On Thursday -- just one year after the famous wolf Limpy was shot and killed just outside Yellowstone National Park -- President Obama’s pick as Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has taken it upon himself to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Greater Yellowstone, the Northern Rockies and other parts of the American West!
As a result of Salazar’s action, more than 1,000 wolves in Idaho and Montana could be killed by people like Idaho Governor Butch Otter, who recently reaffirmed that he wants to be one of the first to shoot a wolf.
Click on title above to watch our powerful new Northern Rockies wolf video right now and urge President Obama now to restore life-saving protections for our wolves!
Salazar’s decision is a mistake, and we have to let the Obama Administration know it. To send a strong message, we need to generate at least 100,000 messages in support of protections for our wolves before May 4th, when the federal protections are lifted and the wolf killing can resume.
Last year, when the Bush/Cheney Administration briefly eliminated these vital federal protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies, more than 100 of the region’s estimated 1,500 wolves were killed in just a couple of short months, until Defenders succeeded in convincing a federal judge to stop the killing.
Now Secretary Salazar has approved the exact proposal for which the Bush Administration was roundly criticized. And he did so with no consultation with wildlife advocates and with no warning of what he was thinking.
This time, unless this latest decision to remove federal protection from wolves is reversed, even more wolves -- as many of two-thirds of the region’s wolf population -- could be killed. The new wolf rule will also eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves that are only now beginning to return to parts of their historic range in Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Utah.
Take action! Please check out our new video and encourage President Obama to protect our wolves before it is too late.
It will be a tough fight, but I know that with your help we can win and ensure a brighter future for wolves like Limpy.
With Gratitude,
Rodger Schlickeisen
President
Defenders of Wildlife
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
G20 Protesters Attack Cop And Storm RBS Bank
March 31, 2009
Riot police have moved in after an officer was hurt during scuffles between police and G20 demonstrators outside the Bank of England. Skip related content
Windows were smashed at a nearby RBS branch in the City of London and four protesters were seen entering the building, followed shortly afterwards by police.
It came after a protester hit an officer with a large pole during large-scale protests ahead of the summit of world leaders.
Anger at bankers' role in the global economic downturn and frustration at slow progress in tackling climate change prompted thousands to take to the streets in the capital.
Four protest marches converged on the Bank of England after setting off along separate routes as helicopters circled overhead.
A group of officers was forced to retreat behind metal crowd barriers outside the Bank, apparently because of the crush of the crowd in front of them.
Missiles - including fruit - were thrown towards police as red smoke rose above the crowd.
One protester, who was bleeding from a wound to his head, was seen shouting at police officers who had formed a line in front of them.
Another demonstrator dressed in black then ran forward and hit an officer with a pole.
Sky News Online's Alex Watts, at the scene, said police have now cordoned off the area where the attack took place and are not letting anyone in or out.
He said some 50 officers ran in and made arrests.
Scuffles also broke out between police and demonstrators near the Corn Exchange.
Earlier, City workers leaned out of windows and waved £10 notes at demonstrators on the streets below, who responded with jeers and shouts.
Elsewhere, however, the mood has remained largely good-natured.
Protesters set up tents outside the European Climate Exchange for a camp aimed at demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the global approach to tackling climate change.
One of them told Sky News he and his friend had travelled from opposite ends of the country, and hoped to use "peaceful resistance" to stay there for 24 hours.
Another protester, unemployed Adam Lambert, 25, of Finsbury Park, north London, said: "I'm here with the Stop the War Coalition because we think the G20 are not representing the ordinary people in the world.
"We think they are representing the rich.
"Every day we hear of billions being given to bankers and billions are being spent on wars.
"We want to demonstrate today to say we are not going to put up with this and the G20 should represent us.
"I think people are angry and they want to show their anger."
Many shops and businesses closed for the day, while those that remained open braced for violence.
Holly Taylor, a hairdresser at Tony and Guy's at Bank, told Watts: "We're really scared. We're worried about them storming through and getting bombarded.
"We've been told to keep the shop open and we've removed all the fire extinguishers and chairs away from the window.
"We're one of the only shops open. All the offices above us have been empty for the day."
Many City traders dressed down to avoid confrontation with demonstrators, swapping their suits for casual clothes.
Some were told to stay at home, others that they should bring lunch with them to the office.
Simon Denham, head of City finance firm Capital Spreads, told Online: "(It was) an extraordinary trip into work today - not a suit in sight as just about everyone who works in the City, or at least those who haven't stayed at home, came in wearing just jeans and a shirt."
Who Is In The G20?
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Italy
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090401/tuk-g20-protesters-attack-cop-and-storm-45dbed5.htm
Getting Ready for the BigWhoop (G20) U.S. Not L@@kin' So Good Abroad...
US President Barack Obama greets China's State Councilor Dai Bingguo as China's President Hu Jintao (3rd right) greets US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (right) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the US ambassador's residence in London ahead of the G20 summit. (Photo: Reuters)
As much as Barack Obama may be loved abroad, he can't reverse the decline of Washington's influence.
The run-up to the G-20 meeting has been interesting and colorful. President Lula Da Silva of Brazil declared that "this crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing." His full remarks made it clear that he was not promoting biological race theories but calling attention to the injustice that the vast majority of the world, who happen to be both poor and non-white, should suffer for the greed and stupidity of a few. China also let loose with an uncharacteristic broadside against the United States, basically saying that we (the Chinese) have gotten our act together and are mobilizing massive resources internally to counter the downturn; now how about you clowns who made this mess step up to the plate, before we take more losses on your stinking treasury bonds? It was worded somewhat less rudely, but still a stunning departure from the "hide brilliance, cherish obscurity" motto that has guided Chinese foreign policy.
This is what happens when you change the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee to Run the World (the G-7), and the media spotlight wanders over to some of those previously excluded. The change was meant to be symbolic, but even symbolic changes can shift the debate, as new actors find themselves in the middle of an international forum where they can try to show some leadership.
Welcome to the multi-polar world. It's not here yet but the direction is clear. President Obama will discover this week that as much as he is loved and respected around the world, he can't reverse the declining influence of Washington that his predecessor clumsily accelerated.
U.S. leadership is taking an immediate hit because it was at the forefront in creating the current world recession. It's hard to believe that Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency of France barely two years ago by promising to make French capitalism more like the American brand. The idea that the "American model" was superior in economic terms has been promoted for years by the European press even though the statistical evidence has always been weak or non-existent (e.g. France has a productivity level about the same as the United States). But from now on these ideas will be a much harder sell.
Still, the debate surrounding the G-20 meeting is missing quite a bit on the economic issues. The problem of asset bubbles did not even make it into the G-20's draft communiquÈ. Yet the housing bubble in the United States was the primary cause of its deep recession, and contributed enormously to the financial crisis - including through the over-leveraging of financial institutions and the toxic assets and derivatives that they spread around the world. This is also the second recession in six years in the U.S. - which comprises a quarter of the world's economy - that was caused by the bursting of an asset bubble (the 2001 recession was caused by the bursting of the stock market bubble). Housing bubbles in Spain, the U.K., Ireland, and other countries also contributed to their severe recessions this time around. How to prevent asset bubbles from reaching dangerous proportions - which is actually much easier than the other forms of regulation being discussed - should be a major item on the agenda.
But it is the economic issues of the developing world that are most obscured and/or neglected. For most developing countries, the current economic crisis is a more acute form of what they have experienced for most of the last three decades - commonly known outside the United States as the era of neoliberalism. Since 1980, there has been a sharp slowdown in economic growth in the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries. As would be expected during a long period of reduced economic growth, there was also reduced progress in the areas of life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and other social indicators. This slowdown in economic growth, and its accompanying negative effects, is not attributable to "diminishing returns" - in other words, it is far beyond what would be expected from the natural course of individual countries facing reduced growth potential at a higher stage of development.
A likely explanation for this massive economic failure is that it had something to do with the neoliberal economic policy reforms that were introduced since the 1980s: the abandonment of development strategies, the introduction of much more restrictive monetary and fiscal policies, an indiscriminate opening to international trade and capital flows, and of course the de-regulation and excesses of the financial sector - including its excessive political influence - that the world is now forced to recognize as harmful. It is noteworthy that China, which has had the fastest growing economy in world history over the last 30 years, has mostly avoided these neoliberal reforms, even as it moved away from central planning and began a period of export-led growth.
A serious discussion of what has caused this long-term development failure is long overdue, but still not forthcoming. On the contrary, the draft G-20 communiquÈ reaffirms the importance of completing the current Doha round of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a set of rules that is so tilted against developing countries that it would not stand a chance of being approved by the legislatures of many WTO member countries today. Ironically, the WTO's Financial Services Agreement seeks to establish rules that would make it more difficult for countries to undertake the financial regulations that this crisis has so painfully demonstrated are needed. There is no talk of reforming the WTO - only moving "forward."
The same is true for the IMF, which just a decade ago was Washington's main avenue of influence in developing countries. The collapse of the IMF's creditors' cartel in middle-income countries, in which many governments could not get credit from other sources without first agreeing to IMF conditions, was one of the most important changes in the international financial system since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1973. The U.S. Treasury department, with help from Europe and Japan, seeks to revive their lost power in a time of crisis by tripling the IMF's resources to $750 billion and making the Fund the arbiter of conditionality for loans to countries hard hit by the crisis.
But regardless of how much money is added to the IMF coffers, the clock will not be so easily rolled back. Nor will the G-20 move us forward to a new financial architecture, as some had hoped. It took a Great Depression and a World War to get us the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944; fortunately we have not had either of these yet. And the leaders of the rich countries today are far more steeped in neoliberal ideology than the architects of Bretton Woods. In economics, as in the physical sciences during the Middle Ages, a significant amount of knowledge has been lost since the time of Keynes.
For now, at least, the most important economic reforms will take place more quietly and without the fanfare of the G-20. China's decision this week to provide $10.2 billion dollars in a currency swap arrangement with Argentina is an unprecedented (in this hemisphere) and prime example. The creditors' cartel that forced Argentina to accept disastrous conditions from the IMF a decade ago is no longer operative there. That is progress, and there will be much more in the coming years, as national governments seek alternatives to failed policies, and co-operate with each other outside the structure of unreformed neoliberal institutions.
--------
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC. (www.cepr.net).
http://www.truthout.org/040109R
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Buffalo to get new slaugherhouse, Despite Neighbors Objections!
Bobby Horton, who runs this sandwich shop on William Street in Buffalo, objects to the plan for a slaughterhouse in the back of the building.
Sharon Cantillon / Buffalo News
Updated: 03/26/09 01:02 PM
Over Neighboring Businessmens Objections; Slaughterhouse in Buffalo wins zoning approval
By Brian Meyer
News Staff Reporter
City zoning officials have approved plans by two Brooklyn businessmen to open a slaughterhouse on William Street where they plan to butcher poultry, goats, lambs, rabbits and calves.
The Common Council will likely approve the business' license, Council President David A. Franczyk said today.
The building at 1285 William St. at Babcock Street also houses a Subway sandwich shop, and its owners are worried the slaughterhouse could put them out of business.
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved the plan, but with some conditions. No outdoor animals pens will be allowed. The roof and walls must be insulated to prevent odors from seeping outside, and a vent must be installed. All proper permits will also have to be obtained from the city, county and state.
Mustasa Jaarah said he's pleased with the decision and expects to begin renovations by early May. He hopes the slaughterhouse will be open by August or September. The project will include a butcher shop and farmers' market.
The Zoning Board announced its decision one day after project supporters and opponents faced off at a City Hall hearing. The outcry against the slaughterhouse is "getting louder and louder," said Bobby Horton, who owns a Subway sandwich shop in the same building that would house the new business. Horton said 300 people have signed a petition that opposes the plan.
Any odor from the slaughterhouse could doom his business, he told zoning officials.
"If there's a stench, and even one or two people get a whiff of that, we're done," he said.
His wife, Felicia Horton, said the mere thought of having butchering operations under the same roof as a Subway shop could turn off many of her customers.
"If they're cutting up [animals], are you going to want to come up front an eat some meat?" she asked.
But Jaarah said he's convinced the two businesses can coexist under the same roof and thrive.
"They definitely will not smell anything bad. We're not going to create any problems for them," said Jaarah, who is opening the business with his father, Yousef.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/619834.html
Saturday, March 28, 2009
If You Are Reading This, You Just Might Be a Domestic Terrorist
You are the homegrown terrorist threat
By Michael Hampton
Posted: May 13, 2007 11:26 pm
If you’re an American reading this, then under expansive definitions being used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several states in their counterterrorism training, you just might be a domestic terrorist.
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, Ariz., distributed a brochure (Images: 1, 2) to local law enforcement agencies a few years ago which defines terrorism as individuals or groups within the U.S. who engage in criminal activity to promote political or social changes. This is correct, as far as it goes, but the brochure then gives a listing of “suspicious” activities, telling law enforcement officers: “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
Some of the things for which you should be reported as a suspected terrorist include the usual things, like weapons of mass destruction, and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, but also includes people who “Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’”
In addition, “People whose political motivation is usually Marxist/Leninist philosophy,” “‘defenders’ of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN,” computer hackers, and “Lone Individuals” should also be reported.
Do you fall under any of those categories? I certainly do; more than one, in fact. So I’m probably under suspicion somewhere as a domestic terrorist.
Last week, the state of Alabama Department of Homeland Security got scrutinized for an interactive terrorism awareness training section of its Web site, which said much the same things. The bureaucrats removed the entire training after it wound up on digg.com, a popular Web site where users can promote news to the site’s front page.
In Alabama, it seems, promoting gun rights can also get you branded a domestic terrorist.
Alabama’s site was based on a similar one from the state of Pennsylvania, which in addition to all of the above, says that promoting jury nullification, secession, or the belief that all governments must ultimately become corrupted by power also makes you a domestic terrorist worth watching.
But it gets worse.
But you see, I once read Unintended Consequences and was quite impressed with the book. Then one day I attended a FBI security briefing for technology security and was confronted with an image of the book — strongly implying those who own or read the book were terrorists.
But now I find I’m considered a terrorist by many other government agencies! Seriously, I wonder when I shall be arrested and “Detained.” . . .
The state of Virginia also says I’m a terrorist. (PDF) Why there? Because I’m a “property rights advocate.” Seriously, in Virginia, you’re a TERRORIST if you advocate for property rights. I think they’re going to need to build more jails to house us all. . . .
Incredibly, none of this is in jest. These various government agencies honestly believe *I* am a “domestic terrorist.” That is so sad. Indeed, this once-great country has nowhere to go but down. — Ogre’s Politics & Views
Ogre also put together a nice interactive quiz which you can use to determine if you are a domestic terrorist. I scored a 70, which apparently means there’s a cell with my name on it in Guantanamo Bay.
So in keeping with my mandate to make fun of government stupidity, I’m offering these web banners so you can identify yourself as a domestic terrorist on your own Myspace, blog or Web site. Just copy and paste the code for the one you want.
Click on title above to see full article, the "Homeland Stupidity" website, and the banners;
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/13/you-are-the-homegrown-terrorist-threat/
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
How an Animal Advocate Explains Her Decision to Take Animal-Tested Drugs
By Simon Chaitowitz, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2009.
Some people may call me a hypocrite for taking advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
One of my doctors has told me to get my affairs in order, which is why I'm writing this column. I want to explain why someone who takes so many animal-tested drugs is opposed to animal research.
I have full-blown leukemia and the chemotherapy I'm taking doesn't seem to be working all that well. And even if it does kick into high gear soon, it's not a cure, only a brief delay of the disease's progression. One way or another, my odds aren't good.
Still, I keep popping pills each morning and night, sitting for many hours each week with an IV in my arm, dealing with all the side-effects of treatment, hoping for a miracle. Some people may call me a hypocrite -- to take advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
The truth is that I don't feel I've ultimately benefited from our healthcare system, despite some truly exceptional care and many amazingly compassionate practitioners. Just the opposite.
I first developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 2004 from the chemo I was prescribed for breast cancer. In 2006, I underwent a stem cell transplant, which gave me two years of remission (albeit with many horrible side effects). This past July, I relapsed -- this time with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). My prognosis is grim.
Throughout the past six years, I have felt terribly guilty about the drugs and procedures I've undergone because I know that so many animals have suffered in their development. I know about these conditions because of my former job -- working for a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to animal research. I know about the conditions from talking with former animal researchers and others who have witnessed the cruelty. In fact, one man I know from an Internet support group remembers hearing lab dogs yelping in pain at the hospital where we both had our transplants.
The truth--mostly hidden from public view--is that animal research is horribly cruel. Despite what the research community claims, federal regulations are extremely weak and poorly enforced, and some species -- mice, for example -- are completely excluded from any protection. Many investigations have shown just how bad conditions are.
But as someone who recently signed up for hospice, I have another major problem with animal research. I wonder if science would have found a cure for my leukemia by now if they weren't sidetracked by misleading animal tests. I wonder if the chemo that I took for breast cancer would have been safer it hadn't been tested in species that are so unlike our own.
The truth is that using animals to develop and test drugs is a system that doesn't work very well. It's an old paradigm, one that is fortunately beginning to change, however slowly. A growing number of scientists are developing some exciting (and more effective) non-animal alternatives. These changes have been inspired partly by concern over animal cruelty but also because animal research and testing have so often failed us. Some government agencies are even starting to call for more alternatives.
More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals end up not working for humans. It's because animals -- however similar they are to us -- have different physiological systems. What works in a mouse usually doesn't work in a human.
History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals -- Aspirin, for example -- that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.
If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice.
The current drug approval system doesn't yet acknowledge the superiority of human-focused, nonanimal research methods (such as microdosing) and all pharmaceutical companies must use animals to get their drugs approved. Hopefully, this situation will soon change. A coalition of animal protection groups and physicians has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to accept the results of alternative tests, when available.
If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many participants die in Phase One trials -- but it turned out I already knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't work in humans.
See more stories tagged with: animal rights, animal research, drugs testing on animals
Simon Chaitowitz is a writer, nature lover, and animal protection advocate who is battling leukemia. She lives in Washington. D.C. She blogs at http://schaitowitz.blogspot.com/.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/132999/how_an_animal_advocate_explains_her_decision_to_take_animal-tested_drugs/
Some people may call me a hypocrite for taking advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
One of my doctors has told me to get my affairs in order, which is why I'm writing this column. I want to explain why someone who takes so many animal-tested drugs is opposed to animal research.
I have full-blown leukemia and the chemotherapy I'm taking doesn't seem to be working all that well. And even if it does kick into high gear soon, it's not a cure, only a brief delay of the disease's progression. One way or another, my odds aren't good.
Still, I keep popping pills each morning and night, sitting for many hours each week with an IV in my arm, dealing with all the side-effects of treatment, hoping for a miracle. Some people may call me a hypocrite -- to take advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
The truth is that I don't feel I've ultimately benefited from our healthcare system, despite some truly exceptional care and many amazingly compassionate practitioners. Just the opposite.
I first developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 2004 from the chemo I was prescribed for breast cancer. In 2006, I underwent a stem cell transplant, which gave me two years of remission (albeit with many horrible side effects). This past July, I relapsed -- this time with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). My prognosis is grim.
Throughout the past six years, I have felt terribly guilty about the drugs and procedures I've undergone because I know that so many animals have suffered in their development. I know about these conditions because of my former job -- working for a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to animal research. I know about the conditions from talking with former animal researchers and others who have witnessed the cruelty. In fact, one man I know from an Internet support group remembers hearing lab dogs yelping in pain at the hospital where we both had our transplants.
The truth--mostly hidden from public view--is that animal research is horribly cruel. Despite what the research community claims, federal regulations are extremely weak and poorly enforced, and some species -- mice, for example -- are completely excluded from any protection. Many investigations have shown just how bad conditions are.
But as someone who recently signed up for hospice, I have another major problem with animal research. I wonder if science would have found a cure for my leukemia by now if they weren't sidetracked by misleading animal tests. I wonder if the chemo that I took for breast cancer would have been safer it hadn't been tested in species that are so unlike our own.
The truth is that using animals to develop and test drugs is a system that doesn't work very well. It's an old paradigm, one that is fortunately beginning to change, however slowly. A growing number of scientists are developing some exciting (and more effective) non-animal alternatives. These changes have been inspired partly by concern over animal cruelty but also because animal research and testing have so often failed us. Some government agencies are even starting to call for more alternatives.
More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals end up not working for humans. It's because animals -- however similar they are to us -- have different physiological systems. What works in a mouse usually doesn't work in a human.
History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals -- Aspirin, for example -- that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.
If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice.
The current drug approval system doesn't yet acknowledge the superiority of human-focused, nonanimal research methods (such as microdosing) and all pharmaceutical companies must use animals to get their drugs approved. Hopefully, this situation will soon change. A coalition of animal protection groups and physicians has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to accept the results of alternative tests, when available.
If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many participants die in Phase One trials -- but it turned out I already knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't work in humans.
See more stories tagged with: animal rights, animal research, drugs testing on animals
Simon Chaitowitz is a writer, nature lover, and animal protection advocate who is battling leukemia. She lives in Washington. D.C. She blogs at http://schaitowitz.blogspot.com/.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/132999/how_an_animal_advocate_explains_her_decision_to_take_animal-tested_drugs/
Sunday, March 22, 2009
States cope with rising homelessness
States cope with rising homelessness
Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:31 pm (PDT)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
States cope with rising homelessness
By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Photo by Scott Sady, The Associated Press
Tent cities are springing up around the country, including this one next to
a homeless shelter in Reno, Nev.Nearly 700 homeless families in
Massachusetts are living in hotels at state expense because emergency shelters are full.
New York City saw a 40 percent rise in families seeking shelter since the
recession began. School districts nationwide reported more homeless kids in the
fall of 2008 than the entire year before. And tent cities have sprung up
throughout Hawaii and in Sacramento, Calif., Reno, Nev., Phoenix, Portland,
Ore., and other cities.
It’s one of the most alarming aspects of the economic crisis: State
officials are seeing levels of homelessness they have never seen before. President
Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package includes $1.5 billion to
address the problem, but officials say it’s not enough to cover the cost of
housing for millions of families in crisis.
As many as 3.4 million Americans are likely to experience homelessness this
year – a 35 percent increase since the recession started in December 2007 –
and a majority will be families with children, according to the _National
Alliance to End Homelessness_
(http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2158) . The predictions are based on rising levels of unemployment and
poverty, plus a severe shortage of affordable housing created, in part, by the
mortgage industry collapse.
By the time a family shows up in a shelter, they’ve done everything possible
to avoid homelessness – stayed with friends and family members, gone without
food and sold their possessions. They’ve expended every financial and social
resource they have. Some were middle-class families felled by layoffs and
ballooning mortgages.
Nationwide, some 9.6 million families spend more than half of their income
on housing, putting them at high risk of becoming homeless, according to the
_National Low Income Housing Coalition_
(http://www.nlihc.org/template/index.cfm) . In addition, apartment building foreclosures are causing families to be
evicted even when they are paying rent on time, said Linda Couch, the
coalition’s deputy director.
Before the economic crisis struck, states had made progress getting homeless
families and individuals off the street. Homelessness declined 10 percent
between 2005 and 2007, as states and cities began subsidizing permanent housing
for working families and moving chronically homeless individuals with
disabilities into specialized care facilities.
But as homelessness rises, revenue-strapped states will be hard pressed to
maintain those gains.
Experts agree that the only effective method of reducing homelessness is to
quickly move people into permanent homes and pay their rent until they regain
their footing. Without stable housing, people’s lives continue to unravel,
no matter how much state support they get. But paying a family’s rent is an
expensive proposition.
“You need a lot of cash to help these families pay for housing because they’
re so poor and rents are still very high, and many need a year or more to
find jobs,†said Robyn Frost, director of the _Massachusetts Coalition for the
Homeless_ (http://www.mahomeless.org/) .
Obama’s stimulus package includes a nine-fold immediate increase in an
existing grant program that funds shelters. But instead of going to shelters, the
funds are dedicated to either helping families hold onto their homes or
subsidizing housing for those already homeless.
“The emphasis is on prevention, because helping people facing eviction or
foreclosure stay in their homes and keeping kids in the schools they’re
enrolled in will save states money on health care and corrections in the long run,â€
said Michael Stoops, director of the _National Coalition for the Homeless_
(http://www.nationalhomeless.org/) .
Before the recession, 41 percent of the homeless population was families
with children and most held jobs. About 25 percent – the most visible,
chronically homeless – suffered from mental illness or drug addiction. “Now, because
of foreclosures and layoffs, we’re seeing middle class families – not just
the working poor – in shelters,†Stoops said.
In addition to shoring up homelessness prevention programs, advocates for
the poor say Congress should have included money for low-income rental
assistance, programs they say languished during the Bush administration. In economic
downturns, rents often get cheaper, making it easier for states to support
homeless families. But in this recession, fueled by millions of home
foreclosures, the supply of housing has tightened forcing rents to go higher.
“In some parts of the country, rental costs are so high that even if people
get their jobs back, they can’t afford housing. There are literally millions
of people that don’t earn enough to afford what the market charges,†said
Barbara Sard, an analyst with low-income advocacy group the _Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities_ (http://www.cbpp.org/) .
Although advocates for the poor urged Congress to include low-income rental
assistance in the stimulus package, many members were concerned that any
expansion of the $40 billion federal housing programs would be difficult to
scale back after the stimulus period ended. So instead, states are negotiating
with landlords for lower rates and many are trying to purchase and rehabilitate
boarded-up homes for low-income families.
Advocates are hopeful that provisions in the stimulus package such as
expanded unemployment benefits, Food Stamps and welfare will help alleviate the
homeless crisis. “But until unemployment goes back down, we’re going to be up
against it. When that gets fixed, things will start getting better,†said
Steve Berg, director of the National Alliance.
The stimulus package includes two other programs that experts say could have
a positive long-term effect on the supply of affordable housing: a $4
billion public housing fund for rehabilitating vacant apartments and a $4.2 billion
neighborhood stabilization program to help communities purchase foreclosed
properties.
But Berg cautioned that the current surge in homelessness will have lasting
repercussions.
A new study from _The National Center on Family Homelessness_
(http://www.familyhomelessness.org/) , which found that one in 50 American children is
homeless, said the disruption and isolation caused by homelessness affects kids
the rest of their lives. Children experiencing homelessness have twice the
rate of health and emotional problems compared to those with stable housing and
they have significantly lower high school graduation rates, the _report_
(http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/pdf/rc_full_report.pdf) found.
Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:31 pm (PDT)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
States cope with rising homelessness
By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Photo by Scott Sady, The Associated Press
Tent cities are springing up around the country, including this one next to
a homeless shelter in Reno, Nev.Nearly 700 homeless families in
Massachusetts are living in hotels at state expense because emergency shelters are full.
New York City saw a 40 percent rise in families seeking shelter since the
recession began. School districts nationwide reported more homeless kids in the
fall of 2008 than the entire year before. And tent cities have sprung up
throughout Hawaii and in Sacramento, Calif., Reno, Nev., Phoenix, Portland,
Ore., and other cities.
It’s one of the most alarming aspects of the economic crisis: State
officials are seeing levels of homelessness they have never seen before. President
Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package includes $1.5 billion to
address the problem, but officials say it’s not enough to cover the cost of
housing for millions of families in crisis.
As many as 3.4 million Americans are likely to experience homelessness this
year – a 35 percent increase since the recession started in December 2007 –
and a majority will be families with children, according to the _National
Alliance to End Homelessness_
(http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2158) . The predictions are based on rising levels of unemployment and
poverty, plus a severe shortage of affordable housing created, in part, by the
mortgage industry collapse.
By the time a family shows up in a shelter, they’ve done everything possible
to avoid homelessness – stayed with friends and family members, gone without
food and sold their possessions. They’ve expended every financial and social
resource they have. Some were middle-class families felled by layoffs and
ballooning mortgages.
Nationwide, some 9.6 million families spend more than half of their income
on housing, putting them at high risk of becoming homeless, according to the
_National Low Income Housing Coalition_
(http://www.nlihc.org/template/index.cfm) . In addition, apartment building foreclosures are causing families to be
evicted even when they are paying rent on time, said Linda Couch, the
coalition’s deputy director.
Before the economic crisis struck, states had made progress getting homeless
families and individuals off the street. Homelessness declined 10 percent
between 2005 and 2007, as states and cities began subsidizing permanent housing
for working families and moving chronically homeless individuals with
disabilities into specialized care facilities.
But as homelessness rises, revenue-strapped states will be hard pressed to
maintain those gains.
Experts agree that the only effective method of reducing homelessness is to
quickly move people into permanent homes and pay their rent until they regain
their footing. Without stable housing, people’s lives continue to unravel,
no matter how much state support they get. But paying a family’s rent is an
expensive proposition.
“You need a lot of cash to help these families pay for housing because they’
re so poor and rents are still very high, and many need a year or more to
find jobs,†said Robyn Frost, director of the _Massachusetts Coalition for the
Homeless_ (http://www.mahomeless.org/) .
Obama’s stimulus package includes a nine-fold immediate increase in an
existing grant program that funds shelters. But instead of going to shelters, the
funds are dedicated to either helping families hold onto their homes or
subsidizing housing for those already homeless.
“The emphasis is on prevention, because helping people facing eviction or
foreclosure stay in their homes and keeping kids in the schools they’re
enrolled in will save states money on health care and corrections in the long run,â€
said Michael Stoops, director of the _National Coalition for the Homeless_
(http://www.nationalhomeless.org/) .
Before the recession, 41 percent of the homeless population was families
with children and most held jobs. About 25 percent – the most visible,
chronically homeless – suffered from mental illness or drug addiction. “Now, because
of foreclosures and layoffs, we’re seeing middle class families – not just
the working poor – in shelters,†Stoops said.
In addition to shoring up homelessness prevention programs, advocates for
the poor say Congress should have included money for low-income rental
assistance, programs they say languished during the Bush administration. In economic
downturns, rents often get cheaper, making it easier for states to support
homeless families. But in this recession, fueled by millions of home
foreclosures, the supply of housing has tightened forcing rents to go higher.
“In some parts of the country, rental costs are so high that even if people
get their jobs back, they can’t afford housing. There are literally millions
of people that don’t earn enough to afford what the market charges,†said
Barbara Sard, an analyst with low-income advocacy group the _Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities_ (http://www.cbpp.org/) .
Although advocates for the poor urged Congress to include low-income rental
assistance in the stimulus package, many members were concerned that any
expansion of the $40 billion federal housing programs would be difficult to
scale back after the stimulus period ended. So instead, states are negotiating
with landlords for lower rates and many are trying to purchase and rehabilitate
boarded-up homes for low-income families.
Advocates are hopeful that provisions in the stimulus package such as
expanded unemployment benefits, Food Stamps and welfare will help alleviate the
homeless crisis. “But until unemployment goes back down, we’re going to be up
against it. When that gets fixed, things will start getting better,†said
Steve Berg, director of the National Alliance.
The stimulus package includes two other programs that experts say could have
a positive long-term effect on the supply of affordable housing: a $4
billion public housing fund for rehabilitating vacant apartments and a $4.2 billion
neighborhood stabilization program to help communities purchase foreclosed
properties.
But Berg cautioned that the current surge in homelessness will have lasting
repercussions.
A new study from _The National Center on Family Homelessness_
(http://www.familyhomelessness.org/) , which found that one in 50 American children is
homeless, said the disruption and isolation caused by homelessness affects kids
the rest of their lives. Children experiencing homelessness have twice the
rate of health and emotional problems compared to those with stable housing and
they have significantly lower high school graduation rates, the _report_
(http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/pdf/rc_full_report.pdf) found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
