“Alex Santos didn’t expect to be homeless before he was 30. Then, in the past few years, the 28-year-old lost his job, his wife and his home all in a row — the pillars of his life falling like dominoes.

He’s one of hundreds who have found help at the Interactive Resource Center, a homeless day shelter in downtown Greensboro partially funded by Guilford County.

But under a suggested $4.1 million in cuts to the county’s Human Services budget, Guilford would end funding for the center…”

I contacted IRC director Liz Seymour to ask what percentage of the center’s funding comes from the County, and how losing funding will affect the day center. Here’s Liz’s response:

The article was not entirely accurate–the County isn’t cutting existing funding, but it is cutting a funding request out of the proposed budget. There are some real and important issues at stake and we would love to have your help and support. The Commissioners will hold a series of budget hearings starting tonight and finishing with a county-wide hearing on Thursday, May 3 at 5:30 at the Commissioners Meeting Room in the Old Courthouse. It’s not just about the IRC, it’s all the groups out there who are helping more and more people with less and less support.

Our total budget is about $400,000 of which roughly half comes from individual gifts; the rest is largely from foundations, churches and a little bit from civic groups and businesses. (And honestly, although our budget is $400,000 we’re operating on an austerity budget that comes in a lot closer to $300,000–not sustainable, but necessary at the moment).

In 2009 the County allocated $275,000 for renovation of the building we are now in but we have never received any operating funds from the County. We put in a request last year through the CBO (Community Based Organization) process and were denied; we have applied again this year as a CBO with a request for $25,000 but once again are not in the budget. We do not receive regular funding from the City either, though this year we will be eligible to apply for a slice of Community Development Block Grant money, a federal pass-through that the City administers (it’s worth noting that the CDBG is a very small pie and everyone’s slice comes out pretty thin)

Because government funding at every level (local, state and federal) is in such jeopardy these days we have not built our long-range strategy around it. Our greatest growth at the moment is in individual gifts–this year fully half of our giving has come from first-time donors, which indicates to me that when people understand what we are doing they want to support it. The rule of thumb for philanthropy is that 70-80 percent of giving comes from individual donors; at the moment for us it’s a little under 50 percent. One of our biggest needs is simply to get the word out!

That said, anything we can do to persuade the County Commissioners to allocate funds to the IRC would be huge. At the most practical level the funds we have requested would pay for almost a month of operations. On a civic level Paul Gibson is absolutely right: ‘They’re doing the work the county’s not doing.’ And we’re saving the entire county a lot of money too…

>> Have a look at Guilford County’s Human Services FY 2012-2013 Recommended Budget Info here. Dates of budget meetings, work sessions and the public hearing; as well as links to all parts of the recommended budget, here.

>> Learn more about the great work that the Interactive Resource Center is doing to help the homeless! Make a donation online. Connect with the IRC on Facebook and Twitter. And help spread the word! The IRC provides much-needed services to people who are homeless, formerly homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Get involved!

“Decisions about the homeless have, for years in Forsyth County, been made mostly by well-meaning people who have never spent a night on the street. Today, a group of homeless and formerly homeless people will try to change that. The Homeless Caucus, a group formed by the community-organizing group CHANGE, called a public meeting tonight to ask for two voting seats on the executive board of the Homeless Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County.”

Good for them! The ONLY experts on homelessness are those who’ve experienced it! It makes no sense for never-homeless individuals to create plans and policy for homeless people without the active involvement of currently and/or formerly homeless people at every stage of the process.

>> Read all of Homeless Want Seats on Coalition Board…

The harsh words and hard hearts reveal the truth — the concern is not for the poor and any negative effects government assistance programs may have on them, it’s for the pocketbooks of those who oppose them! If they were truly concerned about the poor, they would be spending their energy advocating for positive change and accountability for government assistance programs — not trying to dismantle them! (For those who argue that the government shouldn’t be involved in helping the poor, they would be spending their energy advocating for effective private programs to help the poor — not just trying to end them!)

God is not fooled by any of this. Those who ridicule, scorn and ignore the plight of the poor also mock and blaspheme God! And they dig their own graves. God’s Word is clear. He is the defender of the poor!

“Those who mock the poor insult their Maker; those who rejoice at the misfortune of others will be punished.”
– Proverbs 17:5

“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.”
– Proverbs 19:17

“Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts.”
– Proverbs 21:2

“He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.”
– Proverbs 28:27

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
– Matthew 6:19-21

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
– Matthew 25:41-46

“For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”
– 1 Timothy 6:10

“A new study says that drug treatment courts, which state legislators cut funding for in the recent budget, are effective at reducing crime and drug use.

Drug courts also saved an average of nearly $5,700 per participant, resulting in a net benefit of $2 for every $1 spent, according to the study released Tuesday by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. The Center for Court Innovation in New York and RTI International in the Research Triangle Park assisted with the study.

This year, North Carolina legislators cut $2 million in funding for drug treatment courts across the state…”

>> Continue reading “Study: Drug courts effective in reducing” at News-Record.com.

I’ve seen first-hand the effectiveness of Guilford County’s drug court. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to cut programs that save taxpayer dollars and change lives.

# # # # #

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

From YES! Weekly blog:

08/27/2010: Draft revision of RUCO ordinance advances to advisory board

08/25/2010: RUCO task force plods forward

» Previously on ChosenFast.com

Since RUCO began, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of violations. (See graph at Greensboro Housing Coalition’s web site.) But now, the future of this successful program is in jeopardy.

City Council member Nancy Vaughan has suggested that RUCO change from a mandatory program to self-report. (She has since seemed to be reconsidering her position.) Representatives from TREBIC (Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition) and the Greensboro Landlords Association would like to see RUCO abandoned. Housing advocates, such as Greensboro Housing Coalition and Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, fiercely oppose any changes.

City staff (Engineering & Inspections and Fire Department) also argue for keeping RUCO. The Greensboro Human Relations Commission has an interest in the outcome of the fight. Council member Robbie Perkins supports keeping the program. (source: Jordan Green)

Meanwhile, landlord Bill Burkley, who’s worked as a paid political consultant to some Council members, is appealing fines for code violations, and has just had his case continued before the advisory board which is pursuing the elimination of RUCO (source: Amanda Lehmert, via Fec) Five Council members who were contacted for a news story say they weren’t contacted or lobbied by Burkley.

I oppose self-report on code violations, because I know that some tenants won’t report, for fear of landlord retaliation, including losing their housing. Just recently, I’ve seen three examples of renters who fear retaliation and/or have already been retaliated against for reporting code violations. (Update: In all three cases, these were serious violations requiring immediate attention, that likely would have resulted in a 48-hour vacate notice, if not fixed within that time period.)

I could not obtain permission to share the stories of any of these renters. I was told: “Do not blog about this.” “Don’t tell anybody.” “You can’t say anything.” It’s frustrating, but their refusal to even allow me to share their stories anonymously proves the point that self-report doesn’t work. RUCO’s mandatory inspection system has been proved to work, by decreasing code violations markedly.

I understand why TREBIC and the Greensboro Landlords Association oppose RUCO. It forces landlords to meet code, levies fines for violations and prevents rental of units without certificates. In other words, it costs landlords money, and both those organizations represent landlords. But that doesn’t make their opposition right.

The worst part about the push to go to elimination of RUCO and self-report of violations is that it pits power and money (TREBIC, Greensboro Landlords Association) against poor people who are most likely to live in substandard housing and fear reporting housing code violations.  Power vs. poverty is an unfair fight. Too often, power wins. I’m hoping and praying that many advocates — and renters! — will step up and fight for the continuation of this successful program.

Be one of the voices in support of RUCO! Email Council members. Speak during the public comment period at a Council meeting. Write a letter to the editor — News & Record, YES! Weekly, Rhino Times. Blog, Facebook, Twitter. Say something!

Also posted at CaraMichele.com

UPDATED, 08/28/10: My landlord friends tell me via the comments below, and in private conversations, that the power vs. poverty analogy is not accurate.  I’m still listening. Meanwhile, there’s more.

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.

My ministry partner took this photo at the entrance to the Greenway, near the block. Image credit: Audrie Keen

Two days ago, I wrote about “the block” at Lee and Eugene Streets being empty. The block is a long-time gathering spot where folks, many of them homeless, are known to loiter and drink. A friend, who catches a bus just down the sidewalk, had contacted me to tell me that police had cleared everybody out.

Yesterday, I wrote a follow-up post after hearing from multiple sources that the block-clearing, among other things, was the result of a meeting between County Commissioner Chair Skip Alston, Chief Bellamy and neighborhood residents.

Today, the News & Record reports about the block being empty. Their story says that it took a week of 30-minute patrols to clear the block. Actually, the zero-tolerance enforcement began on Tuesday morning, and the block has been clear ever since. It didn’t take a week. The block cleared as soon as the police cracked down.

But let’s back up a minute. If Chief can impose a zero-tolerance policy on loitering on the block, and it’s automagically cleared, then why did it take 20 years to do that? Residents have been complaining for a long time. So have the merchants on the block, as business after business has failed there.  If there was such a quick and easy solution, why wasn’t it done before?

Well, for one thing, there wasn’t a Downtown Greenway 200 yards from the block before. Which brings me to another question: Now that the block is cleared,  how long will it be before those artistic benches are back?

“Endurance. Triumph. Faith. Strength. Hope.”

Prescient?

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.