Not just the status quo.
Across the Triangle and across the nation, local efforts to end homelessness in ten years are moving forward. A key point from the News and Observer article:

Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, was in North Carolina for meetings in Orange County, Raleigh and other towns.

He not only urged officials to push beyond the status quo, he suggested that they recast the issue in different ways, especially when it comes to trying to persuade the public to invest more in stamping out homelessness.

Several cities have done financial studies that show that millions of public dollars already are being invested in the homeless population -- for emergency room visits and jail stays for minor offenses. By investing that money, instead, in housing, many of those costs could be cut dramatically, advocates for the homeless say.

-# posted by Michael McGee @ 4:13 PM 0 comments

 
Ambitious, but not impossible
From the Daily Tarheel: 10-year plan to end homelessness moves forward.
-# posted by Michael McGee @ 3:25 PM 0 comments

 
Is homelessness self-inflicted?
As people may have noticed from reading the Chapel Hill News editorials, there is a widespread perception that homelessness and poverty are self-inflicted. But as the following editorial points out, that's not necessarily true.

---

Self-inflicted would imply that those who suffered the consequences of the action were those who initiated the action. This is completely untrue in this situation. The proper term may be government- orcommunity-inflicted, but these people have no control over those policies that lead to their inability to obtain good jobs or appropriate housing.

As with any policy that is adopted, there are tradeoffs that have to be made. The minimum wage laws were adopted to protect employees who are so desperate to work that they will compete in the labor force by working for employers who exploit workers, which in turn lowers standards for everyone. Most of us hear stories of sweat shops in other countries and are immediately disgusted by the idea of that happening here in the United States. Minimum wage laws prevent employers from exploiting workers in thesetypes of ways.

Needless to say there are some negative implications to these laws: mostly that employers are more limited in the number of people they are able to hire. Regardless of the fact that these lawsmay prevent people from being hired who otherwise would be, though,they exist and some people are left unable to compete in a workforce that is driven by competition, talent, and social networks.

Should anyone be penalized because we've adopted a policy in our country of respecting human dignity in the workplace? Or should we take responsibility for the policies we as a society implement and do our best to help those that suffer as a consequence?

Sandra M. Shackelford
Master's Student, Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA

---

Perhaps we should keep in mind that companies in fact did horribly exploit workers before labor unions and other progressives fought for and won things like minimum wage and workplace safety laws.

It is puzzling to me that anyone would advocate elimination of the minimum wage as something that would be beneficial to ending homelessness. There are a lot of complex reasons for homelessness, but at the core of the problem is that people simply are not making enough to meet the rising cost of living, particularly in a place like Chapel Hill where housing costs, gas prices, and other day to day living expenses are so high. It is difficult to see how people making less money would somehow be beneficial.

Yes, it is true that by paying workers more, companies have to pay out more in salaries. It is also true that another effect is that more people have more money in their pockets that they can use to buy the goods and services that companies produce. Even Henry Ford (that rabid communist) understood that people had to make enough money to be able to afford to buy his vehicles. Also, more people working means that more people are productive citizens who are paying taxes instead of using social services in the first place.

Conservatives advocate lowering the minimum wage (or not having one at all), yet at the same time, they push for drastic cuts to the social services that help people who don't make enough money to support themselves. There is more to the problem of homelessness than just the people you see panhandling on Franklin Street; there are also many families who are just one financial crisis from becoming homeless. If we as a society say that its ok that people don't make enough money and at the same time say that we won't pay to help them, what exactly are those less fortunate supposed to do? Criticizing social programs is easy enough, but it becomes much harder when one has the task of coming up with actual solutions.

-# posted by Michael McGee @ 1:43 PM 0 comments

 
Response to Chapel Hill News Column
Chris Moran was kind enough to send out some of the letters to the editor printed in today's Chapel Hill News in response to my guest column that ran on Sunday, January 30.

---

Some tampering brings unintended consequences

In Michael McGee’s My View column “Homelessness in Chapel Hill is a community issue” (CHN, Jan. 30), he says that “eroding work opportunities” and “lack of affordable housing” are two of the many reasons for homelessness. These problems are self-inflicted, since we are tampering with the job and housing markets.

When we institute the minimum-wage law, we eliminate all the jobs that aren’t worth that wage. There are also laws that have a similar effect by suppressing the low end of the housing market.

-- David Polewka, Chapel Hill

Shelter correct to separate men from women, kids

Homelessness and hunger are problems that should be almost non-existent in a wealthy country like America. Physical-health and mental-health services, focused on prevention, should be generally available in the United States. Those who oppose placing a homeless men’s shelter near residences and schools are aware of these anomalies in America. But those who have worked and saved for a home should have their investment and security protected.

Michael McGee has spoken for the IFC at Town Council meetings. He writes in The Chapel Hill News (Jan. 30, My View) that residents do not know who the IFC clients are. This dismissive attitude from shelter proponents will not solve the problems of poverty and homelessness. Orange County proposes a 10-year plan to end homelessness. The solutions to hunger and homelessness are long-range.

The petition signed by abuttors to Legion Road said we know how easily job loss, accidents, disease or divorce can make anyone homeless. Part of downtown Chapel Hill’s deterioration stems from the long presence of the IFC Shelter on a central downtown corner. Customers don’t often go to an area where men are wandering aimlessly all day and panhandling. Many will not use the town-owned parking lot at Rosemary and Church streets because of vagrants there.
Downtown revitalization is already happening partly because the IFC Shelter plans to move out. Our downtown will be the second national location of a designer store, and proposals are coming in for totally reconstructing lots 2 and 5 downtown.

We worry that Eastgate Plaza will lose the Starbucks, Outdoor Provision Company and upscale grocery if a homeless shelter opens nearby. A Tuesday Morning store is filling an empty spot in Ram’s Plaza. Chapel Hill should not disrupt new goods and services and an expanded tax base by locating a public nuisance near homes and businesses again.

The IFC saw the necessity to separate a men’s shelter from its women’s and children’s shelter off Homestead Road. This reason alone should keep a homeless shelter away from any residences, since many homes have women and children living in them and schools are nearby. Groups of men with life-coping-skills problems do not belong near schools and homes. The site on Millstone Road near a park-and-ride lot sounds far more feasible. Since park-and-ride lots need security supervision all day to prevent empty cars being vandalized, the security could also prevent vagrants and panhandlers from congregating throughout the lot. The Town of Chapel Hill should seek the highest and best use of land we own.

-- Laurice Ferris, Chapel Hill

-# posted by Michael McGee @ 10:23 AM 0 comments