Panhandling licenses can be obtained through the City of Greensboro Collections Division, located in Room 11 on the Upper Ground (UG) Level of the Melvin Municipal Office Building, 300 W. Washington St. (map) Their phone number is 336-373-2501.

Who can apply for a panhandling privilege license (also called a panhandling permit) in Greensboro?

Anyone can apply. All panhandling license applications are sent to the Greensboro Police Department for a background check. This can take up to seven (7) days to complete. (For more information, see section 20-72. (c)(3) of the local ordinance, below.)

How much does a panhandling license cost?

Panhandling licenses are free.

What do I need to bring with me to obtain a panhandling license in Greensboro?

• North Carolina picture ID (driver license or ID card)
• Social Security card

Who enforces panhandling laws?

The Greensboro Police Department. Their phone number (non-emergency) is 336-373-2222.

What are the laws about panhandling?

Panhandling laws are listed below (current as of March 22, 2012) from Chapter 20 – PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, ETC. >> ARTICLE IV. – PERSONS BEGGING OR SOLICITING ALMS FOR PERSONAL GAIN >> in the Greensboro, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances:

Sec. 20-65. – Intent.

The purpose of this article is to require the registration and permitting of street peddlers, beggars and charitable solicitors who attempt to solicit sales or contributions for their own personal gain from occupants of vehicles and pedestrians on certain streets and sidewalks within the City of Greensboro, and to thereby regulate and ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and to promote roadway safety and sidewalk safety. The provisions of this article shall not apply to bona fide members of charitable, religious, civic or fraternal organizations which are exempt from the payment of privilege licenses and who receive no compensation of any kind for their services. Those persons excluded under the provisions of article III, section 20-61(b) and (c) are excluded from the provisions of this article.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03)

Sec. 20-66. – Registration and privilege license required.

No person shall sell, or offer for goods for sale, or solicit contributions for their own personal benefit or engage in any other form of commercial speech in the City of Greensboro unless such persons have previously registered therefore and obtained the panhandler privilege license required under section 13-31 and section 13-102.1 of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 04-84, § 2, 6-15-04; Ord. No. 06-119, § 1, 6-6-06)

Sec. 20-67. – Privilege license procedures.

(a) Applications for panhandler privilege licenses from individuals under this article shall be submitted to the office of the city tax collector on forms provided by the office of the city tax collector. The applicant shall submit an application and shall submit to a criminal background history check which shall be reviewed by the chief of police or his designee to determine eligibility of the applicant. Thereafter, any panhandler privilege license issued shall be valid until the end of the fiscal year in which said license was issued or for such other period as may be specified on the license certificate or until information is discovered that causes the licensee, in the opinion of the tax collector, to become disqualified. In such instances of disqualification any panhandler privilege license having been issued shall be revoked by the tax collector.

(b) Upon receipt of information or reports of violation of this article or other disqualifying events as set forth in section 20-71 or 20-72, the tax collector may refuse to issue, refuse to renew or may revoke privilege licenses as deemed necessary to safeguard the interest of the public and to carry out the purposes of this article, which are to promote public safety and convenience on the streets and sidewalks of the City of Greensboro.

(c) Any panhandler privilege license issued under this article shall be nontransferable.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 04-84, § 2, 6-15-04; Ord. No. 06-119, § 2, 6-6-06; Ord. No. 10-120, § 1, 8-17-2010)

Sec. 20-68. – Time.

Any person who begs or solicits alms for his or her own personal gain after sunset or before sunrise is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who begs or solicits alms for his or her own personal gain in a school zone during the time of arrival of students at the beginning of the school day and/or during the time of departure of students at the end of the school day is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 04-84, § 2, 6-15-04)

Sec. 20-69. – Place.

Any person who begs or solicits alms for his or her personal gain when the person is in any of the places listed below is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) At any bus or train stop;

(2) In any public transportation vehicle, facility, transit stop or taxi stand;

(3) In any vehicle on the street; or

(4) On private property, unless the person has written permission from the owner of the property to beg or solicit alms on the property; or

(5) Within three hundred (300) feet of or in any public or private school property, which shall include but not be limited to primary and secondary educational facilities, job training or continuing educational facilities, or any daycare or childcare facility.

(6) On any sidewalk adjacent to a motion picture theatre, outdoor theatre or palladium, any valid licensed vendor location, or where a line of patrons has formed.

(7) Within twenty (20) feet of the entrance to any financial institution or automated teller machine, regardless of whether or not such automated teller machine is located at or near a financial institution. Financial institution as used in this section means any bank, trust company, savings and loan association, credit union, check-cashing business, any other entity principally engaged in the business of lending or receiving or soliciting money on deposit; or

(8) Within twenty (20) feet of the entrance to any commercial establishment or private residence; or

(9) In any parking, deck, garage or surface parking lot and not within twenty (20) feet of the entrance and exits of these areas and not within twenty (20) feet of any parking meter or parking kiosk; or

(10) While under the influence of alcohol or other non prescribed drug or illegal substance; or

(11) Within twenty (20) feet of the visible barricade of any outdoor café whether such café is on the public sidewalk or on private property.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 04-84, § 2, 6-15-04; Ord. No. 09-160, § 1, 9-15-09; Ord. No. 10-38, § 1, 4-6-10; Ord. No. 10-47, § 1, 5-4-10)

Sec. 20-70. – Manner.

Any person who begs or solicits alms for his or her own personal gain in any of the following manners is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) By coming within three (3) feet of the person being solicited, until that person has clearly indicated that he or she wants to make a donation;

(2) By blocking the path of the person being solicited along a sidewalk or street;

(3) By following the person being solicited after they have walked away;

(4) By using profane or abusive language, either during the solicitation, or following a refusal;

(5) By soliciting in a group of two (2) or more people; or

(6) By any statement, gesture, or other form of communication by which a reasonable person in the situation of the person solicited would perceive to be a threat.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03)

Sec. 20-71. – False or misleading solicitation.

(a) Any person who knowingly makes any false or misleading representation in the course of soliciting a donation or begging for alms is guilty of a misdemeanor. False or misleading representations include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor already has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact;

(2) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need which does not exist;

(3) Stating the solicitor is from out of town and stranded when that is not true;

(4) Wearing a military uniform or other indication of military service, when the solicitor is neither a present nor former member of the service indicated;

(5) Wearing or displaying an indication of physical or mental disability, when the solicitor does not suffer the disability indicated;

(6) Use of any makeup or device to simulate any deformity; or

(7) Stating that the solicitor is homeless, when he or she is not.

(b) Any person who solicits a donation stating that the funds are needed for a specific purpose and then spends the funds received for a different purpose is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) This section establishes a single offense. Evidence, which establishes that the defendant violated the section, is sufficient for conviction and need not establish which subdivision was violated.

(Ord. No. 03-81, 4-15-03)

Sec. 20-72. – Privilege license required.

(a) No person shall beg or solicit alms for personal gain without first registering and obtaining a panhandler privilege license issued by the tax department. A person who has registered and who has been issued a panhandler privilege license shall keep it displayed on his or her chest, hanging from a lanyard or clipped to their garment, so that the name, type of license and date of expiration is visible at all times while begging or soliciting alms for personal gain and shall show it to any law enforcement officer or tax collector immediately upon request. No person whose panhandler’s privilege license has been revoked shall beg or solicit alms for a period of two (2) years following the date of the revocation. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) The city tax collector’s office shall issue a panhandler privilege license, without fee, to any eligible person (a person shall be deemed eligible once they demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the tax collector, their ability to satisfy the requirements for licensure as are spelled out in this chapter) who comes to the city tax collector’s office and presents a picture identification issued by NCDMV and one (1) other form of identification.

(c) A person is not eligible for a panhandler privilege license or renewal of a panhandler privilege license if within the most recent five-year period:

(1) The tax collector has received information from the executive officer to the chief of police that the person has two (2) or more violations of this chapter;

(2) The tax collector has received information from the executive officer to the chief of police that the person has been convicted of two (2) or more offenses under the law of any jurisdiction which involve either misdemeanor or felony assault, communicating threats, or illegal use of weapons; or

(3) The person otherwise does not qualify for a privilege license in accordance with this chapter.

(d) The panhandler privilege license shall display the essential rules and regulations of this chapter. Such rules shall serve as a compliance guide for the licensee.

(e) Any person who makes any false or misleading statement while applying for a panhandler’s privilege license under this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon receipt of information of such a violation, the tax collector shall decline to issue a privilege license to the offending applicant or shall revoke the license of the offending licensee.

(f) If a person applies for or is issued a privilege license under this chapter and the tax collector receives information that the person has violated any provision of this chapter, the tax collector shall decline to issue or shall revoke, respectively, that person’s privilege license for a period of two (2) years.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 04-84, § 2, 6-15-04; Ord. No. 06-119, § 3, 6-6-06; Ord. No. 10-120, § 2, 8-17-2010; Ord. No. 10-137, § 1, 9-7-10)

Sec. 20-73. – Violations.

Any violation of this article shall be a misdemeanor and may be enforced by any one (1) or more of the remedies authorized by the provisions of G.S. § 14-4 or G.S. § 160A-175. A police officer observing a violation of this article shall confiscate the panhandler privilege license and return it to the tax department. The licensee may appear before the tax collector and show cause, to the satisfaction of the tax collector, why the license should not be revoked.

(Ord. No. 03-81, § 1, 4-15-03; Ord. No. 06-119, § 4, 6-6-06)

# # # # #

This replaces an outdated post of the same name.

From the IRC’s Director, Liz Seymour: “We invite anyone who would like to start a new tradition to come down to 407 E. Washington Street and spend a little Christmas at the IRC!”

Related: Bender’s Tavern will provide shuttle service from the IRC to their restaurant for their free Christmas meal for the needy.

Here is a list of the Guilford County providers who received renewal funding, along with the amount each received this year and last year:

Image adapted from Sean Dreilinger's original

A frequently asked question from visitors to this site:

Can crack cocaine come through breast milk?

And the answer? YES.

 

When a breast-feeding mom uses crack cocaine, she may pass the drug on to her baby through her breast milk, with serious effects:

“Convulsions have been seen both in infants of breast-feeding mothers using cocaine and in infants exposed to passive crack smoke inhalation. Because cocaine and its metabolites can be found in breast milk for up to 60 hours after use, breast-feeding is not recommended.”
~ p. 225, “Drug abuse and withdrawal”, S Schechner, Manual of Neonatal Care, Philadelphia, 2004

Drinking crack-cocaine-tainted breast milk can severely damage a baby, and in some cases, may lead to death. (More here.)

Addicted moms? Get help: Find a treatment program or find an NA meeting.

Our county had a good treatment center which offered detox, outpatient, and inpatient services. The center stayed full, with a waiting list, from the day it opened, but still, it was good treatment, and people got help there. But there were issues with Bridgeway, the operator contracted to provide services, and the state suspended admissions in August. The county is transitioning to a new provider, DayMark, but new patients won’t be admitted until at least late November. So that’s four months with no county substance abuse treatment.

Uninsured/under-insured Guilford County residents in need of substance abuse treatment can go to ARCA in Winston, RTS in Burlington or ADATC in Butner for detox and crisis stabilization. But those services are limited to 14 days. While that’s helpful in some cases, in many cases, it’s like sticking a bandaid on a seriously injured car crash victim and dumping them back into the middle of the interstate. Those in recovery from cocaine addiction, for example, often need significantly more residential treatment. They need to be in a safe, structured environment while their brains begin to heal. And at just 14 days’ clean time, a crack addict’s brain looks like someone turned the lights out.

Much is said about “community-based treatment,” which means non-residential (not in a facility), but in reality, it sounds a lot better than it often works. “Best practices” and “client-centered therapy” are also important parts of good treatment. But the substance abuse treatment available locally to alcoholics and addicts who don’t have good health insurance coverage doesn’t always measure up to those terms.

I’m a realist. I know that the biggest reason why we don’t have the needed treatment is because there’s not enough money to pay for it. Local and state treatment programs are paid for primarily with tax dollars. There’s always been a shortage of treatment beds and treatment options. And the current economy has no doubt worsened the situation. But I also know the cost of addiction that most taxpayers don’t see or think about. It’s “pay me now or pay me later.” When treatment-ready alcoholics and addicts can’t get the help they need, and they continue in their addictions, taxpayers still end up paying for it.

People who can’t access needed treatment services often continue to cycle through emergency rooms (the most expensive form of healthcare) and detox programs. That costs taxpayers money. Active alcoholics and addicts who are on disability may use government benefits, such as SSDI or SSI checks, food stamps or utility vouchers to buy alcohol and drugs. Taxpayers pay for that. Police officers, jailers and judges can tell you about the correlation between addiction and crime. Again, taxpayers pay.

The cost of the destruction of lives — both the addicts’ and their friends and families — cannot be measured.  Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families lose time from work dealing with crises. Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families deal with mental and physical health issues — some which contribute to the alcoholism and addiction, and some resulting from it. Families break up and relationships end because of alcoholism and addiction. Single-parent families are at a greater risk of poverty and are more likely to receive government assistance. All of this adds up to more taxpayers dollars.

There’s much stigma, misinformation and mythology attached to alcoholism and addiction. This probably contributes to the lack of advocacy for increasing treatment options. But if we were to really look at the bottom line, we’d see that “detox and done” isn’t really serving anyone.

It’s easy to appeal to compassion and make an emotional case for providing treatment for alcoholics and addicts who are ready to do the next thing. But the pragmatic case is just as compelling, if not more so. Currently, adequate treatment is not available because our community can’t afford to provide it. But the truth is that taxpayers are already paying (and likely paying more) for not providing adequate treatment services, which raises the obvious question: Can we really afford not to provide it?

# # # # #

RUCO is under attack by opponents and now is the time that those who support RUCO speak up and let all Council members, not just your district Council person, know how you feel.

The focus of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is the preservation and improvements of our neighborhoods in terms of quality of life, property values and safety. As we all know, sub-standard housing undermines surrounding property values — even one substandard property can undermine the property values of an entire neighborhood. Also, we know that sub-standard properties invite crime into our communities.

Other organizations that are partnering in support of the pro-active aspects of RUCO, such as the Greensboro Housing Coalition and the Human Relations Commission, are focused on the human rights issues of improving sub-standard rental properties, in that renters have a right to live in safe housing and that many of them won’t complain about substandard housing out of fear of retaliation from their landlords.

RUCO is a sucessful program

• Since RUCO was implemented, known sub-standard housing in Greensboro has been reduced from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010;
• Since RUCO was implemented, complaints about sub-standard housing have been decreased 77%;
• Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been reduced by 22%.
• Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been more successful in getting deteriorated housing to the Minimum Housing Commission more quickly and the number to go has steadily increased from 17 in 2003 to 105 in 2010.

RUCO is reasonable

• Once inspected and a certificate is issued, the RUCO is good for the life of the property unless there is a complaint on the property or violations are found during the sampling inspections and not repaired within the prescribed time frame.
• The time frame in which a violation must be repaired is 45 days from the written notice of the violation and can be extended as long as in the judgment of the inspector, progress is being on the repairs.
• The sampling inspection process applies only to a random 2% of rental properties.
• Rental properties that have not yet been inspected that come on the rental market are required to pass inspection and be issued a RUCO before they can be rented.

Opponents of RUCO plan to propose an elimination of the pro-active portions of RUCO, and as they couch it: “target problem properties”. Their proposal will in effect eliminate RUCO. We agree that problem properties should be targeted. However, the Housing Code already provides the means to address the obvious problem properties and the City staff have already done 100% exterior inspections at least once. Moreover, where the staff find indications of violations from the external inspections, they are pursuing internal inspections. However, staff will tell you that you can not know what violations may be present inside a residence solely from an external inspection. It is doubtful that you will see electrical problems from the exterior; or rotting floors, or problems with the heating or air conditioning, etc. The question is: do you want to wait until the problems are apparent in the exterior where they negatively impact your entire community? That’s what the opponents of RUCO are proposing we do.

TAKE ACTION
Click here to send one email all City Council members.
Click here for the City Council directory which provides their home addresses and phone numbers.
Click here to write a letter to the editor at the News and Record.

The Greensboro Housing Coalition also supports keeping RUCO intact and they state the following reasons:

1. RUCO has achieved tremendous improvement in housing safety for problem properties, reducing substandard housing from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010.
2. Substandard housing conditions impact health; health care and disability costs for NC children hurt by unsafe housing conditions totaled $108,000,000 in 2007.
3. Proactive inspections prevent conditions from sliding below standard, beyond the focus on problem properties. Analogy: waiting for conditions to become big enough problems for people to complain (or inspectors to see from the street) is like waiting for restaurant kitchens to get so dirty that people see rats before the Health Dept sanitarian comes. Wouldn’t you rather have proactive inspections so that restaurants keep kitchens sanitary all the time and that rental properties stay at or above minimum standards?

The Neighborhood Congress and the Greensboro Housing Coalition are, however, interested in improving the administration of the inspections programs and we have offered to assist City management and staff in identifying areas that need improvement and finding procedural and other solutions. However, such administrative improvements do not require that we remove the certification requirements within RUCO.

Three of the Congress participants who are willing to assist you with your questions about RUCO and/or drafting your comments are: Laura Jackson, Michael Pendergraft, and David Wharton.

Follow-up info:

What are the proactive components of RUCO?

There are basically 2 such components:

1. RUCO currently calls for all properties that are newly placed on the rental market to be inspected and certified before they can be rented. This does not apply to new construction rentals or rentals that go through major renovations, because new construction and major renovations have to be inspected anyway and RUCO certification is therefore assumed.
2. RUCO also currently requires that City staff inspect a random 2% sampling of all rental properties – regardless of whether they have previously received a RUCO certification. However, once a property has received a RUCO, it is good for the life of the property unless the property falls into the 2% sampling or the resident of the property files a complaint.

Written by Donna Newton, Greensboro Neighborhood Congress

Tim Clontz, VP, Moses Cone (image source: mosescone.com)

Moses Cone Health System and High Point Regional Health System want to continue providing care to underserved adults and children in Guilford County and have been negotiating a contract to do so for two years.

Recognizing the tough economic environment we have suggested a 33% reduction ($500,000) in the county’s contribution for the care of indigent adults. We will continue caring for children with the same level of county funding. The contribution currently made by the county is less than what the county loss on these same clinics when the county ran them as a part of the Health Department over 13 years ago. Since being run by the health systems, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children seen and specialty clinics added.

Moses Cone Health System alone provided $125.4 million (at our cost) of uncompensated care last fiscal year. This includes $3.5 million dollars, which MCHS and HPRHS have paid to subsidize the operations of Guilford Child Health and Guilford Adult Health.

Guilford County’s refusal to pay its share of the cost of caring for indigent adults only shifts the cost from all county taxpayers to those who have insurance in the form of higher medical bills.

» Previously.

I thank Tim for the information, and for what he, personally, does to help us help homeless people in our community access health care. More here, here, and here. Thanks, Tim.

PRESS RELEASE

Jehan Benton-Clark
For Immediate Release
336.553.2715 (O)
336.215.1295 (M)
Jehan@PartnersEndingHomelessness.org

State of Homelessness in Guilford County

Guilford County, NC—March 22, 2010– Homelessness has become a national issue of significant proportion with over 300 cities and counties across the country implementing plans to address this human tragedy.  In Guilford County, the Partners Ending Homelessness Initiative focuses on actively implementing, evaluating and updating Guilford County’s Ten Year Plan which is aimed at improving the quality of life for all residents of Guilford County by ending chronic homelessness and reducing all types of homelessness by 2016. The Partners Ending Homelessness Initiative focuses on generating housing and strengthening prevention & supportive services.

Homelessness is defined by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) as a person sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g., living on the streets, or residing in an emergency shelter, or transitional housing) while, chronic homelessness is defined as an individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.

Three methods of data collection are used to gain an accurate picture of homelessness trends and the people experiencing homelessness over time in Guilford County. These methods include an annual Point in Time Count, an annual local school system count, and information and data collected by the State of North Carolina’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).

Point in Time counts, conducted annually across the nation, are designed to collect data on the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness on any given night. The information collected provides a snapshot of unduplicated sheltered and unsheltered individuals and families experiencing homelessness as defined by HUD. On Wednesday, January 27^th the Homeless Prevention Coalition of Guilford County conducted Guilford County’s Annual Point in Time Count. The survey included only individuals willing to answer questions about their living status within a single 24 hour time period.  Every individual or family experiencing homelessness are not included as some refuse to participate, avoid the survey, or are not found within the 24 hour time period. The 2010 Point in Time Count reveals that 1,064 individuals experience homelessness on any given night and 131 of those individuals are experiencing chronic homelessness. This year’s snap shot shows increases in homeless veterans, domestic violence victims, and homeless children, with a 55% increase in the number of Veterans living on the street or in emergency shelters, a 31% increase in the number of domestic violence victims who are experiencing homelessness (with 40% of those victims being male), and an 8% rise in the number of homeless children.

The Guilford County School System reports data annually on the number of children experiencing homelessness over the course of the school year. This data, based on the US Department of Education’s definition of homelessness, includes children and youth who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations. During the 2008-2009 school year the Guilford County School system reported 1,585 children experiencing homelessness over the course of the school year. In addition, to the 2008-2009 school year count, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Guilford County Schools conducted an additional count to help provide a snapshot, with a total of 1,230 children experiencing homelessness on that day.

HMIS, a software application that records and stores unduplicated counts of client-level information on the characteristics and service needs of homeless persons. The Carolina Homeless Information Network manages North Carolina’s HMIS system. It is used by homeless assistance providers to coordinate care, manage their operations, and better serve their clients. Aggregated data in the system gives insights into the extent and nature of homelessness over time. Data collected in the HMIS system reflects that Guilford County had over 4,770 individuals and families who experienced homelessness over the course of the year in 2009.

Guilford County has made many strides over the past three years to address the issue of homelessness, however the economic downturn and housing crisis has disrupted the stability of many people. The challenges of living without permanent shelter are great and all the more heartbreaking when children, veterans and victims of Domestic violence are involved. The three pronged approach to data collection used in Guilford County reveals only a glimpse of the problem. It does not include the many people surviving outside of the system who are imminently homeless or precariously housed.

Unemployment and underemployment are the top reasons people in Guilford County experience homelessness, according to this data. Respondents state that jobs, affordable housing, shelter and healthcare are the most important community services needed in Guilford County. Families and individuals experiencing homelessness are not the only ones harmed by this situation. Guilford County citizens and the economy as a whole are impacted as well. It is essential that all groups pool their resources and coordinate efforts by strengthening existing partnerships and creating new ones. Our community has great needs, but through your support of the Partners Ending Homelessness Initiative we can help …connect…support ….and restore lives. We know that Time Counts and that with your help, together we can ensure that Guilford County will be a community that ends homelessness.

About the Partners Ending Homelessness Initiative

The Partners Ending Homelessness Initiative works to encourage public understanding of the causes and conditions of homelessness and lead a strong and stable system of care for individuals and families to reduce homelessness in Guilford County. For more information, please visit www.PartnersEndingHomelessness.org. Partners Ending Homelessness can be contacted at 336.553.2715 or by email at info@PartnersEndingHomelessness.org

About the Homeless Prevention Coalition

The Homeless Prevention Coalition is a diverse, community-based coalition working to end homelessness in Guilford County through advocacy, information, funding, and networking. For more information on the members of the Homeless Prevention Coalition, please visit http://www.hpcgc.org. For more information about the 2010 Point in Time Count contact Shanna Reece, Executive Director, The Servant Center at 336.275.8585 or shannareece@theservantcenter.org, or Steve Key, Executive Director, Open Door Ministries, at 336.885.0191 or skey@odm-hp.org.

# # # # #

Four days earlier, on 11/24/2009, a Greensboro police sergeant had contacted the state agency (and others, including me), seeking direction on how to help a (different) homeless refugee.

“…The City has received complaints about him sleeping there. We hope to get him some help rather than resort to arresting him for trespassing under the bridge…”

On 12/02/2009, a state rep responded, confirming that the man was a Montagnard refugee, and had received resettlement assistance from 2002-2004. She also offered contact info for a group that had worked with the man previously, but by the time she sent her email, the (concerned and resourceful) sergeant already had help on the scene.

Stay tuned…

The controversial benches on the Downtown Greenway that were placed directly behind the homeless shelter’s back fence were removed after neighbors complained that they attracted criminal activity.  With the benches gone, attention turned to the “bigger problem” — the mostly homeless crowd loitering on “the block” two hundreds yards away.

Sources tell me that on Monday evening, County Commissioner Chair Skip Alston (who owns an apartment complex in that neighborhood) met with residents of the community.  Sources say that in response to the concerns of the residents, Greensboro Police Chief Tim Bellamy committed to step up enforcement on the block.  As of Tuesday morning, police have instituted a “zero tolerance” policy for loitering on the block at Lee and Eugene.