isn't so sure:

Unconscionably, the mayor is getting high praise for his promise to bring 2400 units of housing to conquer homelessness, but brings only his (cow) pie in the sky, and no pathway to show how it can happen. It is also, to my mind, NOT the way to go in the first place, and foolish because there is no route for pulling together a constituency for such a mammoth and expensive scheme to make it achievable. Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE. The impossible doesn't happen.

Armstrong knows his SacPol better than I, but methinks Mayor Johnson might still have something here. Yes, 2400 beds is a big jump with no concrete plan in mind. Then again, there's massive financial support for the Housing First model that he proposes. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, Boston's nearly 8,000 homeless were given the middle finger yesterday by state legislators and bureaucrats who "trimmed" their budget in this time of crisis by reducing subsidies for shelter beds. From the Boston Globe:

Boston plans to eliminate nearly 20 percent of the beds at the city’s largest homeless shelter, the first time it has made such cuts. Cape Cod’s largest shelter expects to end its day program, meaning dozens of people are likely to spend their days wandering in the cold. Officials at the largest provider of homeless services in Western Massachusetts intend to cut their shelter’s security detail.

Highlighting a choice to cut security tail doesn't exactly illustrate the impact of the cuts, Sir Boston Globe. But this does:

“People who have nothing - no roof over their heads, no clothes on their backs, and little hope of life being different - you don’t take away from those people,’’ [St. Francis Executive Director Karen] LaFrazia said. “That is unconscionable and speaks of our values and what kind of society we are.’’

Well said.

Image courtesy of the Boston Globe. Caption: A food line was set up at St. Francis House on Boylston Street in Boston. Officials there are looking at closing one day a week or ending the breakfast and clothing donation programs. (David L. Ryan/ Globe Staff)

Read more...

News: St Louis City Employees Trash Homeless Possessions

Caption: Clint Smith, 38, was only able to retrieve his umbrella before being stopped by a park ranger as he arrived in Interco Plaza on his bicycle to find sanitation workers clearing the makeshift living quarters of homeless people from the park. The small plaza is at the intersection of Tucker Boulevard and Martin Luther King Drive. Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

About 10 a.m. Thursday, journalists watched as the rangers and parks workers ignored pleading from the homeless and their advocates and threw their belongings into a parks department compacting truck, then crushed the belongings.

Bill Siedhoff, director of the Department of Human Services, characterized the action taken by city park rangers as a "disturbing" display of disrespect for homeless people who had been camping in a small park near the St. Patrick's Center.

Disturbing wasn't the word that came to mind. Revolting maybe. Also: detestable, loathsome, abominable, godawful, monstrous, shocking and so on (Thanks Merriam-Webster!).



Today, the mayor of St Louis, Missouri, Francis G. Slay (above), apologized for the cruelty of his park rangers:

Yesterday was a low point in the City’s hospitality. Badly supervised City employees callously destroyed the possessions of some homeless people who had chosen to camp illegally and for a extended period of time in a public park outside the windows of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Relocating people from public parks and other locations is not an unusual occurrence. It happens regularly, and it is part of a continuum of efforts to get people off the streets and into permanent, safe, supportive housing. What is unusual – and wrong – is bringing a garbage truck and using it.

That said, Mayor Slay wasn't able to make this apology without promoting a largely false and unfortunate myth, that creating a working continuum of care for the homeless attracts more homeless. The argument, frequently, is that having attractive and supportive services invites more homeless. Here's Mayor Slay in his own words:

A side effect of having a good program – combined with the general abdication of responsibility by many surrounding municipalities – is that St. Louis , particularly, downtown St. Louis draws almost all of the region’s homeless here. If you wanted to be homeless in Ladue, where would you go?

In other words, he's saying, "Real sorry for the mistake. But you understand, erm, since no one else is helping us help the homeless, there are swarms of them here and you'll just have to forgive us for fucking up now and again." Maybe so.

But whining about regional social service constraints is a distraction. The real issue here is that the average city employee believes she has a right to trash someone's belongings without warning. This reflects a clear sense that many citizens believe the homeless to be a nuisance and without worth.

That's a clue about something larger. There's a missing piece to the nationwide movement to address homelessness more aggressively. It's about culture. Many of us sincerely believe that if the poor find themselves without homes, it's their own damn fault. Persecution of the poor is justified, in other words. A cultural interject like that can't go without far-reaching rebuttal.

Mayor Slay's apology is a feeble beginning. More is needed. To end homelessness, we have to change hearts too. We have to work toward ending all forms of marginalization in order to create a more inclusive and open society. There's no room for social violence in that world.

But St. Louis officials may not agree. Consider another wrinkle to the story. St. Louis has a history of mistreating its homeless. The city was sued after homeless people were cleared from the streets for 4th of July celebrations in 2004. The destruction of the belongings of these citizens is in direct violation of this agreement. According to the Post-Dispatch:

The agreement could explain why a city officials, acting on behalf of Mayor Francis Slay, admitted that the parks department rangers "had screwed up" when they took a garbage truck to Interco Plaza at North Tucker Boulevard and Martin Luther King Drive to throw away, then crush the belongings of homeless who had been living in tents just outside the St. Patrick's Center for the homeless.

But is it really that surprising that these things happen? When cities criminalize poverty and homelessness, is it really a stretch to believe some people will go the extra mile to express this? More from the Post-Dispatch:

Clint Smith, 38, who is homeless, rode up on his bicycle begging the rangers to return his belongings. Instead, the rangers turned on the compacting device in the truck and crushed everything that Smith owned. He was only able to save an umbrella.

It gets worse:

"Oh, man," Smith said to the rangers. "That was my medicine. That was my stuff. Oh, man. What a waste."

Shit.

Read more...