The March for a New, Improved Covington...

Special guest was Dennis Williams, Esq - Of counsel to & representing 824 Greenup LLC; the City's Preferred Developer for the Lincoln-Grant School. Also in attendance for his presentation was Commissioner Sherry Carran. Here are the plans which will be presented to City Commission (in "Executive Session" - which means Behind Closed Doors!) at their meeting this Tuesday:

Money settles camp dispute

By Jeanne Houck - Post staff reporter

Phillip Folk and Delbert Thompson returned Friday to the site of their former home on Covington's riverbank to discuss how they planned to spend the $2,000 checks they clutched in their cold hands.

Folk, 53, said he planned to rent an apartment and replace clothes and bedding he claims the city of Covington hauled away as trash when authorities dismantled homeless camps off Ky. 8 near Crescent Avenue in April 2002.

Thompson, 60, who said he goes on a 2½-month-long bicycle trip to his sister's home in southern California every summer, said he was going to buy a bus ticket this summer because he is convalescing from a heart attack.

Thompson, Folk and three other men got $1,000 each from the city of Covington to settle a lawsuit the men filed there in U.S. District Court contending their constitutional rights were violated when authorities shut down the camps without notice.

That sum was doubled by their lawyers, Robert Newman of Cincinnati and Linda Smith of Covington, who donated $1,000 to each of their clients from legal fees they won in court.

Newman and Smith called an outdoor press conference where the homeless camp formerly existed to announce Covington had cut the checks.

The suit has been settled, but Newman said rulings in it will continue to reverberate.

"It's a fair warning to Covington and every other city that homeless people are human beings like everybody else, and have the same constitutional rights as everyone," Newman said.

Covington officials contend they did nothing illegal, and specifically deny carting away anything other than trash and materials such as plywood and tarps used to make shelters.

Folk and Robinson challenged that Friday. They said both were at work when their camp was broken up and that when they got home, they discovered the only thing they had left were the clothes on their back.

Some of the possessions were irreplaceable, they said.

"They took a photo album full of family pictures that can't be replaced," Folk said. To his horror, someone told him that five kittens he was keeping as pets had been tossed into a Dumpster.

Covington officials said the only reason they agreed to settle with the men was to avoid drawn-out, expensive litigation. But Newman noted that Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman made an important, precedent-setting ruling before the suit was settled: that people living in the camps were not trespassers, and thus retained rights against the illegal search and seizure of their property.

On April 15, 2002, with no warning, maintenance department workers accompanied by police were dispatched to the riverfront with backhoes and began hauling away materials.

A public outcry caused Covington officials to temporarily suspend the work and post notices saying it would resume in four days.

The city has since posted permanent signs saying camping or building fires was banned on the riverfront, which is owned by the city and open to the public.

Covington officials have said the men living on the riverbank were there because they wanted to be, and that the camps were unsanitary, dangerous eyesores.

Folk and Thompson spoke warmly about the camaraderie of the camps, but agreed that they and most of the people called homeless live outdoors by choice -- not for lack of money.

Mark Teegarden of the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless said 28 of the 30 people living in camps when Covington dismantled them had jobs.

Folk said he's worked in the hotel industry but is an auto body shop man by trade.

Thompson works at Natorp's Garden Store in Florence, but said he's been sleeping outside for 30 years -- three of them at a camp Covington dismantled.

When he feels healthy enough to leave the nursing home he has been living in since his heart attack, Thompson plans to live outdoors again.

"I'm an old hobo," he said.

"I like the trees and the river and get along fine with a sleeping bag and comforter, a television and Coleman cook stove.

"Being inside is strange to me."

Publication Date: 01-24-2004

"What would our community look like if it were a really healthy place to live?" The National Civic League (NCL) posed this question to neighbors in hundreds oc communities across the country. This is how people everywhere responded:

But we are moving away from this ideal. Many voluntary associations no longer have the influence or position in our communities they once had. For example, PTA participation has fallen dramatically, as has participation in Boy Scouts, Red Cross volunteers, labor unions membership, and civic clubs like the Lions and Elks. (Bowling Alone, by Robert Parker)

In the Gannet News "Mood of America" poll, 76 percent of citizens agreed, "there is less concern for others than there once was."

We must be careful not to over generalize, since some Northern Kentucky communities may not fit these trends fully, or even at all. There will always be crosscurrents and countertrends. A few communities may have high levels of interconnectedness and public participation, with few glaring social problems and plenty of resources. But these communities are the exceptions.

By and large, the quality of life and the social fabric of many Northern Kentucky communities are being threatened by these trends.

And there is no denying current social problems mirroring national trends, such as poverty, street violence, domestic abuse, drugs, racial/ethnic divides, urban sprawl and homelessness remain very much with us here in Northern Kentucky

How can Northern Kentucky address the Healthy Communities issues identified by the National Civic League?

Is the solution financial? Solutions often cost money, so, of course, more public funding to address local problems would be helpful. Support these efforts, but realize that in the present economic and political climate, success will not come easily and will cost each of us more than money. We need to understand there are no short-term solutions. We need CommUNITY Leaders who will engage, listen and translate the words into compelling long-term actions. Leaders who can then garner the support of government, private sector, faith community, public sector organizations and residents for the action plans.

President Bush, in his inaugural address said: "What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character."

Residents, along with the people who work, worship or have roots in a community need to be seen as an alternative resource, as someone with something important to share.

The task is to identify these alternative resources, then to coalesce and organize them, to plan, develop, implement, and sustain multiple community wide solutions. This will not happen all by itself. The structure for organizing and mobilizing community resources is generally not in place. A big plus is that people, 63 percent in one poll, believe that people are willing to pitch in and fix what is wrong in their communities, if they knew how. Mechanisms for involvement are rare, but do exist. Let us identify these processes and bring them into our communities.

America is the great democratic example, but because we lead there is no blueprint. America's greatness has been due to our ability, on the national, state and local levels, to find common ground. To large extent, it is our ability to reach consensus through civil discourse that has contributed to our greatness. Today, in our communities, neighborhoods, media and even in our legislative bodies, far too often, a difference of opinion is painted as evil, making constructive dialogue impossible.

In doing this work, the Boston Foundation developed "Seven Guiding Principles for a New Social Contract."

We hear congress can't get anything done, or that government can't get anything right. We are a democracy; the government is a reflection of ourselves.

The task ahead will be long and is not easy, so it is important we get started. In the words of Bobby Kennedy: "The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new idieas. Rather, it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals of American Society."

Out of Reach 2003:
America's Housing Wage Climbs
Farther Out of Reach Than Ever

Eleven Covington men will vie for four City Commission seats -- and the first cut will happen May 18, when primary balloting will determine the eight candidates who move on to the Nov. 2 general election.

Among the latest challengers for seats are former Covington school board member Hensley Jemmott, former assistant commonwealth attorney Rob Sanders, barber Thomas Schadler and food-manufacturing manager Jonathan Thurman.

Also hoping to win seats are real-estate agent Neil Blunt, supermarket technology manager Jeff Sewell, retired investment-firm chief financial officer Jerry Stricker and former Kenton County surveyor Jimmy Williams.

Three of the four incumbent commissioners are seeking re-election: Jerry Bamberger, Alex Edmondson and Bernie Moorman.

A newcomer will fill at least one seat because Commissioner Craig Bohman announced this month he would not seek re-election. He expects to become a father in June and is planning to open a new religious bookstore in Latonia.

Mayor Butch Callery also will have opposition in the fall: political newcomer Jeffrey M. Fletcher of 23 E. 24th St.

The deadline to file for city offices was Tuesday afternoon.

The challengers, starting with most recent to file:

• Sanders, 31, of 1009 Russell St., was an assistant commonwealth attorney for two years under Don Buring and now works in the firm of Sanders Tismo and Associates.

"In the last few years we have had some commissioners that basically refused to get along with others," he said, pledging to cooperate with whoever is elected.

• Schadler, 59, of 13 E. 40th St., for five years has operated Tom's Barbershop at 804 Scott Blvd. For about 30 years, he worked on Madison Avenue.

"I'd like for the people to be heard," said Schadler, who ran for the commission twice previously. "I've got some ideas I'd like to discuss, see if we can put them in motion."

Schadler, a father of six grown children and 21 grandchildren who has lived in the city 39 years, said he did not want to reveal those ideas yet. "From what I see, we have a great riverfront development here, and all our oars are in the water, concentrating more or less to one area. And Covington is a large city, and there's some areas of it that are kind of overlooked, just passed by."

• Jemmott, 83, of 1039 Russell St., moved to Covington in 1989 after retiring as an educator in New York City and Buffalo, N.Y.

"I'm running because I think that it's possible to make a contribution and assist the city fathers in improving a lot of citizens in Covington," he said.

Jemmott served on Covington's school board five years and is a first vice president of the Northern Kentucky branch of the NAACP. He is among activists who have pushed to rename 12th Street after Martin Luther King Jr.

• Sewell, 36, of 2316 Center St., moved to Covington from Indianapolis about seven years ago.

"It seems like we recycle people (in political office) over and over again," said Sewell, a technology manager for the Kroger Co.'s manufacturing arm. "That was a good part of my motivation. I think just a new set of ideas -- a little different perspective -- and being somebody that's actually fairly new to Covington, I think I tend to see things a little differently."

• Thurman, 24, of 18 Sterrett St., No. 1, a manager at Schwan's Food Manufacturing, ran a couple years ago for Williamstown's city council before moving here.

"I've got like five, six issues I want to work on, to get done," he said.

He wants to convert Scott Boulevard and Greenup Street to two-way traffic to restore the neighborhood feel around them. He also wants to promote family businesses and increase police presence in the city.

He wants more stringent enforcement of nuisance laws, such as loud music and barking dogs at night, and he wants to bolster street and sidewalk improvements across the city. He also wants to "clean up all the corners of Covington."

• Stricker, 67, of 1 Riverside Place, a retired chief financial officer of Gradison & Co., served on the commission for nine months in 2000 after he was appointed to fill a vacancy.

"With my financial expertise I can help the city with their budgeting and accounting and tax, because I have a lot of experience in those fields," he said.

Stricker served on the airport board 11 years, including one as its chairman, and served from 1995-99 on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, an appointment by President Clinton that required Senate confirmation. He also served in 1990-2000 on the board of the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and was on the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees for 4½ years in the late 1980s.

• Blunt, 62, 340 Wallace Ave., a Realtor with Coldwell Banker/West Shell, wants to create a comprehensive five-year plan for development of the city.

"I think some things get done, but at a very, very slow pace," he said.

• Williams, 44, of 3322 Watson Ave., is a maintenance worker for Sagamore Parking, which operates several area lots, including city garages. Williams is a member of the Covington Human Rights Commission.

"I'm a common person. I relate to people. I'm a working person," he said.

The mayoral candidate, Fletcher, was unavailable for comment Tuesday.
Publication Date: 01-28-2004

That was essentially what Assistant City Manager Andy Riffe told Covington City commissioners recently, and it is a wise message.

Riffe was before the commission to detail plans to upgrade the city's image. What the city needs to do, he said, is to find a "brand'' -- a unified theme or message it wants people to associate with the city's name -- and then figure out how to cultivate that brand and use it to attract new business and residents and to retain the best of the current ones.

But first, Riffe said, (and here is where Riffe's counsel grew wise), the city has to improve its product.

Riffe said the city needs to immediately "fix'' anything that could be negative. For example, he said, the city needs to clean up the litter and cut the weeds from downtown streets and sidewalks. It also needs to make it easier and quicker for anyone to apply for a business permit, a building permit or other services.

In October 1999, the city received a comprehensive report of its operations completed by consultant Chuck Scheper. Its primary goal was to figure out how to run the city more efficiently in hopes of saving money, and with 90 specific recommendations, the Scheper Report projected possible savings of $5 million a year.

Mixed among those financial moves were a series of improvements the city could make that wouldn't necessarily save it money but would improve its look and performance. These included things like revising the zoning code to make it easier to use, updating an obsolete strategic plan, working with social service agencies and neighborhood resident councils to reduce poverty, eliminating substandard housing, improving public relations and marketing and eliminating red tape by developing one-stop access to services like loans, complaints, permits and zoning questions.

Some of those changes, most notably a revision of the zoning code and fixing up dilapidated houses, are already under way.

The Scheper Report was filled with specific, tangible changes the city could make. And in so doing, it could "fix'' the problems that lead to age-old complaints: Downtown is dirty, or city hall doesn't care, or Covington isn't safe.

Riffe was right. Covington can do a lot to control its image, and the job has to begin on the inside. Taking care of those things can eliminate the problems that keep people from appreciating what they have.

One rundown house on a block keeps people from noticing the beautiful architecture in older residential neighborhoods. Vacant storefronts keep people from seeing the uniqueness of buildings on Madison Avenue. Crime dooms a neighborhood's reputation. Bureaucracy sends new businesses and builders elsewhere.

Covington is definitely worth selling. But let's do everything to fix it up first.

Bamberger blasted over MSVA

Critics are alleging conflict of interest

By Mike Rutledge Post staff reporter

As the MainStrasse Village Association, or MSVA, prepares for next month's Mardi Gras celebration -- the first with City Commissioner Jerry Bamberger serving as the business association's executive director -- some Covington city employees are complaining about what they consider a conflict of interest with Bamberger's dual roles.

Bamberger has been ironing out details of the Feb. 20-21 pre-Lenten festival, including an extension of alcohol-serving hours, with city safety officials and the city manager. The event was controversial in past years because of public drunkenness by patrons.

News of possible longer alcohol-serving hours was disappointing to MainStrasse resident Sandy Arnold, who had not heard about the possibility that alcohol would be served until 12:45 a.m. when told by a reporter.

"My biggest concern when he took the position was the whole conflict of interest, with him being both a commissioner and a director of the MSVA," Arnold said.

"Obviously, festivals are a big conflict, because I as a taxpayer expect him to look out for my best interests," Arnold added. "And I don't think he can do that if he's trying to plan a function to raise money for the organization that pays his income."

City employees also have complained about what they see as conflicts between his MSVA position -- his primary employment -- and the city post.

"It's a clear conflict of interest," said one city employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Employees complain that for Bamberger to discuss festival events with City Manager Greg Jarvis, who has the ultimate say on the permits, puts Jarvis in an awkward position because the City Commission hires and fires city managers.

City Attorney Jay Fossett said he has not written any opinions about the matter because he did not want to write anything that might conflict with rulings by the city's Ethics Board, which has received no complaints about Bamberger.

"We've got the Ethics Board in place, and if somebody thinks I'm doing something unethical or against any ethics, they've got the opportunity to file a violation with the Ethics Board, and I'll be glad to respond to them," Bamberger said.

"That way we can get this over with, or maybe appease these people," Bamberger said.

Bamberger and Fossett said they consulted with the Kentucky League of Cities about the matter. That organization saw no problem, but wrote no opinion, they said.

"It's not appropriate for us to make that decision," Fossett said. "It's up to the (ethics) board to make a decision."

Bamberger has excused himself from votes involving MainStrasse during commission meetings, but employees say the larger potential conflict is in the influence he could exert while negotiating terms of such matters as how much police are paid while staffing festival events and how long alcohol is served.

Jarvis said he made it very clear when Bamberger accepted the MainStrasse position in March that he would not be swayed.

"We had a frank discussion when he took that job," said Jarvis, who said he told Bamberger: "I'll tell them no or modify anything they ask for" as quickly as he would for anybody else, he said.

Jarvis also said he told Bamberger he would tell him immediately if he had any concerns about something Bamberger was requesting.

"That has not been a problem," Jarvis added this week.

The city's ethics ordinance states, "No officer or employee of the city or any city agency shall represent any person or business, other than the city, in connection with any cause, proceeding, application or other matter pending before the city or any city agency."

Under the ethics ordinance, a business must be a for-profit enterprise. The MSVA is a non-profit organization.

"I filled out permits for the Holy Cross festival for years, and I've done that also. And I've never thought anything of it," he said. "The association puts the permit request in, too. This one, here, I didn't sign it. There's no signature on it. (Administrative coordinator) Donna Kremer is the primary contact person."

However, Bamberger said he has met with police and with Jarvis to discuss the event.

"I feel like I've tried to do what's right for everybody, and I don't think I've done anything wrong," Bamberger said.

The 2000 Mardi Gras was so controversial -- and police so concerned about public safety at that event -- that there was none in 2001.

The MSVA needed all its persuasive powers to make a tamer 2002 event happen, with earlier ending times, because city officials' memories and those of residents remained strong about the 2000 Mardi Gras that drew 60,000 during unseasonably warm weather.

Last year's event was praised for its peacefulness, with about 30 arrests. Only 6,000 tickets will be sold for each night this year, Bamberger said.

"The permit went in, I think it was from 7 (p.m.) until 12:45 (a.m.)," Bamberger said. "At the recommendation of the police department, they think if they ran the hours longer, it'd be easier, because when the people leave at 1 (a.m.), they'll go on home."

In 2002 and 2003, beer sales were cut off inside the tent at 11:30 each night, but festivalgoers were allowed to stay past midnight as a way to avoid a mass exodus from the event.

"The final permit's not approved yet," Bamberger said. "When it's approved, that's what we'll do."

Covington police Lt. Bryan Allen, president of Covington FOP Lodge 1, said he didn't feel much awkwardness in dealing with Bamberger.

"Well, I think at first there might have been, but he's like me: I'm a lieutenant on the department and I take off my lieutenant's hat and put on my FOP hat when I have to," Allen said. "He takes off his commissioner's hat and puts on his director of MainStrasse operations hat when he has to. We've worked well with him."

Covington's ethics ordinance specifically permits city employees to negotiate with the city as part of labor unions.

Others have cited two examples of what they consider preferential treatment for MSVA:

• Its Mardi Gras permit was not filed until Thursday, well after the minimum of 60 days required by city statutes. Jarvis said the city frequently allows organizations to file their permits after that and the city is not stringent about it.

Also, the application wasn't filed earlier because the process of working out details for large festivals are better worked out before the permit is filed, Bamberger and Jarvis said.

• In an example of what critics say demonstrates the kind of pull someone in Bamberger's position might have, the MSVA two years ago was billed about $40,000 for providing police staffing at Mardi Gras. The organization later negotiated that bill down to $35,000, said Bob Due, city finance director.

That was a year before Bamberger was hired, and he had no part in that decision.

A contract between MSVA and the city called for the organization to pay $35,000. But when the bill went out, "I think the actual billing was close to $40,000," Due said. "But I think in subsequent negotiations it was determined that some of that overtime that was included in that bill was included in error.

There were some other non-Mardi Gras activities that were included in there, that were backed out.

"When all was said and done, $35,000 was accepted as full payment for the event," Due said. Gary Dirheimer, who at the time was the festival's chairman, wrote letters, negotiating with the city, Due said.
Publication Date: 01-24-2004

Looking back over the first half of 2002, here on The South Bank; I combed through recent news articles, commission minutes, transcripts of an online conversation with the current commission candidates... I have distilled all these headlines, sound bites and quotes into this simple list of KeyWords:

NCH Fact Sheet #1
Published by the National Coalition for the Homeless, June 1999

Two trends are largely responsible for the rise in homelessness over the past 15-20 years: a growing shortage of affordable rental housing and a simultaneous increase in poverty. Below is an overview of current poverty and housing statistics, as well as additional factors contributing to homelessness. A list of resources for further study is also provided.

POVERTY

Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked. Poor people are frequently unable to pay for housing, food, child care, health care, and education. Difficult choices must be made when limited resources cover only some of these necessities. Often it is housing, which absorbs a high proportion of income, that must be dropped. Being poor means being an illness, an accident, or a paycheck away from living on the streets.

In 1997, 13.3% of the U.S. population, or 35.6 million people, lived in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998a). While the number of poor people remains has not changed much in recent years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has increased. In 1997, 14.6 million people -- 41% of all poor persons -- had incomes of less than half the poverty level. This represents an increase of over 500,000 from 1995. Forty percent of persons living in poverty are children; in fact, the 1997 poverty rate of 19.9% for children is almost twice as high as the poverty rate for any other age group.

Two factors help account for increasing poverty: eroding employment opportunities for large segments of the workforce, and the declining value and availability of public assistance.

Media reports of a growing economy and low unemployment mask a number of important reasons why homelessness persists, and, in some areas of the country, is worsening. These reasons include stagnant or falling incomes and less secure jobs which offer fewer benefits.

While the last few years have seen growth in real wages at all levels, these increases have not been enough to counteract a long pattern of stagnant and declining wages. Low-wage workers have been particularly hard hit by wage trends. Despite recent increases in the minimum wage, the real value of the minimum wage in 1997 was 18.1% less than in 1979 (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999). Factors contributing to wage declines include a steep drop in the number and bargaining power of unionized workers; erosion in the value of the minimum wage; a decline in manufacturing jobs and the corresponding expansion of lower-paying service-sector employment; globalization; and increased nonstandard work, such as temporary and part-time employment (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999).

Declining wages, in turn, have put housing out of reach for many workers: in every state, more than the minimum wage is required to afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 1998).¹ In fact, in the median state a minimum-wage worker would have to work 87 hours each week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at 30% of his or her income, which is the federal definition of affordable housing. In addition, 40% of households with "worst case housing needs" -- households paying over half their incomes for rent, living in severely substandard housing, or both -- have at least one working person. This represents a 32% increase in working households with worst case housing needs from 1993 to 1995 (U.S. Housing and Urban Development, 1998).

The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 30 U.S. cities found that almost one in five homeless persons is employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). In a number of cities not surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors - as well as in many states - the percentage is even higher (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1997).

The future of job growth does not appear promising for many workers: a 1998 study estimated that 46% of the jobs with the most growth between 1994 and 2005 pay less than $16,000 a year; these jobs will not lift families out of poverty (National Priorities Project, 1998).² Moreover, 74% of these jobs pay below a livable wage ($32,185 for a family of four).

Thus, for many Americans, work provides no escape from poverty. The benefits of economic growth have not been equally distributed; instead, they have been concentrated at the top of income and wealth distributions. A rising tide does not lift all boats, and in the United States today, many boats are struggling to stay afloat.

The declining value and availability of public assistance is another source of increasing poverty and homelessness. Until its repeal in August 1996, the largest cash assistance program for poor families with children was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Between 1970 and 1994, the typical state's AFDC benefits for a family of three fell 47%, after adjusting for inflation (Greenberg and Baumohl, 1996). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the federal welfare reform law) repealed the AFDC program and replaced it with a block grant program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Current TANF benefits and Food Stamps combined are below the poverty level in every state; in fact, the median TANF benefit for a family of three is approximately one-third of the poverty level. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, welfare does not provide relief from poverty.

Welfare caseloads have dropped sharply since the passage and implementation of welfare reform legislation. However, declining welfare rolls simply mean that fewer people are receiving benefits -- not that they are employed or doing better financially. Early findings suggest that although more families are moving from welfare to work, many of them are faring poorly due to low wages and inadequate work supports. Only a small fraction of welfare recipients' new jobs pay above-poverty wages; most of the new jobs pay far below the poverty line (Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998). Moreover, extreme poverty is growing more common for children, especially those in female-headed and working families. This increase can be traced directly to the declining number of children lifted above one-half of the poverty line by government cash assistance for the poor.

As a result of loss of benefits, low wages, and unstable employment, many families leaving welfare struggle to get medical care, food, and housing. Many lose health insurance, despite continued Medicaid eligibility: a recent study found that 675,000 people lost health insurance in 1997 as a result of the federal welfare reform legislation, including 400,000 children (Families USA, 1999). In addition, housing is rarely affordable for families leaving welfare for low wages, yet subsidized housing is so limited that fewer than one in four TANF families nationwide lives in public housing or receives a housing voucher to help them rent a private unit. For most families leaving the rolls, housing subsidies are not an option. In some communities, former welfare families appear to be experiencing homelessness in increasing numbers (Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).

In addition to the reduction in the value and availability of welfare benefits for families, recent policy changes have reduced or eliminated public assistance for poor single individuals. Several states have cut or eliminated General Assistance (GA) benefits for single impoverished people, despite evidence that the availability of GA reduces the prevalence of homelessness (Greenberg and Baumohl, 1996).

Disabled people, too, must struggle to obtain and maintain stable housing. In 1998, on a national average, a person receiving Suplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits had to spend 69% of his or her SSI monthly income to rent a one-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent; in more than 125 housing market areas, the cost of a one-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent was more than a person's total monthly SSI income (Technical Assistance Collaborative & the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, 1999).

Thus, most states have not replaced the old welfare system with an alternative that enables families and individuals to obtain above-poverty employment and to sustain themselves when work is not available or possible.

HOUSING

A lack of affordable housing and the limited scale of housing assistance programs have contributed to the current housing crisis and to homelessness.

The gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing them has created a housing crisis for poor people. Between 1973 and 1993, 2.2 million low-rent units disappeared from the market. These units were either abandoned, converted into condominiums or expensive apartments, or became unaffordable because of cost increases. Between 1991 and 1995, median rental costs paid by low-income renters rose 21%; at the same time, the number of low-income renters increased. Over these years, despite an improving economy, the affordable housing gap grew by one million (Daskal, 1998). By 1995, the number of low-income renters in America outstripped the number of low-cost rental units by 5.4 million rental units - the largest shortfall on record (Daskal, 1998). More recently, the strong economy has caused rents to soar, putting housing out of reach for the poorest Americans. Between 1995 and 1997, rents increased faster than income for the 20% of American households with the lowest incomes (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). This same study found that the number of housing units that rent for less than $300, adjusted for inflation, declined from 6.8 million in 1996 to 5.5 million in 1998, a 19 percent drop of 1.3 million units. The loss of affordable housing puts even greater numbers of people at risk of homelessness.

The lack of affordable housing has lead to high rent burdens (rents which absorb a high proportion of income), overcrowding, and substandard housing. These phenomena, in turn, have not only forced many people to become homeless; they have put a large and growing number of people at risk of becoming homeless. A recent Housing and Urban Development (HUD) study found that 5.3 million unassisted, very low-income households had "worst case needs" for housing assistance in 1995 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1998).³ This figure is an all-time high and represents an 8% increase over the 1989 figure.

Housing assistance can make the difference between stable housing, precarious housing, or no housing at all. However, the demand for assisted housing clearly exceeds the supply: only about one-third of poor renter households receive a housing subsidy from the federal, state, or a local government (Daskal, 1998). The limited level of housing assistance means that most poor families and individuals seeking housing assistance are placed on long waiting lists. From 1996-1998, the time households spent on waiting lists for HUD housing assistance grew dramatically. For the largest public housing authorities, a family's average time on a waiting list rose from 22 to 33 months from 1996 to 1998 - a 50% increase (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). The average waiting period for a Section 8 rental assistance voucher rose from 26 months to 28 months between 1996 and 1998.⁴ Excessive waiting lists for public housing mean that people must remain in shelters or inadequate housing arrangements longer. Consequently, there is less shelter space available for other homeless people, who must find shelter elsewhere or live on the streets.

A housing trend with a particularly severe impact on homelessness is the loss of single room occupancy (SRO) housing. In the past, SRO housing served to house many poor individuals, including poor persons suffering from mental illness or substance abuse. From 1970 to the mid-1980s, an estimated one million SRO units were demolished (Dolbeare, 1996). The demolition of SRO housing was most notable in large cities: between 1970-1982, New York City lost 87% of its $200 per month or less SRO stock; Chicago experienced the total elimination of cubicle hotels; and by 1985, Los Angeles had lost more than half of its downtown SRO housing (Koegel, et al, 1996). From 1975 to 1988, San Francisco lost 43% of its stock of low-cost residential hotels; from 1970 to 1986, Portland, Oregon lost 59% of its residential hotels; and from 1971 to 1981, Denver lost 64% of its SRO hotels (Wright and Rubin, 1997). Thus the destruction of SRO housing is a major factor in the growth of homelessness in many cities.

Finally, it should be noted that the largest federal housing assistance program is the entitlement to deduct mortgage interest from income for tax purposes. In fact, for every one dollar spent on low income housing programs, the federal treasury loses four dollars to housing-related tax expenditures, 75% of which benefit households in the top fifth of income distribution (Dolbeare, 1996). Moreover, in 1994 the top fifth of households received 61% of all federal housing benefits (tax and direct), while the bottom fifth received only 18%. Thus, federal housing policy has thus not responded to the needs of low-income households, while disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest Americans.

OTHER FACTORS

Particularly within the context of poverty and the lack of afforable housing, certain additional factors may push people into homelessness. Other major factors which can contribute to homelessness include the following:

Lack of Affordable Health Care: For families and individuals struggling to pay the rent, a serious illness or disability can start a downward spiral into homelessness, beginning with a lost job, depletion of savings to pay for care, and eventual eviction. In 1997, approximately 43.4 million Americans had no health care insurance (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998b). More than a third of persons living in poverty had no health insurance of any kind. The coverage held by many others would not carry them through a catastrophic illness.

Domestic Violence: Battered women who live in poverty are often forced to choose between abusive relationships and homelessness. In a study of 777 homeless parents (the majority of whom were mothers) in ten U.S. cities, 22% said they had left their last place of residence because of domestic violence (Homes for the Homeless, 1998). In additions, 46% of cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).

Mental Illness: Approximately 20-25% of the single adult homeless population suffer from some form of severe and persistent mental illness (Koegel et al, 1996). Despite the disproportionate number of severely mentally ill people among the homeless population, increases in homelessness are not attributable to the release of severely mentally ill people from institutions. Most patients were released from mental hospitals in the 1950s and 1960s, yet vast increases in homelessness did not occur until the 1980s, when incomes and housing options for those living on the margins began to diminish rapidly. According to the Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness, only 5-7% of homeless persons with mental illness need to be institutionalized; most can live in the community with the appropriate supportive housing options (Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness, 1992). However, many mentally ill homeless people are unable to obtain access to supportive housing and/or other treatment services. The mental health support services most needed include case management, housing, and treatment.

Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. During the 1980s, competition for increasingly scarce low-income housing grew so intense that those with disabilities such as addiction and mental illness were more likely to lose out and find themselves on the streets. The loss of SRO housing, a source of stability for many poor people suffering from addiction and/or mental illness, was a major factor in increased homelessness in many communities.

Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one's chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. The following are among the obstacles to treatment for homeless persons: lack of health insurance; lack of documentation; waiting lists; scheduling difficulties; daily contact requirements; lack of transportation; ineffective treatment methods; lack of supportive services; and cultural insensitivity. An in-depth study of 13 communities across the nation revealed service gaps in every community in at least one stage of the treatment and recovery continuum for homeless people (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).

Even when disabling conditions such as addiction or mental illness are treated, homeless addicts and mentally ill people must compete with all other poor people for a dwindling supply of low-income housing. Homelessness can thus be seen as a perverse game of musical chairs, in which the loss of "chairs" (low cost housing) forces some people to be left standing (homeless). Those who are least able to secure a chair -- the most disabled and therefore the most vulnerable -- are more likely to be left without a place to sit.

CONCLUSION

Homelessness results from a complex set of circumstances which require people to choose between food, shelter, and other basic needs. Only a concerted effort to ensure jobs that pay a living wage, adequate support for those who cannot work, affordable housing, and access to health care will bring an end to homelessness.

NCH Fact Sheet #9
Published by the National Coalition for the Homeless, April 1999

Lack of affordable housing is a critical problem facing a growing number of people living with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and other illnesses caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). People with HIV/AIDS may lose their jobs because of discrimination or because of the fatigue and periodic hospitalization caused by HIV-related illnesses. They may also find their incomes drained by the costs of health care.

Tragically, individuals with HIV/AIDS may die before they are able to receive housing assistance. Efforts to build HIV/AIDS housing often encounter chronic funding shortfalls, bureaucratic indifference, and the stigma and fear of AIDS. Projects to create HIV/AIDS housing may fail because of local opposition by neighborhood or community groups.

PREVALENCE

Studies indicate that the prevalence of HIV among homeless people is between 3-20%, with some subgroups' having much higher burdens of disease:

Many homeless adolescents find that exchanging sex for food, clothing, and shelter is their only chance of survival on the streets. In turn, homeless youth are at a greater risk of contracting AIDS or HIV-related illnesses. HIV prevalence studies anonymously performed in four cities found a median HIV-positive rate of 2.3% for homeless persons under age 25 (Robertson, 1996).

ISSUES

To address the special considerations and challenges that primary care providers may face in caring for homeless individuals with HIV, the Health Care for the Homeless Clinicians' Network is undertaking a project focusing on HIV and homelessness. The following information is taken from the Network's September 1999 newsletter, Healing Hands.

HIV infection exacerbated by homelessness deserves special attention for the following reasons:

High morbidity and mortality: HIV-infected homeless persons are believed to be sicker than their domiciled counterparts. For example, they tend to have higher rates and more advanced forms of TB, and higher incidence of other illnesses such as Bartonella. Another study has demonstrated that more homeless people die of AIDS than other HIV-infected populations.

Barriers to care: Homeless people with HIV may face many barriers to optimal care. Injection drug use and lack of insurance, common among homeless people, have been shown to negatively affect health care utilization, level of medical care and health status.

Challenges to adherence: Adherence to complex medical regimens may be more difficult if one does not have stable housing or access to basic subsistence needs such as food. As it is believed that decreased adherence is the single best predictor of protease inhibitor failure and the primary cause of medication resistance, this problem has grave personal and public health implications.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Homeless persons with HIV/AIDS need safe, affordable housing and supportive, appropriate health care. Emergency housing grants should be available for persons with HIV-related illnesses who are in danger of losing their homes, and housing assistance should be available for those already on the streets. Federal assistance must be provided through adequate funding of targeted housing and health programs, and through the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

The purpose of this U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program is to provide funding for supportive housing for very low-income persons with disabilities who are at least 18 years of age. Capital advance funds are available for use in constructing, rehabilitating, or acquiring structures to be used for housing. These funds can be used to develop small group homes, independent living projects and units in multifamily housing developments, condominiums, and cooperative housing. Repayment of the capital advance is not required as long as the housing is available for at least 40 years. Section 811 project rental assistance contracts are also available to cover the difference between what a tenant can pay in rent (30% of income) and the cost to operate the project.

Any nonprofit organization with a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status is eligible to receive Section 811 funds. HUD encourages prospective applicants to attend local HUD office workshops, which detail the application process, as well as local market conditions, building codes and accessibility requirements, preservation, displacement and relocation, and housing costs, but workshop attendance is not mandatory. The amount of money allocated is based on two factors: the number of non-institutionalized persons age 16 or older with a mobility or self-care limitation who have a work disability, and those who do not.

This HUD-administered program provides supportive housing for very low-income persons age 62 and older. Capital advances are available for the construction or rehabilitation of a structure, or the acquisition of a structure from the FDIC. Capital advances do not have to be repaid, provided the housing remains available for at least 40 years. Section 202 project rental assistance contract funds are available to cover the difference between what the renter can pay, and the cost of operating the project. Contract funds can also be used to provide supportive services and to hire a service coordinator at projects serving frail elderly residents.

All private nonprofit organizations and nonprofit consumer cooperatives are eligible to apply. HUD encourages prospective applicants to attend local HUD office workshops, but attendance is not mandatory. Allocation is based on the number of one and two person elderly renter households with incomes at or below the HUD-determined Very-Low Income Limit (50% of area median family income) that have housing deficiencies. 85% of the total Section 202 capital advancement amount is reserved for metropolitan areas and 15% for nonmetropolitan areas.

This is the federal government's major program for assisting very low income families, elderly and disabled individuals to afford housing on the private market. Participants in Section 8 are responsible for finding their own housing. They can choose anything that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to subsidized housing projects. HUD administers Section 8 funds to Public Housing Agencies (PHA's) that deliver the vouchers to eligible families and individuals. The PHA directly pays the rental subsidy to the landlord and the residents pay the remaining difference. Sometimes a modest home can even be purchased. In order to be eligible for Section 8 subsidies, a participant's income cannot exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which they choose to live. By law, a PHA must provide 75% of its voucher to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30% of the area median income. A housing voucher family must pay 30% of its monthly adjusted gross income for rent and utilities. Families who are using Section 8 vouchers can move and retain their subsidy as long as they notify the PHA ahead of time and terminate the lease within its provisions.

Long waiting periods are common of the voucher program due to high demand and limited housing resources. If the PHA of any given locality administers Section 8 vouchers and public housing, applicants can ask to be placed on both waiting lists.

This program provides funding to rehabilitate existing structures to create SRO housing for homeless individuals of very low income. A typical SRO structure is a residential building with small private rooms for one. Shared space typically includes bathrooms, kitchens, living spaces, laundry rooms, and occasionally meeting rooms. Many rehabilitated SROs were formerly residential hotels or YMCA/YWCA's acquired by a sponsor through local government donation or tax delinquencies or condemnation. SRO project sponsors draw on several funding sources such as local government (34%), private lenders (30%), and state government (18%). Section 8/ SRO contract rents must be equal to or less than 75% of the fair market rent for an efficiency unit. The average operating cost of an SRO is $298 monthly, $3,570 yearly. It is not required but 47% of sponsors provided some support services, i.e. health exams, substance abuse counseling, job counseling, and literacy training.

The typical resident of an SRO is low-income, middle-aged, unemployed or unemployable male, formerly living in the streets or a shelter. The gender ratio is 70/30 male to female, which is typical of the overall ratio of single men and women without dependants experiencing homelessness.

The resident selection process can be very lengthy. Many sponsors are concerned about the lack of preservation policies for Section 8/ SROs. According to numerous sponsors the presence of the aforementioned support services are critical to the success of an SRO.

This program provides grants to PHAs to destroy severely distressed public housing units and replace them with new units or dramatically rehabilitate existing units. It hopes to relocate residents in order to integrate low and middle-income communities. Hope VI also provides community and supportive services. The program replaces dilapidated housing units with apartments or townhouses designed to "blend" into the community. The mixing of different economic classes is a major goal of Hope VI. Non-public housing residents and public housing residents live side by side in the newly erected or rehabilitated structures. Market-rate rentals, market-rate homeownership units, and low-income housing tax credit units all share the same Hope VI buildings. The program also provides support services to help residents get and keep jobs. Often, families have to agree to counseling and employment services to qualify for residency. The main problem with Hope VI is the lack of one-for-one replacement of demolished housing. Approximately four new units are built for every ten torn down. Most displaced residents are given Section 8 vouchers. However, Section 8 housing is so scarce that these are often useless. Another possibility for displaced tenants is to move into other public housing in the area. Typically the residents who are forced out of Hope VI housing are of lower income than those who remain. One major repercussion is that displaced families generally move into communities with already high concentrations of poverty and make them even higher. Ultimately, the Hope VI attempt at income-based class integration tends to lead to more economic stratification.

The goal of this program is to provide rental housing for low-income families, elderly and disabled individuals. There are approximately 1.3 million households in the United States living in public housing. HUD administers federal aid to local housing agencies (HAs) that manage housing for lower income residents at rents they can afford and provides them with technical and professional assistance. Rent, referred to as Total Tenant Payment (TTP) is based on residents anticipated gross annual income less any deductions. HUD allows HAs to exclude from annual income certain allowances for dependents or elderly or disabled individuals. Eligibility for public housing is based on a given individual or family's annual gross income, status as either a family, or a disabled or elderly individual, and qualification as a U.S. citizen or eligible immigrant.

People applying for public housing commonly experience long waiting periods. Generally, once residents are accepted into public housing they can stay as long as necessary provided they comply with their lease. According to public housing policy no resident will be forced to move, regardless of income increases, unless there is affordable housing available for them on the private market.

This program provides formula grants to states and localities that communities use to fund a range of activities that build, buy, or rehabilitate affordable housing units for rent or ownership. It also provides direct rental assistance to low-income people, often in partnership with local non-profit groups. HOME is designed to reinforce several principles of community development. It encourages flexibility by authorizing people to utilize housing strategies that work with their own needs and priorities. In order to strengthen partnership among different levels of government and the private sector HOME emphasizes the need for consolidated planning. Additionally, the program expands the capacity of community-based nonprofit housing groups. A very important aspect of HOME is its requirement that all participating jurisdictions match twenty-five cents of every dollar granted with non-federal sources, including donated labor and materials. HOME establishes Home Investment Trust Funds for each grantee providing a line of credit that each jurisdiction can draw upon as needed. States are automatically eligible for HOME funds and receive either their formula allocation or three million dollars; whichever is greater. Individual communities can qualify for separate allocations or can join one or more neighboring communities in a legally binding consortium. The formula used by HOME considers the relative inadequacy of each jurisdiction's housing supply, its incidence of poverty, fiscal distress and other factors.

Administered by the Rural Housing Service (RHS), an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Section 502 makes loans to low and very low income households (defined as those with income up to 80% of area median) in rural areas to build, repair, renovate, or relocate houses, including mobile/manufactured homes. Section 502 funds can be used to purchase and prepare sites and to pay for necessities such as water supply and sewage disposal. There is no down payment required and interest rates are subsidized.

Households with adjusted incomes between 80% and 115% of median income (as defined by HUD) are eligible for the Section 502 single-family housing guaranteed loan program. Through this program loans are made by banks or savings and loan institutions rather than the RHS.

This program provides direct, competitive mortgage loans to provide affordable multifamily rental housing for very low, low, and moderate-income families, and elderly and disabled individuals. Section 515 is primarily a direct mortgage program but funds can also be used to buy and improve land and water and waste disposal systems.

Individuals, partnerships, limited partnerships, for-profit corporations, non-profit organizations, limited equity co-ops, Native American tribes, and public agencies are eligible to apply. For-profit borrowers can only operate on a limited-profit basis.

Very low income is defined as below 50% of the area median income (AMI), low income is 50% to 80% of the AMI, and moderate status is capped at $5,500 above the low-income limit. Those living in substandard housing get top priority; next preference goes to very low-income households. Loans are for up to 50 years at 1% interest rate. Tenants pay whichever is greater, basic rent or 30% of their adjusted income.

These loans and grants are used to buy, build, improve, or repair housing for farm laborers, including persons whose income is earned in aquaculture (fish and oyster farms) and those involved in on-farm processing. Funds can be used to purchase a site or a leasehold interest in a site, to construct or repair housing, day care facilities, or community rooms, to pay fees to purchase durable household furnishings and pay construction loan interest. Loans are made to farmers, associations of farmers, family farm corporations, Native American tribes, non-profit organizations, public agencies, associations of farm workers and limited partnerships in which the general partner is a nonprofit entity.

Grants are made to farm worker associations, non-profit associations, non-profit organizations, Native American tribes and public agencies. Funds may be used in urban areas for nearby farm labor. Eligible tenants are domestic farm laborers who receive substantial portions of their incomes from farm labor. Eligibility is limited to citizens, or persons legally admitted for permanent residence. Legally admitted temporary laborers are not eligible. Retired or disabled farm laborers can remain as tenants if they were initially eligible.

Loans are for 33 years at 1% interest. Grants may cover up to 90% of development costs.

The Uniform Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (U.R.L.T.A.) protects housing, by giving landlords and tenants very clear rights and duties, and by showing Legal Ways to settle problems FAIRLY!

After years of confusion, both landlords and tenants now have EQUAL standing in the eyes of the Law. None of the rights, duties, or solutions under URLTA - for landlords or tenants - can be TAKEN AWAY by any written or oral agreement. But the law only works for people who understand how to use it. Tenants, and landlords have to know enough to make sure (and, when needed, DEMAND) that their rights are respected.

URLTA says nothing about rent control. A landlord can still raise a tenant's rent as he sees fit, unless the tenant lives in subsidized housing (Section 8, etc.), or has a written agreement stating the amount of rent to be paid for a certain period of time (a lease).

This booklet, available through the Northern Kentucky Housing Coalition/Covington Community Center @ 491-2220, shows exactly how to use URLTA. Please share the information with your friends and neighbors.