The Chronically Homeless in America

Photo: Wikipedia Commons

The mark of a civilized society is how well the most helpless are treated --animals, children, the elderly, and those who are homeless. There is always room for improvement. We are plenty generous with people from other countries, but we miss the mark when it comes to helping our own chronic homeless, the veterans, babies in the womb, the elderly, and others who cannot protect themselves.

It is in plain view that we have failed the homeless. We all pass by people who look healthy, able-bodied, and well-fed, asking for help on a street corner, professional panhandlers who have a nice car and a home to go to – they make a living panhandling.  But then there are those sleeping in the streets, in the cold, in the rain, too dirty and too exhausted to beg; they’ve become so invisible and ignored, nobody speaks to them anymore.

How did they get this way? Homeless people live in unimaginable places. How can a society as rich as ours allow this to happen? Why do we care about the downtrodden of the world but not our own citizens?

The Department of Housing and Human Development (HUD) told us in 2014 that there were 84,000 chronically homeless, down from 120,000 in 2007 thanks to a 2002 program aimed at ending chronic homelessness in ten years. As any government program, the goal failed and the program was extended through 2017. HUD used the Homeless Assistance Grants, the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program and other demonstration programs to achieve this goal.

The government had decided to end chronic homelessness because it cost the taxpayers too much money to care for individuals who “use many expensive services often paid through public sources, including emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and law enforcement and jail time.” Citing the fact that putting the homeless in shelters is also costly, bureaucrats admit that there are also ethical reasons to help our fellow man and end chronic homelessness.

The previous model did not work so a new strategy was deployed – “allowing chronically homeless individuals to move into permanent supportive housing without preconditions. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is not time-limited and makes services available to residents.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44302.pdf

One such PSH is Housing First, supported by both HUD and the Department of Veteran Affairs, chosen because the homeless people can select the type and “intensity of services and does not require abstinence or medication compliance.”

PSH increases days spent in housing and reduces days spent homeless. “The outcomes in other areas are not as clear.” In other words, they either don’t know or are not saying if costs are reduced in use and service, if substance use and abuse are diminished, and if mental health improvements are present.

Medicaid funds are used for housing-related services; lobbyists and housing advocates prefer that states use “their own shares of Medicaid funds to finance permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals” since funding through HUD programs is limited for new units. Another source of funding could be Pay for Success Initiatives; private investment in PSH would be paid back if “certain outcomes are attained.”

The term “chronic homelessness” has been used in research since the 1980s, referring to people who have spent more than a year in the streets while suffering from one or two disabling conditions, substance abuse and/or mental illness.

Randall Kuhn and Dennis Culhane categorized homelessness in three groups of people:

-          Transitional (short periods of time in shelters who do not return)

-          Episodic (more frequent users of shelters, not exceeding a few months)

-          Chronic (stay in shelters for long periods of time)*

According to Libby Perl and Erin Bagalman, the federal standards to be deemed chronically homeless are as follows:

-          Individuals and families can be chronically homeless even though in the Hearth Act only unaccompanied individuals were included in the definition

-          One unaccompanied individual or adult head of household must have a disabling condition such as “substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-occurrence or two or more of those conditions”

-          Duration requirement (continuously homeless for a year or more or at least four occasions in the past three years)

-          Where someone sleeps (a place that is not meant for human habitation such as a park, street, abandoned building, sewer, emergency shelter, or safe haven)**

In 2015 HUD reported the total number of homeless individuals to be 564,708. Mental illness and substance use disorders (drugs and alcohol) seemed to be prevalent among the homeless.

The permanent supportive housing (PSH) is not time-limited and services are available to residents. HUD provides much of the funding and thus requires certain criteria such as basing it in a community, not an institution; time of stay cannot be limited; residents can have a renewable lease; and helping residents with disability to live independently.

PSH may rent units in a condominium or apartment complex; subsidies are provided through housing vouchers; single-site multi-family rental property with affordable housing designation; residents pay 30% of their income towards rent and the rest is subsidized. Such units exist around the D.C. area. Some of the units are reported by the other residents as sources of bed bugs infestation and other pests.

Not all PSH providers require their residents in permanent housing to “abstain from drugs and alcohol” in order to remain eligible for housing. Housing First, developed in New York in 1990s under the name Pathways to Housing, does not require residents to abstain from drugs and alcohol or to take their meds, but services are available 24 hours a day to help them if they ask – nurses, caseworkers, and psychiatrists.

Prince William County in Virginia is considering placing its 409 homeless people in 8X12 tiny prototype homes at a cost of $3,000 per unit.  Woodbridge HUGS, a non-profit formed last year to “assist the county’s homeless population” and to provide the homeless with essential goods and housing, said through its representative, “We found what we want as our prototype… we want to put in a composting toilet, a skylight, a generator, a door that locks, [and] windows for cross-ventilation.” http://whatsupwoodbridge.com/2016/01/15/tiny-houses-homeless-prince-william/

I cannot imagine what these tiny slum units would do to the surrounding landscape and the property values of the adjacent properties. Is this the best way to help the homeless in one of the richest counties in the nation?

Instead of sheltering the homeless in proper and stable housing, why are we moving them essentially into shanty areas? Why must we relegate the homeless, the unemployed, and the poor to ePodments, to tiny homes, to mini-homes, to dwellings made of junkyard scrap and other cheap materials, to dwellings the size of closets?

Are we doing this because the economy is in such dire-straights thanks to this administration’s disastrous economic policies? Or is there another reprehensible Agenda and plan in place to crowd people into stack-and-pack tiny apartments and temporary units the size of a dog house in order to return the suburbia to its original wilderness?

In spite of HUD Homeless Assistance Grants, as a primary tool of the federal government of funding housing for homeless people, HUD-VA Supported Housing program, which was started in 1992, and other social programs, homelessness is far from being addressed properly and will continue to exist.

 

____________________________

*Randall Kuhn and Dennis P. Culhane, “Applying Cluster Analysis to Test a Typology of Homelessness by Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results from the Analysis of Administrative Data,” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 26, no. 2 (April 1998), pp. 207-232.

**CRS Report 44302, December 8, 2015, pp. 3-4.

 

 

HUD Will Choose Your Neighbors through a Massive Social Engineering Rule

Home, Sweet Home Photo: Andrei Pandele

On July 8, 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). HUD describes this rule – “everyone can access affordable, quality housing regardless of their “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status.”  http://www.hud.gov/news/index.cfm

HUD’s Secretary, Julian Castro, stated that “unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future.” To make sure all Americans have access to “safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity,” HUD will socially reengineer where we live.

This new AFFH (15-084) HUD rule was issued based on “recommendations made by a 2010 Government Accountability Office report, stakeholders, and HUD program participants.”

Those who receive grants from HUD must analyze “their fair housing landscape and set locally determined fair housing priorities and goals through an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).

“To aid communities in this work, HUD will provide open data to grantees and the public on patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity.” Armed with such sensitive information, HUD grantees will then force their goals onto existing communities and housing planning processes. “In addition to providing data and maps, HUD will also provide technical assistance to aid grantees as they adopt this approach.” http://www.huduser.gov/portal/affht_pt.html#final-rule

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, explained that the AFFH Rule “will virtually erase the very concept of local rule by your locally elected representatives.” Massive demographic analyses will be undertaken on communities that apply for HUD grants “to determine if there are enough low income and minority people living in every neighborhood. HUD will search the records of every person in each neighborhood for income levels, race, color, religion, national origin and much more.” Such data mining will take place every five years.

According to Ken Blackwell and Rick Manning, “AFFH rule seeks to radically reinvent local zoning laws in the United States – reengineering America’s neighborhoods based on racial and ethnic quotas. Under the rule’s assessment tool, local governments are required to ‘identify neighborhoods or areas in the jurisdiction and region where racial/ethnic groups are segregated.” www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/04/congress-must-stop-team-obamas-plan-to-radically-reengineer-americas-neighborhoods.html

The AFFH Rule has transformed the $3.5 billion annual program into “a political redistricting tool.”

Tom DeWeese warned that the AFFH Rule will cause property values to plummet, equity in homes will disappear, the government will replace your locally elected representatives, wealth will be redistributed, private property ownership will be destroyed, and local control will disappear.

Key features under this HUD AFFH Rule are as follows:

-          Clarifying existing fair housing obligations (standardization and transparency)

-          Publicly open data on fair housing and access to opportunity (HUD will provide open data and mapping tools)

-          Balanced approach to fair housing (invest to revitalize distressed areas and expand access to HUD housing throughout the entire community regardless of pre-existing zoning)

-          Expanding access to opportunity (“The strength of America’s economy, the stability, and security of its neighborhoods, and the ability for all to prosper depends on all Americans having equal access to opportunity – no matter what they look like or where they come from.”)

-          Valuing local data and knowledge (publicly open data will assist with their assessment of fair housing)

-          Customized tools for local leaders (fair housing assessment data and tools are specific to local jurisdictions, public housing authorities, and states and Insular Areas)

-          Collaboration is encouraged (regional fair housing priorities and goals)

-          Community voice (community participation in analyzing fair housing conditions)

-          A phased-in approach (additional time to adopt AFFH rule)

-          Additional time for small grantees and recent regional collaborations (for areas receiving $500,000 grants or less, and areas receiving HUD’s Sustainable Communities competition grants)http://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AFFH_Final_Rule_Executive_Summary.pdf

Tom DeWeese called this AFFH what it really is – communism. To fight back, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-4th district) of Arizona introduced an amendment to prevent HUD from implementing AFFH. The House passed this amendment (229-193) and attached it to Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations bill (THUD).

Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced a similar amendment in the Senate called the “Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act” (S.1909). Co-sponsors are Senators Jeff Sessions, David Vetter, Mike Enzi, and Marco Rubio. THUD will come up for a vote any time now. It is up to you to call your senators to fight against this massive and irreversible social engineering of America and redistribution of your wealth. Forcing people to live in neighborhoods of the government’s choosing has been tried under communism with disastrous results.

The Government 200 Square Feet "Stack and Pack" Concrete A-Podments

An American diplomat who flew over communist Romania during Ceausescu’s reign of terror asked the innocent question, where are the farmers and their homes, I see nothing but fields of green everywhere?

The accompanying hosts looked at each other embarrassed and nobody answered the question. It was too undiplomatic and dangerous to explain to this westerner coming from the land of freedom and private property that the farmers’ land had been confiscated, collectivized, and the former owners moved by force to government assigned concrete block apartments ranging in size from 200-400 square feet.

These apartments were located in blocks with 2-4 entrances depending on whether they were five or nine stories high. The five-story buildings did not have elevators; the nine-story buildings had lifts that could safely carry two individuals at a time and were seldom operational. Renters of various ages and physical abilities had the joy of climbing stairs every day.

Social engineers had decided that land was better used in co-operative farms owned by the communist government. Private homes located on farm land were bulldozed and people were moved either in a compact village attached to the collective farm, with little room between single homes, or in the densely populated cities with grey concrete apartments mushrooming overnight.

The communist party elites had decided that having too much private space was bourgeois, the socialist men needed just enough space to eat and sleep, the rest of the time had to be spent at work.

This brings me to the current trend in the U.S. to reduce Americans’ living space to as little as possible by changing zoning laws without their consent, using visioning committees composed of local agreeable supervisors and outside non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with lots of available grant money from HUD and other government agencies.

U.N. Agenda 21 is behind zoning, regionalism, land and water use, Sustainable Development, global warming, wealth redistribution, social engineering, Smart Growth, Green Growth, cap and trade, Smart Grid, Smart Meters, global citizens, IB World schools, Common Core standards, biofuels, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), gun control, just to name a few. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Nationally syndicated talk show hosts have finally started speaking against U.N. Agenda 21 elements. I have connected all the parts in my best-selling book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

A political refuge appealed to the St. Lucie County Commissioners in Florida at a meeting about the U.N. environmental regionalist Seven50 plans for Florida. “I do not come here to lose my freedom; I beg you – get out of Seven50. Do not destroy our Freedom.” www.westernjournalism.com/author/suzanne-eovaldi/

A long line of citizens vociferously opposed such regionalism and pleaded with “local elected officials to reject the takeover of Florida’s private property.” “

“I am opposed to Seven50… to the loss of our property rights by U.N. Agenda 21, the new world order communist Marxist project.”

Large grants from HUD and this administration have divided our country into 11 nationwide regions, including the east coast of Florida. The Seven50 Regionalism Plan has already been adopted in the Gore triangle counties south of St. Lucie and Indian River counties. Vero Beach, IRC rejected the plan based on a “vertical authority flow chart” controlled by unelected federal bureaucrats influenced by globalist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who plan to “stack-and-pack 200-foot dwelling spaces” and move citizens off their private property.

Suzanne Eovaldi describes the typical stack-and-pack living quarters in the 200 square foot aPodments building in Sammamish, Washington. Resident Judy Green “shares the kitchen with seven other tenants on the second floor.” To get to her loft cubicle, she must climb six flights of stairs in the absence of elevators. Cars are not allowed on account of global warming. The micro-units are the size of a hotel room and rent for $600-900 per month. The micro-housing units increase the population density of the area tremendously. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020845443 apodmentscitycouncilxml.html

The government will impose its best practices of “Sustainable Urbanism” which will force areas to adopt “sustainable development” and “equitable communities,” changing the counties’ desired low density character and scale to high-density crime-ridden slums.

The American Coalition 4 Property Rights explains on its website why the Seven50 Regional Plan must be stopped with its Sustainable Urbanism and the Smart Code solution to urban sprawl. Regionalism will fundamentally alter the make-up of our society and of our property rights or lack thereof. http://nomoreunelectedbureaucrats.com/

“Social engineering is on the verge of being imposed on entire neighborhoods, adults, and children alike.” The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas in order to achieve what they consider “racial, economic, and ethnic diversity.” This is “nationalizing neighborhoods” on a grand scale. This is done for our “own good and to achieve utopia.” By obliterating zoning regulations, we will have neighborhoods by government quota. (Rush Limbaugh monologue, September 12, 2013)

Rush Limbaugh pointed out that “HUD’s power grab is based on the mistaken belief that zoning and discrimination are the same, zoning is disguised discrimination.” Introducing 200 square feet pods between single family homes is “social justice.”

The American Planning Association issued a HUD Smart Growth document, a blueprint of goals to replace single family housing. The 76-page study by APA’s Planning Advisory Service, report number 548, published on July 2007, had the “objective to examine, on a pilot basis, whether zoning impedes the development of higher-density, multifamily housing in growing metropolitan areas.”

The study presumed multifamily housing to be the most affordable type of housing yet it did not evaluate this presumption in the study. “High-density residential development is not always affordable, and low density development is not always costly. Ample high-density and multi-family zoning is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce affordable housing.”(p. iv) Why then destroy suburbia and why dictate to other people how they should live?

The authors identified other factors besides zoning that can limit multifamily housing stock such as market conditions, land availability, parcelization, provision of public services, planning goals such as protecting open spaces or rural areas, and existing land-use patterns.

The APA study recommends:

1.      Support the Regional collection and integration of land use regulatory data (maintain comprehensive data on zoning and other regulatory restraints)

2.      Encourage state and Regional governments to provide oversight of local land-use policies.

3.      Focus state and Regional oversight policies on quantitative performance measures.

4.      Continue to develop better measures of zoning barriers and support additional research on the effects of barriers on housing markets.

For these authors, “the critical question now is not whether regulatory barriers to affordable housing exist in some communities, but whether it is possible to identify such communities and craft an appropriate policy response.”

In my December 23, 2013 interview with Brian Lilley of Sun News Network in Canada, I explained the “affordable housing” fight in Fairfax County, Virginia, where almost all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission are crafting a plan to place Lilliputian slum dwellings in every area of the county. They are the size of shipping containers or jail cells. These are called Residential Studio Units (RSUs) with a total surface of 220-320 square feet. Each high-rise would contain 75 such units and one parking space per unit. Such units would reduce property values, change neighborhoods, increase population density, cause more traffic congestion, and increase crime in the name of “affordable housing” for the poor, low wage workers, and “diversity.” http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2966593149001#.Ur0anuoYeJA.facebook

 

Further reading:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58022 (Are We Too Late to Stop UN Agenda 21?)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59206 (Environmental Conservation Easements Trump-ing Property Rights)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56894 (Harriet’s Fictional America Post Agenda 21)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56246 (Virginia is for Food and Farm Freedom Lovers)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54356 (What is Sustainability?)