Action Alert: Safe Haven Under Attack

The Tent Community is Submitted by anonymous on July 9, 2009 - 4:12pm.

The Tent Community is supported by the UCIMC as well it should.  They currently are being removed from tents at the Catholic Worker House because of zoning issues.  Where could they move that would provide them the dignity and safety that all desire?  They currently are pitching tents in a backyard area that is no larger that 900 square feet with no running water and restroom.  Who has the desire, motivation and the facility to accommodate this population of 10-15 with the possiblity of more to come.  As well, the Gateway displaced an equal number of men, women and children with no place to sustain themselves according to information received from the UCIMC.  Solution?  Of course.  Currently the UCIMC is offering more than 3488 square feet of space in their building with at least 4 restrooms with access to transportation hubs.  This space is currently empty and would provide heat, air conditioning and water to a needy group of people.  The area could easily house the 10-15 homeless with the ability to provide for even more if they would simply open their doors to them. 

As Paul indicates "These people have nothing and all you can offer them is a waiting list?? We have to do better than that."

Why? There is room at the inn, Paul!

 

Chris Watson wants to know "How can concerned citizens of CU respond to this incident, and more importantly to supporting the Tent Community in its future endeavors?"

Well Chris, that is easy.  Open your UCIMC doors, right now, for them.  Put your words to action and open the door for this population before it is too late.

"There are institutions, collectives, special interest groups, and individuals working on the housing issue in Champaign, whose involvement and assistance would make a difference to the vitality of the tent community."  Yes there are kbishop, and what is the UCIMC doing except providing the example for the rest of the community. 

What should I be doing that you will not.  Isn't that the question for all of us.

I sent the memo below to the Champaign City Council via email. This is in regards to the Safe Haven Tent community next to the Catholic Workers House.

Date: July 10, 2009

To: Champaign City Council

From: Martha “Marti” Wilkinson

Re: Safe Haven and Affordable Housing

My parents moved to Champaign in the early 1970’s for one simple reason: The community had services available for my brother who became disabled after sustaining brain damage from an illness. The small town we lived in did not provide any resources for individuals in my parent’s situation so relocation ended up being the best option. My parents still live in the community; they pay taxes, and are retired. As for my brother, he has worked for several years as a dishwasher; he lives in an apartment, and has been helped by DSC in his efforts to live independently. These ‘social services’ have made it possible for my family to be in the position they are today.

The reason why I am bringing up my family history is to illustrate, in part, how I have come to understand that people face challenges and often need help in getting back on track. This is the case with the people who are currently living in the “Safe Haven” tent city behind the Catholic Worker House. People end up without a place to live for a variety of reasons and homelessness becomes an invisible thread that is woven into the tapestry of our community. As a graduate student in Communication Studies I can appreciate the rhetorical strategies that a tent city is able to accomplish by making the situation faced by homeless individuals visible and hard to ignore. Unfortunately I also see the city I have lived in for many years respond in a way that saddens me.

As a long-term resident of Champaign I have been very disappointed by some of the decisions that have been made by the city council. I have seen the council vote in favor of landlords who wish to reject Section 8 vouchers as a source of income. I have also seen the council cut funding to vital services which, in part, contributed to the closing of the Urban League. Additionally, the manner in which the situation at Gateway Studios was handled has been nothing short of appalling. Now, according the news reports, the Catholic Worker House is facing condemnation and fines over the Safe Haven community. It’s as if the place is being punished for trying to give people a way to live with some dignity and safety. My concern is I don’t want the community to lose another vital resource due to a combination of politics-as-usual and a lack of compassion.

It is my hope that the city council can embrace this situation as an opportunity to do something constructive in regards to this situation. I hope that our elected city representatives can take it upon themselves to meet with the Safe Haven community outside of council chambers. Additionally, I would like to see this community develop ways in which people can have access to safe and affordable housing. From a business perspective investing in people can yield many returns by having residents who are able to live, work, and pay taxes. It also benefits the city by keeping people off of the streets and out of trouble. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

To  anonymous on July 10, 2009 - 9:47am. I want to clarify a misunderstanding. The Tent Community is not supported by UCIMC as an organization. There are members of UCIMC, and other activist groups that assemble at UCIMC,  in support of the Tent Community. There is a significant difference. Some of these same members are members of organizations throughout our community, such as the Food Coop, AWARE, CUCPJ, local arts organizations, etc. I suspect some of them frequent our local restaurants and retail shops. Who are you to demand that one organization open its doors when some of its members and tenants act on behalf of a group in need? Think about it. 

Ms. Dodds is correct in that she did support the continuance of Section 8 as a source of income and I was there when she was amongst the minority votes in that discussion. As for the other information she shared I leave it up to the readers to either agree or disagree.

 

Dear Ms. Wilkinson,

I appreciate your letter. Thank you for writing it. I also appreciate your concern and am glad you have chosen to take your time and effort to help the homeless. 
I am a little concerned that some of what is in your letter is incorrect. For example, the City had no role in the closing of the Urban League. That came about because of some improprieties in state fund usage which resulted in a loss of that funding. I also think that while Gateway Studios was a mess, it wasn't appalling. Most of the people who lived at Gateway Studios were helped by the City to new (and in several cases improved and permanent) housing. Most got refunds, again because of a lot of effort by City staff. I don't, of course, mean to imply that everything the City did was perfect or that there is nothing to learn from what happened at Gateway Studios. I simply mean to suggest that rhetorical strategies can sometimes be used to incorrectly simply complex issues.
So it is, again, with the inspection of the Catholic Worker's House. Safe Haven opened up Catholic Worker's House to inspectors; the inspectors found some serious code violations. Personally, I am unhappy that the City has been so remiss in these inspections. I find it disrespectful that we have allowed the poor and homeless to live in a less safe environment than we would those with more money and resources.  Like you, I don't want the City to lose a vital resource in CWH either. But neither do I want to lose a life if a fire breaks out in what is an admittedly older and overcrowded building. Being poor does not mean one has to live in a potentially dangerous place, and providing aid to the poor does not exempt an organization from also providing a safe environment. When children are involved, extra care and precautions should be taken.
I strongly supported the inclusion of Section 8 as a protected source of income and I have supported bringing more affordable housing downtown. The full Council did not. But even without those initiatives, the City has worked to address the needs of the affordable housing. There have been initiatives and developments which I have supported but which haven't passed the full Council, but even without those, the City has redeveloped the Beardsley Park and Douglass Park areas and it is working to keep Garden HIlls a stable and safe neighborhood (among many other programs.) We are also creating a rent-assistance program (which should come to Council for approval soon.)
Thank you, again, for your letter.
Sincerely,
Marci Dodds

The problem with a site in Urbana, rather than Champaign is that the Catholic Worker House and social services that provide food are in Champaign, not Urbana.  As stated by the residents of Safe Haven, this would provide a difficulty with travel, even with the bus service.

A much more functional site would be in Champaign, rather than Urbana for myriad reasons that the SHTC stated at open meeting which you are more than welcome to attend if you're interested in their work, rather than just using them as a roundabout way to attack the IMC.

since when did camping become illegal?  people have lived in tents for centuries, and modern-day americans still PAY for the priviledge of going camping somewhere?  so what is sooooooo wrooooooong with camping? 

this city, county, and state have been absolutely awful during these crises of foreclosures, unemployment, homelessness, medical care, and more. 

i called to ask for section 8 vouchers or county housing and was told that the waiting list was 5 years.  FIVE YEARS !?!?!?!  i tried calling last week even for any kind of temporary assistance because the food stamps people said to call the township, and i was told that nothing was available because the state's budget has not been passed.

so WHAT are homeless people who have asked for help, tried to find affordable housing like gateway studios that was closed down on them, tried to work or take care of families or got sick or whatever - WHAT ARE THEY TO DO?

i say that there should be a massive civil disobedience on the night of the 17th july, pick a city park - not private property - and do a massive camp-out.  it is perfectly ok to civilly disobey BAD LAWS.  and then, if the police want to arrest everyone, they can be taken to the jail where the people will have a roof, food, and showers - and the police can have a big black eye in the media.

everyone can camp out, whether you have a home or not, or whether you even have a tent or not.  make it a statement that people NEED HELP, and that the cities of champaign and urbana can work together to help alleviate some of the pain. 

if the citizenry of the county really do not like tent cities or homelessness, then tell them to step up the funding to the townships or the county for rental assistance, medical care assistance, etc.

if the citizenry who right now have the good fortune to still have their jobs and their houses and cars and their health, then i would hope that they will help a little more and quit being so above it all.

My grandsons are here for the weekend.  Were we to pitch our tent in the backyard for them no one would protest and the city would not bother them at all.  We live in the SW corner of Champaign.  It is not a question of sleeping outside in a tent.  It is a question of WHO is doing the camping and where they are doing it.  Les Miserables right here in River City!  

Maybe some of these displaced persons can camp at "Prussing's Folly,"  the large open grass and paved areas on the NW corner of Cunningham and University in Urbana.   Restrooms are at McDonalds and Arbys and the laundromat.

Dear Ms. Wilkinson,   I appreciate the time you took to write.  Thank you for sharing your family's history in our community.   Homelessness is truly a sad issue. Most who find themselves in that position do not choose it for themselves or their families. I realize that as a community we have shelters, but those shelters are not large enough to accommodate everyone who needs help. When Gateway Studios closed, I personally went there along with City Staff to help those residents relocate. I spoke with several residents. I have gone to motels to help with groceries and help secure rooms for those who found themselves in need of housing. Gateway Studios did provide a roof over their heads, but it was not ideal. It also is a private business. The City can only go so far in regulating it. I feel that staff is doing what is necessary in that process now. It is up to the owners to decide the path they want to take in either remediating the violations or something else.

 

As far as Safe Haven is concerned, I have driven down Cottage Street. I attended the neighborhood meeting with the Safe Haven residents, neighborhood residents, Catholic Worker House Board members, and City staff. The tents are in direct violation of our City codes. Those codes are in place to protect all citizens in our community. I know that one of the residents of Safe Haven has admitted choosing “homelessness” as a way of life which is a different ballgame from those forced into homelessness. In that event, I cannot support his reasoning for setting up the Safe Haven. As far as the code “criminalizing” the behavior, our codes were in place first. So it is up to the persons involved to make sure they are following them. As far as I could tell, Catholic Worker House volunteers were unaware that Safe Haven was in violation of the codes. But after knowing it, I know that they will work it out. The residents who live along Cottage are also entitled to have their rights protected. I heard their stories of feeling unsafe in their own homes. Their rights need to be acknowledged and observed.

 

I sincerely would like to have more available housing available to all who need it. As a Council we can only go so far. It is up to the private sector to make housing available. I have a booklet entitled, “Pocket Resource Guide” printed by the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission-Social Service Division, 1776 E. Washington, Urbana, 328-3313. It contains information such as Housing Providers, Shelter Providers and Services, Employment Resources, Financial Assistance, etc. It is forty-one pages of information. Citizens may call them or go to Brookens to pick one up.

 

Our Council cares about the citizens of Champaign. We want to make sure that the proper channels are followed. We cannot cherry-pick which codes to follow and which ones to ignore. That would not make the residents comfortable with the government. So I, personally, will try to do what I can in our community whether through financial giving to shelters or other means to try to help the homelessness situation.   I hope that you will continue to share your views.   Sincerely,  

Karen Foster

 

I think Foster has a little bit too much trust in the private sector. If all privately owned places were managed properly and ethically we wouldn't even be talking about places like Gateway. Many people who own rental properties do make an effort to adhere to the ordinances and code issues in our community. Yet there are also stories such as one that Esther Pratt shared where a landlord intentionally shut off water to one of his buildings to force an eviction on paying tenants.

There are also the barriers that many working poor people have to housing. It's not unusual for many landlords to require prospective tenants to pass credit checks and to not spend more than 1/3 of their income on rent. In the event this is not possible a renter may need to have someone who is willing to co-sign on a lease. In my own particular situation if I wanted to rent a place I would probably be denied. It is, perhaps, a good thing I bought my home when my own credit was still good.

 

Again, the SHTC stated that they would like to stay in Champaign and that they would like to stay together as a community and not be broken up.   Something you'd know if you actually cared about the issue and weren't just angling for some line to attack the supporters of SHTC.

As usual you continue to miss the point with your myopic one sided view of the world.  The world is not only about what you and I or the SHTC want.  It is about compromising making the best of the end result not the activist journey.  See, you and I have shelter. The SHTC will not in a few days.  That being the case, why are you opposed to alternative solutions.  While I try to provide solutions, regardless of how viable you believe they are, you continue to set them up to be without shelter without discussion of where they could go.  I suggest others taking them in and you answer they want to stay in Champaign.  I suggest the IMC and you continue to answer they only want to stay in Champaign.  Who is angling for some line to attack others?  I would suggest that given your inflexibility, you are.  Again, they are not going to be able to remain at the CCH house, now any other alternatives you want to discuss, or do you just want to continue to push YOUR cause on the backs of the homeless.  If you can't discuss this issue without the constant activist company line, maybe you should step aside. 

I don't have a problem with anyone doing anything on their own property as long as it doesn't interfere with others enjoying their own property.  Once the neighbors start complaining about your guests it's time for the government to step in.  I would say the neighbors have been more than tolerant over the years, and they shouldn't have to put up with a tent city, no matter how utopian the residents claim it is.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts on this issue which touches many lives in our community.   Deb Feinen

 

Dear All,

I am encouraging you to attend the meeting of the Champaign City Council tonight at 7.  It will be a relatively short formal meeting, and then a session when the community can speak.

I am going to speak about the intimidation that the Tent Community has been subjected to by the Champaign police.  It is not something that can be tolerated by the community.  I got a call at around 10 pm on Sunday that there was a huge police presence in the neighbor's yard that was intimidating to both the Tent City and the Catholic Workers House.  When Jane and I arrived there were at least 4 (soon to become 5) police cars parked very near and in clear view of the Safe Haven Tent City.  As punishment for my showing up and being seen with the Tent and Catholic Workers people, I got a ticket for having a portion of my tires on the "side walk."  This is very narrow, more of an alley than a street, there is no curb, and it was night and difficult to see the dividing line between what is the "street," and the "sidewalk" which no one uses as a sidewalk.  This was clear retaliation and punishment for my being there.  Officer Bloom, who is the officer that had charged Jesse of the Tent City with assault against an officer when Jesse tossed his cell phone to a friend to photograph himself being ticketed by the police, approached Jane and me to discuss what was go ing up that night.  We had quite a lengthy discussion that was nonantagonistic, although I did point out that there was a similar intimidating and reprisal aspect to his charging Jesse with assault and my ticket for parking on the "sidewalk."  Also, just before Officer Bloom began his conversation with Jane and me and when Jesse came near us, Officer Bloom went out of his way to tell Jesse that he had looked him up on Facebook and learned a lot of things about him.  After 20 or 25 minutes of discussing the situation in a very civil manner, Officer Bloom out of the blue accused me of being a "Fascist."  Needless to say, both because of his previous civil demeanor and because of his choice of words, both Jane and I were very taken aback.  I asked him why he used such a charged word to characterize me and what he meant by it.  At that point, he accused me of belittling him, or treating him like a schoolboy who needed to explain what he meant by a word.  He said that he could not continue the conversation and went back to the group of officers who had been watching us chat from a distance.

A lot of city money went into police intimidation that night.  I think that the city council needs to be aware of how that money was spent, and how much better it would be to put it into housing the homeless.

I hope to see you tonight at the meeting.

Belden

My original email which I sent varying ones out to each Council member...

 

City Council Member Dodds -

My name is Neil Parthun.  I live at 705 E. Colorado #105 in Urbana.

While I am not a resident of Champaign, there is much interaction between our two cities and policies taken by one city often impact residents in the other.

I am writing to urge your support for the Safe Haven tent community.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/2009/07/12/champaign_county_no_stranger...

The July 12 News Gazette (linked to story) had an excellent piece about the crisis in Champaign and Champaign County.  Please take a moment to read and reflect on the data in this article.  It clearly shows that people can do everything expected of them and still have no guarantee for housing and a comfortable life.

Transitional centers in Champaign are overburdened and significantly under budget.  In the aftermath of Gateway Studios, it was laudable that $200 was given out to residents by the United Way and lists of available assistance was also distributed.  However, these are not sufficient solutions to deal with the housing crisis.  Within Champaign County, I know of at least two families (parents of students I taught) who received aid and still, despite their best efforts and earnings, have not been able to find permanent housing after their apartment building closed.

The City of Champaign has essentially criminalized homelessness.  Anywhere a homeless person puts their head down to sleep is technically committing an illegal act.  Where should the homeless go so they will be in compliance with the law, given that the current social services are not adequately equipped to handle such a heavy demand?

If one chooses to camp alone in the City, it is very dangerous.  They risk their safety/well being, their belongings which could possibly be stolen and risk their camping site as it could be taken from them by police, another homeless person, etc.

Safe Haven developed organically and democratically as a grassroots solution to the housing crisis in the community.  It provides a safe and dignified option for these people.  The City of Champaign currently has no alternatives and yet is demanding the dismantling of Safe Haven by July 17.

While I understand the concerns of current residents having spoken with them at length last night, the City could and should be able and willing to engage in an honest look at reworking the zoning laws and finding a more permanent place that Safe Haven could stay together in a dignified, safe environment.  The current "Get out by July 17" action does none of the above.

The City's action will only increase the pressure on the police which will divert their attention from more pressing issues.  It will not solve the issue of homelessness within the City.  It will only exacerbate the problem and leave the most vulnerable open for more victimization and danger.

Given this, I have these questions:

1) Given that the transition centers are full and are overwhelmed after having their funding slashed, where do you suggest the residents of Safe Haven go after Friday, July 17?  What alternative(s) does the City have to provide a safe, dignified solution to this issue?

2) The City has known about code violations at Gateway going back to 2007, yet City inspectors were not dispatched.  However, City inspectors were dispatched surprisingly (even a surprise according to the fire department inspectors) to the Catholic Worker House.  This gives the appearance of selective enforcement of the law and even the idea of retribution since the Catholic Worker House agreed to host Safe Haven.  This perception is troubling and only serves to delegitimize the government in the eyes of the public.  One of the city council members even said that the hosting of Safe Haven invited these sort of intense inspections at the Catholic Worker House.  What do you have to say about this perception that members of the public have based on the appearance of these facts?

3) It is a given that the current structures are not sufficient to meet the housing problems that are only increasing in Champaign and Champaign County.  Would you support looking at re-working zoning laws to address the changes that are occurring in Champaign County?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

 

Council Member Dodds' response...

Dear Mr. Parthun,

I read the article and had, in fact, reflected on it. I appreciate that you assumed I hadn't. 

As you assuredly already know, I have been a strong supporter of issues that concern the poor. Even so, I disagree with your conclusion that the City of Champaign has criminalized homelessness. Tent City was illegal from the beginning  - not only in Champaign but also in Urbana and Champaign County - and the fact that it wasn't immediately shut down attests to the seriousness with which the City of Champaign takes this issue. Just because one solution presented - and acted upon - wasn't legal doesn't translate to criminalizing homelessness.

To answer your questions:

2. I am appalled it took us so long to inspect the Catholic Workers House (and, for that matter, Gateway Studios). Much has been made about the safety of the homeless - indeed you do so in your letter below, several times, - yet there are serious code violations at Catholic Workers House (more specifically, the annex) which imperil just that safety. To make the case that the poor have no right to live in a building that is up to code, or that providing aid to the poor exempts one from providing a safe environment isn't acceptable.

3. The City of Champaign and Champaign County are two different entities. They often get used interchangeably, which is sloppy. The homeless problem in Champaign County is not the same as the homeless problem in the City of Champaign, just as neither is the same as Urbana, Rantoul, Mahomet, Tolono, or Philo. That said, the question itself is not really specific enough to answer, even for the City of Champaign alone. What zoning laws? What changes?  What are you proposing that I think about?

And that brings me to your first question. I don't have an answer to that, in part because every situation is different and because the need is short-term but the solutions, at least in the City of Champaign, tend to be longer-term. The two do intersect - the City has created affordable housing, there is turnover at social service agencies, there is affordable housing in towns other than Champaign, to name a few - but they don't always intersect at the right time or in the right way to be viable solutions for every situation. And it doesn't change the fact that the City of Champaign could certainly use more affordable housing.

All concerned citizens need to help address this issue and do so not only creatively, but also with an understanding for the sometimes competing interests which make up a City. For example, you write that you have spoken to the neighbors of Tent City and that you understand their concerns. They have born with something for almost  six weeks that they didn't want, didn't ask for, and that makes them feel less safe and dignified. Yet, your only solution to the problem of the neighbors is to ask us to move tent city somewhere else (a solution that you elsewhere in your letter criticize us for.) Where do you suggest it be moved? You live in Urbana - is there a more permanent place there? How about Savoy? And what happens if those neighbors don't want it?

And how temporary is Tent City? If it's temporary, then all that happens is that the problem of housing is postponed for a summer. If it's not temporary, then you are really suggesting that the City set up a complete community with less permanent, less weather-resistant housing than a building, a community that is, I presume, immune from taxes, codes, and sewer charges but not immune from taking advantage of whatever City services might be needed.

I thank you for your letter and your willingness to be involved and to care.

Sincerely,

Marci Dodds

 

My subsequent response

 

Council Member Dodds -

First, let me apologize that you took my comment to imply that you did not read the News Gazette.  It was not my intention to imply that.  I appreciate your time.  Please let me clarify a few things.

For the many homeless that do not have access to transitional centers, their homelessness has essentially been made a criminal act.  By sleeping in public, the homeless are committing a criminal offense that can be punishable by arrest.  The City has also criminalized panhandling which removes an option that the most desperate homeless utilize.  When I discussed homelessness being criminalized, this is what I was picturing and describing.

As for the code violations at the Catholic Worker House, I would suggest the sort of relationship that the City has with landlords where the city works with landlords to rectify code violations.  I am in the process of getting data from community development about this history to better articulate the suggestion.  This would allow the building to meet code regulations and stay open to serve the public.

The homelessness problem in Champaign is different than other places in Champaign County but it also has many similarities.  I've taught in Rantoul so I've had experience with their housing issues as they have directly impacted my classroom.  In my work with Rantoul, Champaign and Urbana, I've seen the distinct issues facing each community but also the multiple overlaps -- mainly the increasing prevalence of housing precarity in these cities and the County in general.  This is something in common and needs to be addressed.

The desire for Safe Haven, according to the members of Safe Haven, is to stay in Champaign near the soup kitchen.  Urbana or other cities mentioned were not a good option due to transportation issues as well as many Safe Haven residents have support circles that are in Champaign.

So, the question remains -- where should we put Safe Haven?  To answer your query, I would suggest that it could feasibly be moved within the City of Champaign to a site that would have less problems with neighbors as an option.  If it stays in its current place, grassroots discussion between neighbors and  Safe Haven could take place to ensure a safe, dignified community while addressing neighbor concerns about noise and safety.  As I said at tonight's meeting, I believe the root cause of the disagreement between the neighbors and Safe Haven is the communication problems.  There is a great opportunity to build community here and I am pleased that you have taken the time to be engaged in this issue.

Neil;

I will hold the sarcasm to make a serious observation about your tactics with City officials.  Your "in your face" attitude and tactics only continue to damage your credibility regarding helping the homeless.  It is clear from the responses from Council members that you have lost their support, in addition the support of the Champaign community is clearly not behind you in mass.  You cannot force this issue down their throats.  I would suggest if you are serious about solving the Tent Community issue that you get serious about compromising.  Talk about other locations, stop demanding that the City solve it for you and get your people out to find other places that might be more appropriate.  In addition, look at your actions long term.  The battle that you are about to lose affects about ten people, yet your actions and those who also in this limited battle, are about to lose the war.  The CWH is very close to closing its doors for all services.  That means that not only will the Tent Community be eliminted but the shelter and food bank is very close to being deemed unfit for habitation as well.  Now, for the battle for ten people you are about to shut down 150 hungry people and shelter for almost 15 more in the shelter.  I hope you care enough to consider your actions and the actions of your group.   

After watching the Council meeting I am really thinking that you made another tactical error believing that both the police and the neighbors don't have an equal numbers of supporter on this issue.  Votes count Neil, and those making the decision just heard from a overwhelming number of anti- Tent Community VOTERS.  Again, if you really want to help this population, you and yours should stay out of it, you have no credibility.  Seriously, let Jesse or the CWH work with the City.  In the end, the losers will be the recipients of the CWH services.  And that will be your fault.

CWH is not going to be shut down. Dozens of people in this community have offered their labor and time to address the violations.

 

An appeal is being filed which will further the date of Safe Haven's displacement.

 

There are many people taking responsibility to address the issues of homelessness, lack of affordable housing, police intimidation, and others. This is how a community responds; we can't wait on slow bureaucracy when disadvantaged people are self organizing and empowering their lives through this struggle.

I realize that this is very hard for you to believe, but Brian, Neil and Belden are a far cry from Jesus, Gandhi and MLK.  They had the ability to state facts, convey a message, and win over others.  These guys can't.  Jesus, Gandhi and MLK talked the talked and walked the walk.

"An appeal is being filed which will further the date of Safe Haven's displacement."

Temporary at best.  When August comes and the CWH closed for the month, so shall the Tent Community.  CWH will not risk the $750.00 per day fine.  As indicated several time by folks on this site, find another spot, this one will not work.

It appears that everything activists do is always a mis-step or not the right decision, according to Anon.

 

I have a feeling that if we walked on water, Anon. would be the first one to comment on the story saying "SEE! THEY DIDN'T SWIM!"

Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities

The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) and the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) released a report today, Homes Not Handcuffs, tracking a growing trend in U.S. cities – the criminalization of homelessness. The report focuses on specific city measures from 2007 and 2008 that have targeted homeless persons, such as laws that make it illegal to sleep, eat, or sit in public spaces. The report includes information about 273 cities nationwide.

Homes Not Handcuffs also ranks the top 10 U.S. cities with the worst practices in relation to criminalizing homelessness.

The national ranking is based on a number of factors, including the number of anti-homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws, the general political climate toward homeless people in the city, and the city’s history of criminalization measures.

In addition to the “meanest cities,” the report identifies examples of more constructive approaches to homelessness.

NLCHP and NCH released their last joint report on the topic in 2006. In the 224 cities surveyed in both this report and the 2006 report, there are currently more laws used to target homeless persons, including an 11% increase in laws prohibiting loitering in certain public places and a 7% increase in laws prohibiting “camping” in certain public spaces.

Maria Foscarinis, NLCHP Executive Director, noted, “Homelessness in America is a human rights crisis right here at home. As foreclosures continue and the recession deepens, the crisis is affecting more and more Americans. But while some cities offer a helping hand, too often, as documented in our report, cities adopt unjust laws and practices that punish people simply for being poor and homeless.”

“As a result of the economic crisis, homelessness is on the rise. Instead of helping to prevent homelessness, many cities are criminalizing those who lose their homes by passing ‘quality of life’ laws,” said Michael Stoops, Executive Director at NCH.

While more cities are cracking down on homeless people living in public spaces, the housing and homelessness crisis in the United States has worsened over the past two years, particularly due to the current economic and foreclosure crises. According to a report released last week by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 41.8% of the homeless population was unsheltered between January 2007 and January 2008. Most cities do not have adequate shelter space or affordable housing to meet the need, leaving many homeless persons with no choice but to live in public spaces.

“Criminalizing homelessness is not only an inhumane way of approaching people who are poor and vulnerable, but is counterproductive in dealing with the problem of homelessness,” said Tulin Ozdeger, NLCHP Civil Rights Program Director. “It costs more to jail a person than it does to provide permanent supportive housing.”

The report also includes information about costs studies examining criminalization measures, constitutional challenges to measures that criminalize homelessness, how criminalization measures violate human rights law, as well as constructive alternatives to criminalization.

The report recommends that cities adopt constructive measures, such as developing innovative strategies to allocate more city funds for permanent housing, job training and services for homeless people. In addition, NLCHP and NCH recommend that the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, recently charged by Congress with developing such alternatives, urge cities to stop criminalizing homelessness and adopt such constructive measures instead.

Top Ten Meanest Cities:

1. Los Angeles , CA
2. St. Petersburg . FL
3. Orlando , FL
4. Atlanta , GA
5. Gainesville , FL
6. Kalamazoo
7. San Francisco
8. Honolulu
9. Bradenton
10. Berkeley

To read the report in its entirety, follow this link: http://nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/crimreport_2009.pdf

OH NO.. the PO PO was invited to someones yard ( by the homeowner no doubt) and could WATCH the tent city?  OMG is there no end to this??? You might want to refer to the SUPREME Ct of the US which stated that it was legal to do that.

"A lot of city money went into police intimidation that night.  I think that the city council needs to be aware of how that money was spent, and how much better it would be to put it into housing the homeless."

After listening to the meeting, hearing how pleased the tax paying neighbors were with the police response of 4 officer for 30 minutes, and the support of the City Council for removing the Tent Community, it appears that they were pleased with spending the money for the police to be there.  

Is it true that some of the residents have SERIOUS arrest records one for solicitation of murder and another one has to register weekly as a SEX OFFENDER... is that the type of person (s) who we want to have living at the rear of the CWH and just blocks from a middle school and library?

Don't forget an elementary school that routinely volunteers at the CWH (Holy Cross)!!!

U guys sure don't want to print the TRUTH.  The truth is Jesse lived at his girlfriends house, and was repeatedly asked to get a job by his girlfriends mother, he refused and was asked to leave.  Jesse sleeps most nights at his girlfriends and sleeps at the tent community so he can say he is part of the tent community.  TRUTH is Jesse is lazy, and wants to have a cause. He is a homeless want to be, and actually give the homeless a bad name, as does Adolph Fields.

"Officer Bloom went out of his way to tell Jesse that he had looked him up on Facebook and learned a lot of things about him."

 

I would like to make note that I know Jesse personally and he has never had a facebook account.

 

As for previous statements about his choosing homelessness, it was in order to be able to better understand and help the homeless more. Not to get a free ride. He's been involved with homeless, assisting friends with sheltering them in their own homes, which subsequently allowed for the homeless to get jobs (because, interestingly, it's hard to get a job unless you have an address), which in turn allowed for them to get their own apartments. Jesse's one of the most caring individuals and dedicated worker's I've met. And a great musician to boot.

 

But none of that matters so much as the fact that there are human beings living outside that are having their "certain unalienable rights" being taken away from them. Being harassed by those sworn to serve and protect. What's next? Build a ghetto and force them to live there? Give them a break!

 

The poor have existed for quite some time, now. There is no one solution to this situation. But have some compassion. Don't be afraid of these human beings.

 

It's the fear of the homeless that is creating this situation. If people weren't so afraid, they'd probably be able to hold down a steady job and get their own place.

 

-Anthony Golden

 

 

"It's the fear of the homeless that is creating this situation."

 

Isn't one of these homeless guys a registered offender?  And didn't another one burn down an abortion clinic and then go to prison for violating firearms laws?

If you want them living in your backyard, by all means, invite them.

 

"If people weren't so afraid, they'd probably be able to hold down a steady job and get their own place."

 

Really?  So if I offered Jesse a full-time job, he'd take it?  You know him, you tell me.

Go ahead. Offer him a full time job.

 

And I'd love to invite them into my backyard, had I one.

 

We are not our past. The fact that they're maintaining order should be a sign that they've made the decision to change.

If Charles Manson didn't kill anybody since the seventies and wasn't in prison during that entire time, I'd probably be more okay with it.

 

You're right. I don't have kids. But I've seen kids hanging out with these guys (as there are kids living in the worker house, not having homes of their own. Oh, was that mentioned in these articles? That kids are going to be kicked out if St. Jude is closed down?) and they get along really well with them. And they're never unsupervised, so no need to worry about that.

 

That's an important distinction to make. The fact that they're holding each other accountible.

 

What's your solution to this? "Don't let them camp out" Ok, what's the alternative? Put them in prison? Kick them out of town and make them someone else's problem? At least these "felons" are trying to be responsible.

 

Have you been in the Times Center? Have you experienced the rules, the atmosphere, the sense of endangerment and fear that is experienced?

 

I've seen trust of homeless actually change their lives. When I was sheltering homeless in my own place, drinking stopped. Fighting stopped. It takes patience and compassion to actually make a difference. Not just regulation, order, and a firm hand (it does help, but again, not just these).

 

http://lovinginpoverty.blogspot.com/2008/06/love-by-paul.html