In an article titled “Downtown ‘Problems’ Might not Exist,” the Colorado Springs Business Journal offers another classic example of how commercial interests contribute to the criminalization of homeless people.
The basic formula:
Step 1: Foment unreasonable fear of street people.
Step 2: Employ punitive measures to “manage” them.
The Business Improvement District and Downtown Partnership have set aside $137,000 to address problems caused by the street population by hiring off-duty police officers to patrol downtown, but neither the groups nor the police department have any statistical data to show that “problems” truly exist …
In a white paper entitled “Street People Letter,” [Beth] Kosley, the Downtown Partnership’s executive director, cites several “facts” as reasons why the partnership and the BID need to address the “problem” of the street population.
“Worse, the most recent reports we have received speak to actual physical threats to safety, in the form of mugging, a baby-snatching attempt and robbery in a home by an assailant,” the report says.
When asked about the mugging, baby-snatching attempt and robbery, Kosley referred to the incidents as “anecdotal,” but Gold Hill [Police] Commander Kurt Pillard used another term: urban legend …
Who are “those people”—those men with backpacks and sleeping bags that are causing such alarm that, according to the Downtown Partnership’s white paper, they scared a woman back into her car just by their presence outside the main door of the Penrose Library?
According to Homeward Pikes Peak director Bob Holmes, about 85 percent of the Pike Peak region’s 1,450 homeless are “crisis homeless”—women and children left without homes temporarily. The other 15 percent are chronically homeless …
“It’s important to remember that 62 percent of the people who eat at the Marian House once a day are not homeless,” he said. “They’re the working poor—they have jobs—or they’re retired on fixed incomes. They can afford a place to live, but can’t always afford food.” ...
Michael Stoops, acting director of the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington, D.C. said the Downtown Partnership’s and BID’s measures are “draconian.”
“There are ways to address the problem that are less expensive,” he said. “If they hired civilian outreach workers to intervene, mediate disputes, do case management, it would be cheaper. Some cities—such as Fort Lauderdale—have tried this and been very successful.”
Read the complete article here:
www.thepbj.com/story.cfm?ID=9887
* * *
The May/June 2006 issue of MotherJones compiled some interesting facts illustrating gross extremes between the Haves and the Have-Nots:
If the $5.15 hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A minimum wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
The $17,530 earned by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.
5 of America’s 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs.
A follow-up piece in the July/August 2006 issue of the magazine further illustrates the inequality and disadvantages poor people confront:
51% of the uninsured are $2,000 or more in medical debt. 16% owe at least $10,000.
Inner-city grocery stores sell milk for 43% more than suburban supermarkets.
In Chicago’s poorest areas, the ratio of check-cashing outlets to banks is 10-to-1.
In 2003, the IRS estimated it “protected” $3.1 billion of revenue by cracking down on EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] filings. Half of all audits are now conducted on taxpayers earning less than $25,000.
The IRS, incidentally, has been involved in an ongoing FOIA-related lawsuit. The agency has resisted public scrutiny of its statistical information. See, for example:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/current/ http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/147/
* * *
We’ve just added a “Basic Needs” category to our Resources area. Librarians and low-income people can use the compiled links to find:
Does your library Web site contain information tailored to the needs of low-income people? Are you looking for examples? Try the New York Public Library’s Community Information page.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries system has managed a Community Information Database (CID) since 1990. Some context on how it was created:
[The CID] was first developed in 1987. The database was a cooperative effort between five public agencies: Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, United Way, Watsonville Public Library, and the Santa Cruz City-County Library. Funding was provided through a Library Services and Construction Act grant. The goal was to develop a comprehensive database of human service resources available to people in Santa Cruz County.
Who is collecting and distributing information like this in your area? And how can your library play a part?
For potential answers to these questions, consult Information Behavior in Everyday Contexts (IBEC), a research program of The Information School at the University of Washington:
http://ibec.ischool.washington.edu
* * *
A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecast has been circulating online of late and lists “The 10 Occupations with the Largest Job Growth, 2004-14.”
It will surprise few people that primarily low-wage jobs are identified, ranging from retail salespersons and janitors to home health aides.
For a quick look at the difference a living wage could make for low-wage earners in your area, try the Living Wage Calculator, created by the Poverty in America project at Penn State.
So what’s up with Congress and its reticence in raising the federal minimum wage? A diarist at DailyKos.com describes “caging,” the method by which honest debates about income and family expenses are stifled.
He cites Beth Shulman and her book The Betrayal of Work: How Low-Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans and Their Families:
Caging is a way to defeat policy proposals on an entire set of related issues by designing public discourse in a way that makes sure that those issues never get raised …
[P]eople who insist that all people work jobs—any jobs—in order to support their families, must surely also argue that anyone who follows their advice and works full time … should be able to feed his or, more often, her family, right? ...
[W]hat happened to the discussions of minimum wage increases, about mandatory livable wages, about guaranteed health insurance? Where are they? You’ll find them, of course, in the cage, right where they know you won’t look.
In 2004, MotherJones interviewed Shulman about her research:
MJ.com: You write that low pay is only one of the problems low-wage workers face.
Beth Shulman: Low-wage workers don’t only make a low wage. Low wage jobs are the least likely to provide health insurance, sick leave, family leave, vacations, pensions. And they’re the most likely to be part time, give fewer hours and less flexibility. They’re often the most hazardous jobs. Low-wage workers get the least training and the least opportunity for advancement if there’s a ladder, which often there isn’t. There’s a whole group of characteristics that make these jobs so difficult. The largest costs for workers and their families are housing, medical expenses, and child-care. It makes life extraordinarily difficult for them.
MJ.com: Have things gotten worse for low-wage workers?
Beth Shulman: The data I looked at were from the best of times, and low-wage workers have been hit disproportionately hard in the downturn. The Bush administration has been disastrous for these workers, from the tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy, to cuts in essential programs like health insurance for children. We’re going in the opposite direction from the one we need to go.
Information professionals can learn more about economic justice (and thriving state-based campaigns) from advocacy groups like ACORN, the Center for Community Change, Change to Win, the Economic Policy Institute, United for a Fair Economy, the Universal Living Wage Campaign, and many others.
* * *
American Libraries Online reported the positive news that Worcester (Mass.) Public Library has implemented a new policy to ensure equal access for homeless patrons and others without permanent address.
Worcester Head Librarian Penelope Johnson said in the Telegram and Gazette that everyone who has a library card will be treated equally; they can take out two items during their first visit and up to 50 thereafter. Homeless patrons or patrons living in shelters will be mailed a postcard, which they can bring back with them to the library as proof that they can receive mail.
As the article indicates, the lawsuit filed against the library has not yet been resolved. And despite the library’s insistence about poor book return rates among low-income patrons, no borrowing statistics have ever been made public.
The policy change is not so much a “win” for homeless people—who should not have been discriminated against in the first place—but more a case study of the disconnect between a library and the needs of low-income citizens.
* * *