THESE PROFIT HOSPITALS DON'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE AND WILL NOT PROVIDE EVEN ONE SOCIAL WORKER TO SEE THIS IS DONE.
Below you see a great comment by someone from Health Care for the Homeless----the problem with having this institution connected to Johns Hopkins is that this activist cannot shout that it is Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development behind all this dystopian policy. None of these social justice non-profits ever identify the gorilla in the room as the problem because all of these organizations are often tied to the gorilla. I would like to state the obvious---all stats on homeless needs are skewed-----the counts are very under-represented so when Urban League creates this ratio---43 to 100 available to need-----that is no where near the real number. All of this affects the amount of funds Baltimore gets from HUD that could result in emergency housing-----low-income housing---and public shelter space.
IT IS DELIBERATELY NOT DONE BECAUSE A VERY, VERY, VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE JOHNS HOPKINS DOES NOT VALUE SOCIAL WELFARE.
"This whole thing is so dystopian," Schneider said. "You can imagine Orwell writing about people in desperate need of some basic human need being prioritized and put on waiting lists, and that's our reality now. How disheartening.
The solution to this abuse of HUD funding is-----handing the US Justice Department the evidence of misappropriation---but Baltimore does not have public justice organizations that do this. They will shout out that wrongs are happening---but no one takes all this to Federal court. A Mayor of Baltimore of course would not allow this to happen and it would look to the past in recovering what are probably billions of dollars in misused funds. Simply verifying where these funds went----if not able to recover -----documents the pathway of corruption so the city can build structures to prevent this in the future.
So, my homeless friend could have and should have been front in line for housing 2 years ago with this Section 8-----he filed for it----now we must go to that office to see where the failure occurred.
But as we hear from all the agencies involved in preventative health care and welfare----
THE HOMELESS ARE MAKING A CHOICE TO BE ON THE STREET
Thousands sign up as city's Section 8 wait list opens for first time in a decade
Yvonne WengerContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun
“My dream to have my kids call a place their home,” says mom, who is among tens of thousands vyingEight months pregnant and living in a West Baltimore emergency shelter, Juliet Vega and her little girls have moved three times in as many months. Now, the young mother sees opportunity in the city's first housing lottery in a decade.
She's not alone. In less than a week, more than 58,000 people have signed up for a chance to be randomly selected for a spot on the Housing Authority of Baltimore City's Section 8 wait list. Only 25,000 will be chosen, and then only 6,000 to 9,000 are expected to receive one of the housing vouchers.
The nine-day, online only sign-up period ends Thursday. Then, the wait list will close for another six years.
The intense interest not only underscores a pent-up demand but the acute need for low-income housing in Baltimore. City officials said they are trying to make the process fair and expedient, and to provide housing to as many residents as possible under a federal program that has limited funding.
Despite the odds, the chance to just sign up for the wait list fills Vega, 23, with hope.
She and her two daughters moved into Sarah's Hope about a month ago after she could no longer afford her rent in Orlando, Fla. She temporarily moved into a friend's house and then came to Baltimore, but she said her new home was infested with bugs and that she worried about the wellbeing of her children there.
"That's exactly what I need," said Vega, who has a son due at Christmastime. "I'm trying to find housing wherever possible. My dream is to have my kids call a place their home. I don't want them to be in the same situation I was in, in foster care all of my life."
The vouchers cover the portion of rent that exceeds 30 percent of a household's income, and let residents choose the apartment or house to rent, subject to a cap. In Baltimore, the cap is about $900 for a one-bedroom apartment.
The housing authority gives out roughly 1,000 to 1,500 vouchers a year.
Nearly 10,000 people applied for a voucher in the first hour the list opened on Oct. 22. The housing authority received more than 42,000 in the first 24 hours, and by Monday, that number had grown to more than 58,000.
Anthony Scott, the housing authority's deputy executive director, anticipates many more families may sign up to compete for the lottery. Applications, which are free, must be submitted on jointhelist.org. The city also is staffing five sites to help people sign up for the wait list.
"It's been a long time since our list has been open," Scott said.
Once the sign up period ends, the housing authority will divide the applications into four groups: elderly, families with children, disabled individuals and other families, including single adults who earn less than $44,750 a year. Spots on the wait list will be allocated randomly in proportion to the number of applications submitted by each group.
Families of four with incomes of up to $63,900 can qualify. The income limits are set at about 80 percent of area median incomes.
Residents can't sign up for the vouchers again until 2020, even if they become unexpectedly impoverished. Subsidized housing also is available through the city's public housing units and other programs, such as those available to veterans and chronically homeless individuals.
"Even if we would open up that list, you would be number 25,001," Scott said. "It doesn't make sense to keep the list open. We would never be able to get to you."
Demand for housing vouchers has far exceeded the number of available slots in other cities as well. For example, when Pittsburgh reopened its wait list this spring, 13,770 applications were submitted for 5,000 spaces on the register.
According to a study published earlier this year the Urban Institute, Baltimore had 43 affordable housing units available per 100 extremely low-income households in 2012, down from 58 units in 2000.
Scott said the housing authority is constrained by the number of vouchers provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is subject to funding limits set by Congress. The city has about 15,000 vouchers, and roughly 100 became available each month through attrition.
The wait list is being opened because the old register — closed in 2003 — was too out of date. The housing authority could only reach one out of every 10 families that had signed up because the contact information and mailing addresses were no longer accurate, Scott said.
Residents will learn by March 1 whether they were randomly selected for the new list. They will then be given instructions on how to complete a full application.
Some housing advocates criticized the city's approach.
Adam Schneider, director of community relations at Health Care for the Homeless, said Baltimore leaders need to develop a plan to meet the community's need and that housing should be considered a basic human right.
"This whole thing is so dystopian," Schneider said. "You can imagine Orwell writing about people in desperate need of some basic human need being prioritized and put on waiting lists, and that's our reality now. How disheartening.
"We should be ashamed and we should act to change."
Jeff Singer, who teaches at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, criticized the nine-day sign-up window and the online application requirement.
"It certainly disadvantages people with disabilities and people who are not wired, which also means poor folks and homeless folks," he said. "They don't have the same access to the world wide web that the middle class and upper class has."
Singer also challenged the housing authority's decision to open help centers for just three of the nine days. Advocacy groups tried to fill the gap by providing volunteers at eight places over the duration of the sign-up period.
Scott said the housing authority believes nine days is "plenty of time" for residents to get to a computer and sign up for the wait list. The agency designed the lottery process after analyzing the experiences in other cities, he said.
Online applications, Scott said, ensure that residents can avoid long lines and the anxiety of a first-come, first-served process. All applications received during the nine-day period will have an equal shot at being selected for a spot on the list.
Teddy Maddox, said he used to sleep under the Jones Falls Expressway, and fears that he could end up there again. Now, the 56-year-old disabled man is hoping to be one of the lucky ones selected for the housing lottery.
"We don't need a lottery. We need housing," said Maddox, who signed up for the wait list last week with help from staff at Health Care for the Homeless. He pays $500 a month to rent a room in the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood, which takes most of the $721 he gets each month in disability benefits, his only source of income.
If he were able to secure a Section 8 voucher, he would pay $216 a month toward his rent, leaving him $505 to pay for his other needs. He said he's been on the city's waiting list for a public housing unit for five years.
"I hope it works out for me," he said. "I pray to God it does."
At My Sister's Place Women's Center, Eileen Cotton helped seven people sign up for the wait list lottery after she filled out an application for herself.
The 56-year-old woman ended up sleeping in her storage unit with her dog, Ginger, after she said she got injured while working at a Walmart in Carroll County, and lost her job. She's looked for a steady job, but so far has only picked up a few hours a week working at different nonprofit agencies.
Cotton's eyes welled with tears when she recalled having to give away her beloved dog when she moved into a shelter. She has spent the past two years living in shelters and transitional housing. She dreams of one day having her own home again.
"I hope I'm one that gets picked," she said.
Below you see the long list of housing available for a elderly disabled homeless person in a wheelchair. There are lots of avenues to take. The problem for my friend is that none of these agencies are tied with the other and one agency will not advocate outside of that agency other than to give these homeless a paper with phone numbers and tell them to call.
When housing is public service without all the outsourcing-----one case worker would be doing all of this for their client. It is the process of being sent everywhere by all kinds of people that has my homeless friend choosing to die on the street.
The second problem comes when these housing assignments come----they are almost always a small room with the person made to pay $500-750 ----almost all of their SS check for what no one would accept. We know a regular landlord in a community will not want to house a person with no ID in an unstable period of life----but the city should have those kinds of housing units built into communities where all of this is resolved in no time.
IT IS EASY PEASY----BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND JOHNS HOPKINS JUST WON'T DO IT......AND SO NEITHER WILL THEIR POLS IN BALTIMORE CITY HALL.
For people with disabilities, are there any priorities?
Yes. While there are housing programs that are specifically for people with disabilities, other programs may have preferences or priorities for people with disabilities. For information about programs specifically for people with disabilities, see Housing Programs in Massachusetts.
Federal public housing
For federal family public housing, the housing authority may establish a preference for families or single people who have a disability. Also, if the housing authority has established a priority for working families or single persons, it must give the priority to persons who cannot work because of a disability. While the housing authority may adopt a preference for persons with disabilities in general, the authority may not adopt a preference for a specific disability.
For federal elderly and disabled housing, a particular development may be identified as all-elderly or all-disabled. For more information, ask the housing authority where you are applying.
BLOCK GRANTING IS A VERY REPUBLICAN POLICY THAT DISMANTLES ALL OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF THESE FUNDS AND ALLOWS NON-PROFITS AND PROFIT OUTSOURCED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT.
For those that do not know it-----when a state like Maryland is exempted from Medicare for decades and all those funds end in a great big pool of money designated as health care------the Maryland Assembly distributes these funds to non-profits for what would have been public senior housing. I watched as senior care funds went to this Catholic Charities and Jewish Charities creating the own ideas of how all this works. Before, a person was free to choose from a list of public housing options in all kinds of communities.
Catholic Charities stated that it has a fast-track for homeless disabled with no ID and I am going to follow up with them-----but, when I saw my homeless friend a week ago he had a bright yellow tad that said----Catholic Charities Housing----GUEST....this means he went where he was supposed to and signed in ------and now I am told there is no record of this man coming to apply for placement.
The point is this------when public shelter or housing is controlled by government everyone is treated equally----there are no special requirements----and no programs are required of folks simply needing to get on their feet. I know for a fact that Jewish Charities given what used to be Medicare funding are creating a tiered environment where low-income seniors can work at facilities for example. Medicare is a program that people paid payroll taxes for decades just so they could get what everyone one else does-----it was the working class that paid the highest percentage into Medicare and Social Security so just because a person is down on their luck the last decades of life does not take this Federal guarantee away.
Now, I have to find out why my homeless, disabled man in a wheel chair went where he was supposed to and never was able to get on the list---which being disabled and senior would have placed him at the front of the line. All of this may simply be disconnects----a system of inter-agencies with no follow up or connection---so we are not blaming or making people feel bad---we simply want to fix this problem.
Of course----at the same time this was done---around 30 years ago---during Clinton's terms-----the funding to state and local public institutions for the poor and seniors disappeared and were left to crumble and become abusive.
Catholic Charities Senior Communities develops and operates affordable, supportive communities for older adults with a resolve to nurture a spirit of purpose, wellness and harmony among both our residents and colleagues.
Donate Now Get Involved
Call 443.798.3423 to apply to any of our communities... one phone call, one application, no application fee.
We believe that all people, regardless of their religion, beliefs, race or financial means, are entitled to a home. We are dedicated to promoting community, good health, happiness and a sense of self-worth for all residents.
Catholic Charities has been managing senior communities for over 30 years. Catholic Charities owns and operates senior communities in Baltimore City, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Garrett and Harford Counties. We offer 24 locations (view map or view list) including nearly 1,800 units of efficiency, one-bedroom and two bedroom apartments.
Our residents enjoy a variety of on-site services such as beauty and barber salons, laundry rooms, libraries, dining rooms, convenience stores, computer centers, medical offices and professional assistance of on-site service coordinators. In addition, the Catholic Charities Senior Support Services Program is available to eligible residents at a reasonable cost at select communities. The program provides meals and assistance with housekeeping, laundry personal assistance and service management.
WE ARE OF COURSE SPENDING MORE FEDERAL FUNDING ON THIS PROCESS AND IF YOU SEE FEDERAL SPENDING FIGURES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES IN SHELTER AND HOUSING RISE THESE FEW DECADES----THIS IS WHY.
Below you see the problem for Baltimore citizens caught in all this very bad public welfare system------Republicans pretend the private and non-profit sector can handle it---but it never does and the system fills with fraud, corruption, and inequity. This is what we see in this one case.
Public funds that should treat everyone the same with the expectation that the programs and services offer quality and a safe healthy environment----AS WE ALL PAID FOR WITH DECADES OF PAYROLL TAXES----has now been deregulated to death---outsourced with no oversight and accountability.
So, one private contractor wants to handle homeless people one way----another wants to handle them another way----and because funds are tied to placement---this system cherry-picks who they serve. None of this is Constitutional----it fails equal protection----and the American people paid taxes to have better than this.
Before Clinton neo-liberals joined Republicans to dismantle and outsource all this emergency shelter/housing system----most people were served and facilities were tied to real homeless figures.
WE MUST HAVE THIS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ALL AND THEN NON-PROFITS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN FILL IN SO EVERYONE IS SAFE.
People are trying to call all this the Democrat's fault---but of course outsourcing and privatizing the public sector is Republican policy.
Sunday, Feb 5, 2012 09:00 AM EST
The privatization trapFrom schools to prisons, outsourcing government's works typically ends with cronyism, waste and unaccountability
An employee of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga., waiting for the front gate to be opened. The detention center is operated on contract by Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America. (Credit: AP)
.Privatizing the government is one of the most active projects of the early 21st century.
Everything we once expected the government to do — from education to regulatory rule-writing to military operations to healthcare services to prison management — it now does less of, preferring to support markets in which these services are done through independent, profit-maximizing agents. Tools such as contracting out, vouchering and the selling-off of state assets have been used to remake the government during our market-worshipping era.
Privatization is one of the few political projects that enjoys bipartisan support: Conservatives cheer the rollback of the state, and liberals like to claim that the virtues of the free market are being used towards the egalitarian ends of public policy. The fraud and waste that often come with outsourcing these services has been well-documented. The private management in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the lobbying efforts of corporate prisons have all provided horror stories of what happens when cronyism guides decision-making on behalf of the state. But privatization as standard government practice has problems that go far beyond the abuses of any single incident.
Rather than solving problems with government, privatization often amplifies those issues to new extremes. Instead of unleashing market innovation, it often introduces new parasitic partners into the decision-making process. Instead of providing a check on the power of the government, it allows the state to circumvent constitutional and democratic accountability measures by merging with the private sector. And ultimately, the practice replaces the set of choices and constraints found in democracy, with another set found in the marketplace. Today’s political conversation is blind to these problems out of a mistaken faith in the efficiency and fundamental equality of markets, contrasted to the ineffectiveness and corruptibility of the state.
What advocates miss is that the logic of markets creates private-sector coalitions capable of extracting just as much from taxpayers as the state. Corporations, lobbyists and other market actors can have just as much political agency as the government, and privatization can mobilize businesses to rewrite market practices.
This political process plays out in the quality of the services provided and the structure of the companies providing them. Privatization has sometimes meant that the most lucrative and easiest parts of these government obligations go into private hands, creating private profit, while the most difficult and dangerous parts remain with the public. This can range from the “privatizing the gains, socializing the losses” of various parts of the financial sector to the “cream-skimming” that goes on in many other industries.
If privatization is meant to put a check on the size and power of the state it often backfires, as the practice can be used to circumvent normal mechanisms that exist to hold the state accountable. A whole array of transparency laws and constitutional checks don’t carry over when the government outsources its responsibilities and activities to independent businesses.
Privatization as a way of avoiding constraints and accountability measures has two particularly troubling consequences. First, the government can use independent agents to do things that they themselves cannot do, betraying the whole point of keeping government in check. Especially in the world of surveillance, this practice can act as a way to get around constitutional protections enjoyed by citizens.
Second, accountability measures that have evolved through decades of public law are jettisoned when a service leaves the public sector, allowing companies to do the government’s work in a network of secrecy. Ways the public keeps a check on the government, from the Freedom of Information Act to the Administrative Procedure Act to whole regimes of other transparency laws, do not bind outside businesses.
The Constitution prohibits the delegation of significant state powers, but the Supreme Court currently puts few constraints on the government to outsource many of its important duties. What today’s discourse ignores is an understanding of the liberal conception of what public and democracy itself is good for — as a way to check private and government power, and promote accountability and responsiveness.
These blur into dark scenarios where private-public relationships give public agents maximum discretion in exchange for giving private agents advantages over their competition. For example, after FedEx’s CEO announced that his company would be cooperating with the government following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the firm received a number of rewards. Ranging from special access to security databases, to a prize seat on a regional terrorism task force (the only private company represented) and special state licenses, these benefits amplified the firm’s power in the marketplace over noncooperative competitors like UPS, all in exchange for amplifying the power and reach of the state.
Defenders of privatization also argue that the marketplace creates innovation. Competition, the profit motive and the “creative destruction” of the market system can be deployed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government services. But what this outsourcing really does is move constraints from one space to another. It transforms the strengths and weaknesses, the limits and the constraints, from government to the market.
Privatization replaces the democratic role of citizens finding solutions to collective problems and transforms it into consumers trucking and bargaining in a marketplace. Finding solutions in a public space emphasizes accountability, voice, transparency, rules and claims through reasoning that goes beyond the self. The market emphasizes cost-benefit thinking, profit-seeking strategies, bargaining and the satiation of individuals’ wants; good things in many circumstances, but not necessarily when it comes to the powers of the state.
A regime of privatization shifts the debate away from the functions of government towards the allocation of those functions. For all the talk about innovation by outside contractors, what privatization largely does is preserve the scope of government services while looking for efficiency gains. And since the scope of what the government does is held constant, the real gains come from minimizing costs.
Take prisons, for example. With the addition of privately run prisons, the debate narrowly focuses on how much to spend on prisoners. Minimizing costs here will often be the result of simply providing less of a good at a worse quality, and the debate will focus on the optimal extent of these privatization contracts. Meanwhile, the greater question of when the state should imprison people fades to the background.
What’s actually public about these responsibilities disappears from the conversation. Privatization assumes that cost quantifying solutions are more fundamental to government than any discussion of ethics or values. The move away from democratic accountability is particularly worrisome because in many of these fields, the ultimate motivator of private markets, the profit motive, is in direct conflict with the public administration. The basic values, concepts and institutions of liberal democracy — political participation, elections, equal distribution of individual liberties, checks on concentrated power — do not work towards economic competitiveness.
The ideology that the government is just one among many providers of goods and services is a seductive one in this age of markets. But the government isn’t simply just another agent in the market, and firms that are empowered to carry out the role of the state can be as abusive as the worst bureaucracy.
We need new arguments for the government, with all its strengths and weaknesses, to be allowed to do its jobs knowing that it won’t always be perfect. The alternative is government by cronyism, delegated marketplace winners exploiting what works about markets with none of the normal checks we expect on a functioning democracy. There are no doubt weaknesses in the current functions of government, but for those who resist privatization, that is a call to political reform rather than one of abandoning the public arena altogether.
Below you see Obama doing what Clinton did as a neo-liberal ----used the massive corporate fraud and economic crash to pretend austerity needed to starve all Federal agencies into this level of dysfunction we have already----only now Obama and Clinton neo-liberals with Republicans are super-sizing the conditions.
Remember all the silly SEQUESTRATION -----it was all planned by global pols of both parties to eliminate the New Deal and War on Poverty programs and all of our public justice system. My homeless friend became caught in this system-----I don't know how long----but he is seeing conditions deteriorate because of these Obama austerity policies-----which he teamed with Republicans to create.
ALL OF MARYLAND POLS ARE CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL OR BUSH/HOPKINS NEO-CONS.
As I say------all the Federal agencies are still there-----the US Constitution is still there protecting WE THE PEOPLE----we simply need to vote the global pols out and run REAL social Democrats in all Democratic primary elections.
Below you see a great piece from a Housing Advocate. The important thing to remember is this----it was all planned----it was illegal -----and it can be reversed. Why should people care if they are class and race driven? Because this is coming to 90% of Americans in International Economic Zone policies----what we are watching being built today will continue up the income ladder---or rather the income ladder will make everyone impoverished.
Aaron Bartley Become a fanCo-founder, People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH Buffalo)
Obama, Finance and the Austerity FramePosted: 09/06/2011 5:33 pm EDT Updated: 11/06/2011 5:12 am EST Huffington Post
The American economy is in crisis, with wild swings in equities markets, abysmal consumer confidence, persistently high unemployment and a collapsed housing market. Rather than facing the challenges of the present, the nation's leadership class is wedded to a set of policy prescriptions developed in another age, before the financial meltdown of 2008 and the Great Recession eviscerated the purchasing power of American consumers and highlighted the instabilities inherent in relying on financial innovation and other non-productive sectors for economic growth.
While some media outlets have painted the anti-debt crusade as a plot by Tea Party freshmen, the fiscal austerity movement has bi-partisan roots that predate the current Congress.
With leadership from Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform, the austerity frame has shaped conservative political rhetoric for a generation. In the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, a variant of the frame, manufactured by Democratic-leaning think-tanks like Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project and influence peddlers with cross-party connections like Blackstone Group's Pete Peterson, took root in the Obama camp.
As far back as April, 2006, key Obama advisers had developed the talking points that still guide the president's approach to economic policy. Obama's austerity campaign began at the launch event for a Hamilton Project paper co-signed by campaign advisers Robert Rubin, Roger Altman, Peter Orszag and Jason Bordoff -- the latter two of whom would later join the administration staff. OH, YOU MEAN BILL CLINTON'S STAFF????
Then-Senator Obama introduced the white paper, entitled "An Economic Strategy to Advance Opportunity, Prosperity and Growth," which served as a trial balloon for rhetorical lines designed to convince Americans that social security and health care cuts were inevitable and that deficit-cutting was the number one economic priority.
As the economy burns, the bi-partisan consensus on fiscal austerity has prevented the Beltway class from developing the diagnostic tools needed to grasp the systemic dynamics of the current malaise and to place job creation and demand stimulus, rather than austerity, at the forefront.
The analytical shortcomings of the Obama administration and the Republican Congress stem from a common phenomenon: capture by a set of ideologues with close ties to particular industry sectors whose dogmas prevent a real reckoning with the depth of the crisis in the American economy.
In the case of the president, emissaries of high finance -- many of them retreads from Rubin's Clinton-era Treasury -- have driven the policy apparatus from the get go. Even with the departure of Lawrence Summers, the current list of Rubin proteges with influential roles in the administration includes Treasury Secretary Geithner, Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman, Deputy NEC Director Jason Furman and Gary Gensler, chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission, among many others.
Apart from a temporary hiatus in the aftermath of the panic, the past three directors of the Hamilton Project have all helped to solidify the "soft austerity" (one that includes some tax increases as well as social cuts) position among Beltway elites in the Obama age: Orszag as Obama's OMB Director; Jason Furman, who remains one of the president's top economic advisers; and Douglas Elmendorf, who as Boehner's current director of the Congressional Budget Office illustrates the commonality in intellectual orientation, both in its origin and current expression.
The deep roots of today's crisis are familiar to observers of the Great Depression: tensions inherent in a system that requires ever-increasing rates of consumption and debt finance but fails to provide the means for consumers to sustain the purchases and payments needed for stability. Only time will tell whether the powers that be in politics and the corporate world will put aside their articles of free market faith in the interest of providing a much-needed boost to middle and lower-income consumers, thereby saving the system that serves them.