"Coming OUT of Hiding:
A Retrospective Journey Through AIDS..."
|
"Coming OUT of Hiding:
A Retrospective Journey Through AIDS..." |
|
The only promise I can safely make is: "That I will do my utmost to Live Up to My Mission and be Faithful to My Message and give it everything I've got... And then some!" http://www.mwcltonline.org/curriculum_vitae.html 55, born March 19, 1955 in Campbell County. Oldest Son of George “Wally” & Kathleen Connett, grew up w/ 3 sisters & two brothers in Dayton where the family owned and operated “Southern Food Service”. Graduated with honors from Newport Catholic HS in 1973. College studies have included Secondary Ed at Christian Brothers University, General Business courses at Thomas More College and the Marketing Bachelors track (7/8 complete-Jr. status) at Northern Kentucky University. In 1978 I came OUT and moved out of Dayton to the big city across the river where I discovered others like myself and the freedom to be who I was in the nightlife scene. However, the sweet elixir of sameness and freedom to be was addictive, and eventually interfered with job performance bringing an end to my almost 7 years of accomplishment at Burke Marketing Research. In October of 1991, I tested HIV+ and a week later, after disclosing my status to a manager, I lost my job. As the prognosis at that time was certain death with little/no expectation of reaching retirement age and a need for securing my future care and comfort, I applied for and eventually secured my SSDI benefits in 1993 which is when I settled in Covington and came to develop My Mission statement that has guided the life I’ve been blessed to have lived so far:“To use the rest of my life the best I can so that the people and places through which my journey leads me will remain a little bit better for me having passed their way...” Decision Making Methodology http://www.mwcltonline.org/Inspirations.html As I wasn’t able to finish my college education; I’ve always had a great thirst for knowledge which fueled my quest to research and teach myself what I needed to know to pursue my interests, reach my goals and successfully complete projects. The two philosophies that are key to how I approach things are Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits…” & “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz.Top Initiatives http://www.mwcltonline.org/cvgcommentary.html The better the product, the easier the sell. That was essentially what Assistant City Manager Andy Riffe told Covington City commissioners recently, and it is a wise message… 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. Riffe is right in more ways than one.Perhaps more important than the things still impeding us mentioned in the above article from the beginning of the 1st Decade of the new Millennium, one of our highest priority items must be fueling a substantially greater sense of INCLUSION by truly embracing our Diversity and valuing each & every resident in turn renewing a sense of PRIDE in our City and each other. Residents who feel valued and proud are much more likely to get involved, pitch in and become part of the solution instead of the problem.We need to stop kicking people when they’re down and punishing the good deeds done by others! We need to stop “The War on The Poor”; repeal/change the Sanitization & Gentrification Zoning ordinances that keep the least of our brethren out of sight, out of mind and out of touch with the future developments as well as existing opportunities for networking and collaboration with business, professional and educational resources that would enable them to carry out their missions more fully, efficiently, and cost effectively resulting in less double-dipping, better/expanded services as well as better use of and shrinking the need for public and charitable funding.When it comes to our inner city core/Downtown business districts, infrastructure, neighborhoods & renaissance, we need to adjust our thinking and focus away from the narrow and restrictive views it seems we’ve been chasing without considering the demographics of the residents that actually live there and are needed to support and sustain the Monday thru Friday operations of a prospective Business – especially ones that typically thrive and do most of their sales on weekends.City Budget From what I read in the news, the city is in shaky territory financially. Our economic engine is worn, weary and low on gas because businesses are leaving, downsizing or passing us over, residents are leaving and the ones staying are giving up and dropping out. Although there’s been a “New Commission” at City Hall, they continue the past mistakes of leading us down the road of blaming other groups and neighborhoods for the problems in ours, instilling pride in one neighborhood at the expense of another, bullying Nuns and small business owners, kicking the least of us when they’re down and stigmatizing, marginalizing, devaluing, and discriminating against whole segments of our citizenry. Until we fix these negatives and improve our product in the eyes of the outsiders & future investors looking in; tightening our belts, cutting services, raising fees and taxes as well as dipping into current financial reserves are the tools at our disposal and the price we’ll have to pay.Best Regards, Michael Connett "HIV is something you Live with every day for The Rest of your Life. You may never die Of HIV/AIDS, but you will always die with It..." http://sobankhive.groups.live.com/ http://mwcltonline.groups.live.com/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/NKYCinHIVAIDSinfo/ http://twitter.com/SoBankQueenBee
"Take A Chance on ME!" If you also believe that each & every Covingtonian MATTERS & should have a Voice at the City Hall table, you can express that support w just $1.00
The MWCLT 10th Anniversary South Bank Steel Magnolia Awards:
Paying It Forward, Daily... Easter Monday: let me "Take You on an Escapade"...!
The March on Covington!!! What follows here is historical...
Outside show is a poor substitute for
inner worth." --Aesop
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. Riffe is right in more ways than one.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. That's good news. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      |
Attn: Riverbank Survivors Recorvy Network or Northern KY 513 Madison Ave. Covington, KY 41011 · Main · Purpose · Locations · Get involved - come to Covington · | Home | Join NCH | Donate to NCH | What YOU Can Do | Homeless...Need Help? | Facts about Homelessness | What's New | Legislation and Policy | Alerts | About NCH | NCH Projects | Speakers' Bureau | LeTendre Education Fund | Personal Experiences of Homelessness | Technical Assistance | Calendar of Events | Directories | Internet Resources | K-12 Educational Materials | Publications | Job Announcements | Contact NCH |
Sleep-Out For the Homeless!
Goebel Park - Covington, Ky.
Although in recent years the Welcome House staff have taken the lead role in planning and organizing the SleepOut, it truly is an effort only accomplished by everyone taking a part. Over the years, agencies such as Catholic Social Services, Pike Street Clinic. NorthKey, Hosea House, Parish Kitchen and Storehouse Ministries have assisted with different tasks from soups, desserts or helping to spread the word about the event. The Northern Kentucky Housing and Homeless Coalition has a long history with the SleepOut and provided a lot of time and effort to the event. Last year, the coalition paid for postage, envelopes and copy work for fliers and letters that went out to various schools and agencies. This year, they have signed on as a co-sponsor and will provide the funding for the required city permits.
| Location | Number of Households | ||
| Total Households | Renter Households | Renter Households as Percent of Total Households |
|
| Kenton County | 59,444 | 19,977 | 33.61% |
| Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | 125,444 | 38,807 | 30.94% |
| Location | 2002 Estimated Median Family Income (HUD) | Maximum Affordable Monthly Housing Cost by % of Family AMI | ||||
| Annual | Monthly | 30% | 50% | 80% | 100% | |
| Kenton County | $64,300 | $5,358 | $482 | $804 | $1,286 | $1,608 |
| Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | $64,300 | $5,358 | $482 | $804 | $1,286 | $1,608 |
|
2002 Fair Market Rents by Number of Bedrooms
|
|||||
|
Location
|
Zero
|
One
|
Two
|
Three
|
Four
|
|
Kenton County
|
$386
|
$495
|
$662
|
$887
|
$958
|
|
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
|
$386
|
$495
|
$662
|
$887
|
$958
|
| Income Needed to Afford FMR | ||||||||||
| Location | Amount | Percent of Family AMI | ||||||||
| Zero Bedrooms |
One Bedroom |
Two Bedrooms |
Three Bedrooms |
Four Bedrooms |
Zero Bedrooms |
One Bedroom |
Two Bedrooms |
Three Bedrooms |
Four Bedrooms |
|
| Kenton County | $15,440 | $19,800 | $26,480 | $35,480 | $38,320 | 24% | 31% | 41% | 55% | 60% |
| Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | $15,440 | $19,800 | $26,480 | $35,480 | $38,320 | 24% | 31% | 41% | 55% | 60% |
(@ 40 hrs./wk.) |
in 2BR Housing Wage (2001-2002) |
( KY=$5.15 ) |
|||||||||
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
||
| Kenton County |
$7.42
|
$9.52 | $12.73 |
$17.06
|
$18.42 | 14.90% | 144% |
185%
|
247%
|
331% | 358% |
| Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN |
$7.42
|
$9.52 | $12.73 |
$17.06
|
$18.42 | 14.90% | 144% |
185%
|
247%
|
331% | 358% |
Necessary at Minimum Wage to Afford ( KY=$5.15 ) |
|||||
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
Bedroom FMR |
|
| Kenton County | 58 | 74 | 99 | 132 | 143 |
| Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | 58 | 74 | 99 | 132 | 143 |
"Affordable" rents represent the generally accepted standard of spending not more than 30% of income on housing costs.
AMI = Area Median Income (HUD, 2002).
FMR = Fair Market Rent (HUD, 2003, proposed).
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:
(Yes, it is a word! Look it up!)
True patriotism hates injustice in its own land
more than anywhere else.
- Clarence Darrow
The Aftermath...
No-camping in parks brings protests
By
Cindy Schroeder, cschroeder@enquirer.com
The Cincinnati Enquirer
COVINGTON — People who camp in Covington parks such as Devou and Goebel, as well as along city-owned riverbanks, face possible immediate arrest under a new law.
When Covington City Manager Greg Jarvis opened City Hall's doors to nearly 200 homeless rights marchers Monday, he also opened up a dialogue between the two parties, according to organizers of the demonstration.
The kaleidoscopic crowd that trekked from Goebel Park to City Hall ran the gamut from twig-toting toddlers beating paint-bucket drums to pink-haired teens packing protest signs to wheelchair-bound middle-aged men in ball caps.
They came, said march organizer Mark Teegarden, from across the region and the nation to show their solidarity in promoting the rights of North ern Kentucky's estimated 3,000 homeless.
Bob, a lanky, long-haired homeless man, told marchers he had lived on the riverbank for six years until Covington Mayor Butch Callery ordered camps there cleared in April.
''Who the hell is the mayor to tell us how to live?'' he asked. ''And this is happening all across the nation: Instead of 'United we stand,' they're dividing us up.''
National Coalition for the Homeless Executive Director Donald Whitehead said sweeps like Covington's are part of a trend nationally that excludes and criminalizes the country's estimated 3.5 million homeless people.
''I'm here today ... and I hope you are too, because I'm not satisfied with what's going on in America today,'' Whitehead told marchers. ''Civil rights didn't happen in this country until people got tired of waiting. ... We can make homelessness go away, but we can't wait any longer.''
Protesters shouted, sang and banged their way across Covington with help from police, who blocked streets and directed traffic. But few people along the march route showed support.
''They're sleeping in people's cars here. They bust the windows out and think they can take up residence in them,'' said auto mechanic Tom Ranshaw. Two women watching from the porch of their Russell Street home said they'll be moving out of Covington soon because of growing problems with beggars and the homeless.
''I don't want to live in a city where you can't go out without running into drunks who don't even know where they are,'' said one of the women, identifying herself as ''Donna.''
When the march reached City Hall, Jarvis invited protesters into city commission chambers, saying the mayor and commissioners were at their full-time jobs.
The city is Northern Kentucky's ''most compassionate,'' he said, saying it's the only city here to give funds to local social service agencies who serve the homeless. He also said Covington police have been recognized nationally for advocacy efforts on behalf of the homeless.
Jarvis said the needs of Northern Kentucky's homeless should be addressed by the entire region.
''The more entities involved, the better,'' he said.
Jarvis agreed to meet with Teegarden and other homeless rights advocates next week.
Some social service leaders said a regional approach fails to account for the fact that Covington is the only city in the region currently entitled to federal funding to serve the needs of the homeless.
''It may well be a regional issue,'' said David Olds, director of the Mental Health Association of Northern Kentucky. ''But when we're talking about HUD monies, this city is the entitlement city, and as such the funds can only be spent on projects in the city of Covington.''
Olds called Monday's march and meeting a ''first step'' toward resolving the problem. ''They've agreed to more of a dialogue,'' he said, ''and that's important.''
March supports homeless
COVINGTON — With signs, chants and a list of eight demands, more than 300 people marched on City Hall on Monday, asking Covington officials to stop “harassing” homeless people and address the causes of homelessness and poverty.
The march — which kicked off a national organization's series of protests against “criminalizing” homelessness — started and ended at Goebel Park, where homeless people sometimes gather.
They left with a pledge from Covington City Manager Greg Jarvis to meet with Northern Kentucky homeless advocates next week to discuss their concerns.
“I stand by our record on addressing this issue,” said Mr. Jarvis, adding that Covington administers the federal Section 8 rental subsidy program for Kenton County and has allocated millions of federal dollars to Northern Kentucky agencies serving the homeless.
Covington “doesn't take a back seat to anyone in Northern Kentucky, certainly within the Greater Cincinnati metropolitan area. ... I would say we're one of the most compassionate cities in the region.”
Organizers said participants in Monday's protest came from 22 states and the District of Columbia. A prayer service also was held in Jacksonville, Fla., and a candlelight vigil was scheduled in San Diego.
“We targeted Covington because it's a city that criminalizes the issue of homelessness and, at the same time, is unwilling to provide the services that the homeless people need to survive,” said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the Homeless.
Covington is the first of many cities that the National Coalition for the Homeless plans to target through such demonstrations, Mr. Whitehead said.
What sparked Monday's protest was a series of city-authorized sweeps in mid-April that resulted in the razing of homeless camps on west Covington's Ohio Riverbank.
Covington Mayor Butch Callery has said the sweep of the city-owned property was done because of liability concerns, as well as health and safety worries.
As proof of the latter, Friday the mayor cited reports from a Northern Kentucky health department inspector.
Those chased from the riverbank disagreed. Eight homeless people filed suit in federal court against Covington officials May 20, claiming city officials violated their constitutional rights when they razed the camps without notice, destroying everything from family photos to litters of kittens.
“They act like we're a bunch of criminals,” said a bearded homeless man who identified himself as Bob.
He said he lived on the riverbank for six years and was not found out until the disappearance of a businessman from Alabama focused attention on the encampments.
The camps were razed just days after media accounts following the family and friends search for Lon Dowdle, who drowned in the Ohio River.
Among the group's demands was the creation of 50 new emergency shelter beds for homeless people, with emphasis on beds for men.
Although the 2000 Census estimated Covington's homeless population at 3,000, Tristate homeless advocates say there are only 14 emergency shelter beds for Northern Kentucky men, 35 beds for single women and 35 beds for women and children fleeing domestic violence. The protesters did now say how the beds should be funded.
Last month, the Covington City Commission voted 3-2 against a zone change that would have cleared the way for the proposed Life Learning Center, a one-stop center that supporters said was aimed at helping homeless people and others become self sufficient. In casting the deciding vote, Mr. Callery said that he endorsed the concept, but was opposed to the location.
As the protesters marched past Dick's Standard Service in Covington on Monday, mechanic Tom Ranshaw, 36, said he found it hard to muster concern for homeless people.
“I think everybody should have rights,” Mr. Ranshaw said. “That's part of being an American. But they're not telling the whole story.”
For years, Mr. Ranshaw said that homeless people have broken windows of cars parked at Dick's, slept in customers' vehicles, drank in them and even defecated in them.
“I'm sorry that people are down on their luck, but I think a lot of (homeless people) would just as soon freeload off people as get help,” Mr. Ranshaw said.
Helping the homeless was so controversial in Jeffersonville, Ind., three years ago it sparked fistfights at city council meetings.
A debate over where to put low-income housing for the city's 1,174 homeless people culminated in a zoning ordinance that limited areas where housing for the poor could be built. It took homeless advocates three attempts to prove to city leaders the ordinance was unlawful.
Three years later, however, the homeless and their neighbors in Jeffersonville live in harmony, and the number of homeless has dropped to 649.
Northern Kentucky homeless advocates point to Jeffersonville as an example of what Covington can do to improve relations with its estimated 3,000 homeless.
Attitudes in Jeffersonville - with a population about 70 percent as large as Covington's - changed as people saw how the city benefited from its services to the homeless, said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Haven House Services Inc., which runs the only shelter in the town.
''It wasn't easy here,'' Anderson said. ''We had to face ourselves as a community.''
The city created at least 600 units for low-income residents and has set 2009 as a target date for finding homes for the remaining homeless.
Times for the homeless in Covington have been especially tough since April. That's when Mayor Butch Callery ordered public works crews to sweep through camps on the riverfront, tossing out clothes, tents, bicycles and other belongings. Callery cited health concerns as the reason for the sweep and two that followed.
The sweeps, along with the City Commission's rejection of the proposed Life Learning Center at Madison Avenue and 13th Street - a program that supporters said would address the root causes of homelessness - prompted a march Monday to City Hall by advocates for the homeless.
The advocates want the city to add 50 emergency shelter beds, support programs like the Life Learning Center and make other changes.
Adding that number of beds would make Covington about average with other cities in the region in housing for the homeless, advocates said. The city now has 84 shelter beds, only 22 of which are for men.
Lexington, Louisville and Jeffersonville have more programs for the homeless than does Covington, initiatives that involve not only the work of social service agencies, but the cooperation of businesses, nonprofit organizations, local governments and residents, say homeless advocates in the three cities.
''The one thing about us is that we have wonderful collaboration between and among agencies,'' said Marlene Gordon, executive director for the Coalition for the Homeless in Louisville/Jefferson County.
Louisville has 27 shelters to help house its estimated 15,000 homeless people. The city emphasizes a long-term end to homelessness by working with inmates before they leave pris on and by adding affordable housing.
''We need to lead people to self-sufficiency, not keep managing homelessness and building one shelter after another,'' Gordon said.
The story is the same in Lexington, where the city teams with faith-based organizations, social services and police. Two overnight shelters help the poor find jobs and affordable housing.
While those cities swear by team cooperation, Callery is opposed. ''It's not our job,'' he said. ''If the city did all that, you wouldn't need any social service agencies.''
But Anderson, who has dedicated 20 years to ending homelessness in Jeffersonville, said Covington needs teamwork more than anything.
''I think they (Covington community members) need to reassess where they're at as a community and take a very proactive attitude,'' she said.
Since Jeffersonville residents reassessed themselves, grass-roots support for ending homelessness has ballooned, she said. An annual fair at the Haven House Shelter celebrates the city's efforts for the homeless; elementary school kids recently passed up a trip to King's Island to donate field trip money to the shelter.
Covington's homeless aren't getting that support, said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington, D.C. ''Either they (the homeless) live in the river banks or in an abandoned building or an abandoned car or they find their way to Cincinnati,'' he said.
Cincinnati shelters have been unusually full this spring, said Meghan Clarke, interim director of Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless.
In fact, the Drop-Inn Center, the largest homeless shelter in Cincinnati, was more crowded in May than in January. Pat Clifford, director of the shelter, said he suspects Covington's homeless people have been coming to get services unavailable in their city.
''People come here from Covington all the time - they always have,'' he said.
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.
POVERTYHomelessness 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. Eroding Work Opportunities 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. Decline in Public Assistance 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. HOUSINGA 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 FACTORSParticularly 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.
CONCLUSIONHomelessness 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. Home | What's New | Projects | Facts About Homelessness | Legislation and Policy | Online Library | Safety Network Directories | Upcoming Events | NCH Publications | About NCH | What YOU Can Do< font> |
Homeless
to march on city hall
By
Mike Rutledge, Post staff reporter
The homeless and their
advocates, saying they will protest Covington's insensitivity to their needs,
plan to march to City Hall from Goebel Park next week.
''There'll be in excess
of 300 people,'' predicted Mark Teegarden, local volunteer civil rights advocate
for the National Coalition for the Homeless Civil Rights Project. The Monday
march, which should reach City Hall by 10 a.m., will be peaceful, he promised.
At the city building,
marchers will urge officials to adopt eight major recommendations, including
creating 50 emergency shelter beds for the homeless, with emphasis on beds for
men; supporting programs like the Life Learning Center that can help the
homeless return to society; and refraining from using ''inflammatory rhetoric
when referring to the homeless or projects associated with homelessness.''
The demonstration is
prompted partly by the city's April 15 riverbank ''sweep,'' in which city
workers removed anything that looked like housing or bedding from squatters'
camps. None of the at least 17 people who were living there were warned about
the sweep and many lost their possessions.
''The people who lost
their belongings weren't there because they were at work,'' Teegarden said. He
has a particular empathy because he lived on Covington's riverbank for three
years until about a year ago, when Welcome House helped him rebuild his life. He
now has a steady job and an apartment.
Most who lived on the
river work full-time jobs, an indication the homeless are not lazy, Teegarden
said. Most would rather have homes.
Nationally, 20 percent of
the homeless are employed, and 39 percent are supposed to be taking a
prescription medication but can't afford it, the coalition said, citing figures
from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Also spurring the march
is the city's recent decision against a proposed Life Learning Center at Madison
Avenue and 13th Street, a facility aimed at giving the homeless the help and
skills they need to return to steady jobs and homes.
''According to the
National Low Income Housing Coalition, in order to afford a two-bedroom
apartment in the Covington area, a person making minimum wage would have to work
86 hours a week,'' the local coalition of homeless groups wrote in an
announcement of the event.
When Monday's march
reaches City Hall, Teegarden says he will attempt to present Mayor Butch Callery
a list of recommendations collected from dozens of Covington's homeless.
Teegarden predicted
Callery will not be available, and will not address the crowd, which he promises
will be respectful and peaceful. He said Callery has ''blown off'' earlier
requests for meetings, including a phoned request to his office about two weeks
ago.
''I was more than willing
to talk with them, but they sued me personally and the city,'' Callery said.
Because of the lawsuit, ''I was advised by counsel not to speak on this issue.''
Publication
date: 06-04-02
Homeless
advocates issue recommendations to city
Post
staff report
The eight major
recommendations that Covington's homeless and their advocates have for city
officials:
Create 50 new
emergency shelter beds for the homeless, with primary emphasis on emergency beds
for men. The 2000 U.S. Census estimated 3,000 homeless people live in the city,
including children; they stay doubled-up with friends or family, in transitional
housing, shelters or on the streets.
There are only 84 shelter
beds for all homeless people, none of them funded by the city, the homeless say.
Of the 84, only 22 are for men, and eight of those are long-term, leaving 14
emergency shelter beds. Of the rest, 35 are used for women and children seeking
refuge from domestic violence, and the others are for single women.
Support programs
that help reintegrate the homeless into society. Advocates cited the
proposed Life Learning Center, which city commissioners rejected last month for
the area of Madison Avenue and 13th Street on Mayor Butch Callery's swing vote.
Callery has said he remains open to discussing other Covington locations.
Avoid using
''inflammatory rhetoric'' when discussing the homeless or projects that
address homeless issues.
Stop blaming the
homeless and social agencies for the fact 18.4 percent of city residents
live at or below the poverty level. The agencies are only responding to human
needs, advocates argue. .
Support more
affordable housing for the homeless, including Section 8 vouchers and
public housing.
Treat homeless
people with respect, stop unannounced sweeps of homeless camps, stop
destroying personal property and recognize the homeless as city residents who
are entitled to basic human rights. ''Life-sustaining activities, sleeping or
camping outdoors do not constitute criminal acts,'' the statement said.
Support programs
that address root causes of homelessness. Most necessary programs either
don't exist or are grossly underfunded, advocates say.
Address homeless
issues and enter into a constructive dialogue.
The groups also
recommended local officials open a hypothermia shelter space during cold
weather; promote free parenting and life skills classes; create a tracking
system for children who are taken from homeless parents; open a location for the
homeless to take showers and do laundry; and create free or low-cost day care so
parents can work.
Publication date: 06-04-02
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.
PREVALENCEStudies 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).
ISSUESTo 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 RECOMMENDATIONSHomeless 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. |
|
Federal Housing Assistance Programs Factsheet Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program 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. Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program 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. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program 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. Section 8/Single Room Occupancy (SRO) 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. Hope VI 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. Public Housing 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. HOME Home Investment Partnerships Program 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. Section 502 Rural Home Ownership Direct Loan Program 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. Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans 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. Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants 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. | Home | Join NCH | Donate to NCH | What YOU Can Do | Homeless...Need Help? | Facts about Homelessness | What's New | Legislation and Policy | Alerts | About NCH | NCH Projects | Speakers' Bureau | LeTendre Education Fund | Personal Experiences of Homelessness | Technical Assistance | Calendar of Events | Directories | Internet Resources | K-12 Educational Materials | Publications | Job Announcements | Contact NCH |
U.R.L.T.A.
of Kentucky
New Rights for
Tenants and Landlords
Uniform Residential Landlord-Tenant Act
K.R.S. 383.500-383.715
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.
Page Created 06/10/2001
Updated/Revised: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:56 PM
Copyright(c):"The Michael Wallace Connett LIVING Trust"
