More cities are making handing out food to homeless illegal

If you don't have a place to live, getting enough to eat clearly may be a struggle. And since homelessness in the U.S. isn't going away and is even rising in some cities, more charitable groups and individuals have been stepping up the past few years to share food with these vulnerable folks in their communities.

But just as more people reach out to help, cities are biting back at those hands feeding the homeless.

According to a report released Monday by the National Coalition for the Homeless, 21 cities have passed measures aimed at restricting the people who feed the homeless since January 2013. In that same time, similar legislation was introduced in more than 10 cities. 
Combined, these measures represent a 47 percent increase in the number of cities that have passed or introduced legislation to restrict food sharing since the coalition last counted in 2010.

The latest city to crack down is Fort Lauderdale, Fla. According to the Sun Sentinel, the city's commissioners passed a measure early Wednesday that will require feeding sites to be more than 500 feet away from each other, with only one allowed per city block. They'll also have to be at least 500 feet from residential properties.

Michael Stoops, director of community organizing for the coalition and the editor of the report, says that as cities have felt more pressure to make economic development and tourism priorities, they've decided that food sharing programs — especially those that happen in public spaces and draw dozens, if not hundreds of people — are problematic.

"We consider measures like the one in Fort Lauderdale to be criminalizing being homeless or helping the homeless," says Stoops.

And yet, Stoops argues that the measures will ultimately be ineffective in addressing the real problem: homelessness itself.

"Cities' hope is that restricting sharing of food will somehow make [the] homeless disappear and go away," Stoops tells The Salt. "But I can promise you that even if these ordinances are adopted, it's not going to get rid of homelessness."

The measures that restrict food distribution tend to take one of two forms: new rules on the use of public property and new food-safety regulations. Salt Lake City, for example, now requires that anyone preparing and serving food to the homeless get a food handler's permit.

In some cities, like Charlotte, N.C., it's not the local government that pressures the food groups to relocate or limit their programs — it's community groups practicing "not in my backyard" politics, or NIMBYism, according to the coalition's report. (The coalition notes that its report focuses on cities it has been able to track, but that many more cities may have anti-homeless-feeding legislation that the coalition may not be aware of.)

Robert Marbut, a consultant based in San Antonio, helps cities and counties deal with the problem of homelessness. He says he falls somewhere in the middle in this debate. While he's opposed to criminalization, he thinks "street feeding" programs that distribute food in parks and under bridges can do more harm than good.

"Street feeding is one of the worst things to do, because it keeps people in homeless status," he says. "I think it's very unproductive, very enabling, and it keeps people out of recovery programs."

Instead, he thinks food sharing programs should only be located near what he calls the "core areas of recovery": mental health, substance abuse and job readiness services. Otherwise, he says, homeless people may spend more time pursuing food than the services that will help them get back on their feet.

Stoops says that he agrees there should be options for the homeless to eat meals indoors — with heat and air conditioning at shelters, churches and other sites. But he points out that those programs can't meet the full scope of needs.

"Not everyone wants to go to a shelter or a meal program. In the best of all worlds, the homeless agencies get out of the office and go with ministry programs to bring services to where people are," he says.

Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/22/47579/more-cities-are-making-handing-out-food-to-homeles/

Election Day is 1 Week Away!

We're 1 week away from election day!

Don't forget that your vote matters

VOTE on November 4th!

Election 2014 FAQ: Prop 2 — state budget and rainy day fund

Proposition 2 is a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the California legislature to change the rules governing the state's rainy day fund. It also contains a new statute that will affect how schools manage their own reserve funds. 

Who's behind this ballot measure?

In 2004, voters passed Proposition 58, a cornerstone of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to help fix the state budgeting process. Prop 58 established a rainy day fund known as the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) to help the state weather downturns in the economy. Since a significant portion of the general fund comes from income taxes, a bad year for residents means less money for the state.

Prop 2 modifies the rules that govern how the state contributes money to the BSA and, in turn, how money in the account is used. It was authored by former Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles). The final vote to place it on the ballot was unanimous in both houses — 36-0 in the state Senate and 78-0 in the Assembly.

What would it do?

If approved, Prop 2 would:

• Require the state to put matching minimum amounts toward savings (in the BSA) and debt each year for 15 years — specifically, 0.75 percent of general fund revenues. Payments would be larger in years when revenues are higher from capital gains taxes.
• Allow the governor to declare a "budget emergency" in order to reduce the payment amounts in a given year, but only in the case of a natural disaster or if there is not enough money to keep general fund spending at the highest level of the past three years.
• Limit the amount the state could take out of the BSA to the amount needed to cover such a natural disaster or to keep spending up, with a maximum withdrawal of half the BSA. If a budget emergency is declared two years in a row, all of the money can be withdrawn in the second year.
• Increase the maximum size of the BSA to 10 percent of the general fund, which would amount to $11 billion currently — any extra money after the maximum is reached would go toward infrastructure projects.
• Create a state reserve for schools. Money would be contributed only in years when capital gains tax revenues are above average and spending already covers any increases in the number of students and cost of living.
• Create a new law that limits the amount of reserves school districts can keep at the local level (community colleges excluded) — for most school districts, between 3 percent and 10 percent of their annual budget. The law goes into effect only when the state has begun putting money into its school reserve fund, and it could be changed later by the legislature without a vote of the people, since it is not a constitutional amendment.

How is this different from existing laws?

The Legislative Analyst's Office provides a comparison of existing law and Prop 2 in the following areas:

STATE DEBTS

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
Required extra spending on existing state debts each year(a)	None.(b)	A minimum of $800 million. Up to $2 billion or more when capital gains tax revenues are strong.(c)

STATE RESERVES

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
Basic amount that goes into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) each year	A little over $3 billion.	A minimum of $800 million. Up to $2 billion or more when capital gains tax revenues are strong.(c)
When can state put less than the basic amount into the BSA?	Any time the Governor chooses.	Only when the Governor calls a "budget emergency" and the Legislature agrees.(d)
How much can state take out of the BSA?	Any amount available.	Up to the amount needed for the budget emergency. Cannot be more than half of the money in the BSA if there was no budget emergency in the prior year.
Maximum size of the BSA	$8 billion or 5 percent of General Fund revenues, whichever is greater (currently $8 billion).	About 10 percent of General Fund revenues (currently about $11 billion).

SCHOOL RESERVES

	TODAY'S LAWS	CHANGES MADE IF PROPOSITION 2 PASSES
State reserve for schools and community colleges	None.	Money would go into a new state reserve for schools and community colleges in some years when capital gains revenues are strong.
Limit on maximum size of school district reserves	None.	Sets maximum reserves that school districts can keep at the local level in some years.

LAO NOTES:
(a) The term "state debts" includes debts for pension and retiree health benefits and specified debts owed to local governments and other state accounts.

(b) Proposition 58 (2004) requires that half of the money put into the BSA be used to pay down certain state bonds faster. This year’s budget is expected to pay off the rest of those bonds, meaning this requirement will no longer apply beginning with next year’s budget.

(c) After 15 years, debt spending under Proposition 2 becomes optional. Amounts that would otherwise be spent on debts after 15 years instead would be put into the BSA.

(d) Governor could call a budget emergency for a natural disaster or to keep spending at the highest level of the past three years—adjusted for population and cost of living.

How much will it cost taxpayers?

The fiscal impact of Prop 2 is not immediately clear, since it will depend on how it is implemented at the state and local levels moving forward, according to the LAO. However, the LAO estimates that Prop 2:

• Would likely lead to a faster payoff of debts, which in turn could lead to less spending on interest and more money for other budget items.
• Could lessen the "ups and downs" of state spending if, on balance, Prop 2 results in more money being put into the BSA over time.
• Would likely not lead to the establishment of a state reserve account for several years, until the conditions can be met. Money would be deposited only sporadically — in years when the economy is particularly strong.
• Would in many cases lead to schools keeping less in their reserve funds than they currently do, making it more difficult to balance their budgets in down years.

Who's supporting it and why?

The biggest financial supporter of Prop 2 is the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which has given $500,000 as of September 24.

Other major financial backers comprise a rather eclectic mix of union, business and private interests, including Reed Hastings of Netflix, insurance provider Health Net, the American Council of Engineering Companies and Abraxis Bioscience.

However, three of the five campaign committees formed to raise money for Prop 2 are also raising money for Prop 1, making it difficult to determine how individual donors' money was actually spent.

Supporters, which include Pérez, Gov. Jerry Brown and Allan Zaremberg, the president of the California Chamber of Commerce, argue that Prop 2 will strengthen the state's rainy day fund and help avoid a boom-and-bust cycle of painful cuts and tax increases. They also argue that a stable budget will offer protection against cuts to education spending.

More: Yes on 2 campaign

Who's opposing it and why?

The grassroots parent organization Educate Our State leads the opposition campaign, though no major financial opposition to Prop 2 had been reported as of September 24.

Educate Our State takes issue in particular with the new law created by Prop 2 that would limit the amount districts can keep in their reserve funds, forcing them to spend any excess once the state's school reserve fund is established. Educate Our State argues that decisions over how to weather economic ups and downs should be made at the local level.

More: No on 2 campaign

…a YES vote means…

You accept the changes to the rules governing the state's rainy day fund, the creation of a state reserve for schools and the new limits on school districts' reserves.

…a NO vote means…

You reject the changes proposed: existing laws will continue to govern the state's Budget Stabilization Account, no state reserve for schools will be created, and school districts will retain full control over their reserve funds.

Your Vote Matters!

Absentee ballots have dropped and we want to remind you to get out the vote!

You are not invisible and together we can change things for the better!

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4th!

Polls are open from 7 am - 8 pm

If you are not registered to vote you can register online at www.registertovote.ca.gov

DIRTY POLITICS EXPOSED IN BANKRUPT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

For Immediate Release

Contact: Nicole Wolfe

(909) 886-2994 Ofc (909-277-3825) cell

Date: October 13, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:       

DIRTY POLITICS EXPOSED IN BANKRUPT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

San Bernardino, California October 13, 2014 –Time for Change Foundation held a press conference on the steps of City Hall to expose the dirty politics, once again plaguing the bankrupt City of San Bernardino.  Concerned citizens, community activists, spiritual leaders and the homeless joined with Time for Change Foundation (TFCF) to demand that the City Council do at least what the community does for them, VOTE.  The community united in one voice for Honesty, Integrity and Transparency (HIT) within the city leadership holding signs declaring “Stop the Dirty Politics” and “Cheating is Bad for Business.” 

Kim Carter, Founder/Executive Director Time for Change Foundation, addresses
the crowd demanding an honest and transparent City Council.

TFCF, a local non-profit organization, and low income housing developer, dedicated to serving the disenfranchised, has been denied Federal Home Investment Partnership Funds designed to be administered through the City after winning a recent bid competition for their new low income housing development project.  “We won that competition fair and square. This is about the jobs that are going to be created in our community, it’s about the safe and decent housing that we are going to have in our community,” said Kim Carter, Executive Director and Founder of TFCF, “we’re not going to allow dirty politicians to rob us one more time.  We’re here today about the residents of San Bernardino who can’t afford to be cheated out of one more taxpayer dollar in our city.  We need investments in our community and that’s not going to happen if we keep allowing leadership to come in here and play dirty politics.  Is this city open for business or what?“San Bernardino is a city trying to rebuild itself.  No entity will be willing to come to San Bernardino to invest if the City does not hold to the competition process.

The community, along with the hardworking staff at TFCF want answers.  If the City Council went through the pretense of soliciting proposals, having the proposals analyzed by a Proposal Review Committee, publicly declaring a winner, and writing a Resolution to award the funds, the least the City Council can do is VOTE!  Today, the community called for the City Council to place the project item back on their agenda and to VOTE, publicly, yes or no.  The community is calling for the matter to be moved forward according to the democratic process which has been set in place for the orderly conducting of business.

Sergio Luna of Inland Congregations United For Change (ICUC) asserted “this is a fight that every single person in San Bernardino should take…we at ICUC we are standing with Time for Change in every way possible…we will continue to collaborate until we find justice in our community.”  Reverend Bronica Taylor was passionate, declaring “we are the people. It is our vote that can truly make the change. “

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

 üan open bid competition RFP was released by the City for the purpose of low income housing development

 üa Proposal Review Committee declared TFCF the agency scoring the highest in the  competition

 üthe Mayor and City Council issued a Resolution stating the funds had been identified and were available

 üthe Resolution authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate terms of the development project

 üthe Resolution was placed on the City Council agenda 9/15/14 and then removed

 üthe Resolution was placed on the City Council agenda 10/6/14 and then removed

Concerned community members gather on the front of City Hall steps in support
of Time for Change Foundation.

No one within the City government will publicly state why this development project is not moving forward in the normal course of business.  The community, attempting to pull out of bankruptcy, has been disappointed once again because of the lack of Honesty, Integrity and Transparency within the new leaders they voted into office.  How can you ask people to vote for you during reelection time when you are sitting in the seat and not living up to the promises of openness, transparency and accountability?  If the City was truly moving forward, the transparency and accountability would be obvious.  Kim Carter reiterated: “This is not about me, this is about the process which is honest, integrity filled and transparent … a healthy competition.  Is any business safe to come here and enter a competition only to be awarded but not rewarded? No one likes a “cheater!” 

The next City Council meeting will take place October 20, 2014 and the public was encouraged to attend and demand answers from public officials, from the dais, in that public forum.  TFCF put the matter publicly to the City Council to place the development project item back on the agenda and for every member to publicly vote to approve or disapprove.

###

Join Time for Change Foundation Monday to demand HONESTY, INTEGRITY, & TRANSPARENCY from San Bernardino city leaders!

Jerry Brown approves community college bachelor’s degrees

In what could portend a monumental shift in public higher education in California, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that will allow up to 15 community colleges to launch bachelor’s degrees programs in vocational fields.

While 21 other states offer community college baccalaureates, California’s colleges have traditionally been the domain of transfer students and career technical education, granting two-year associate degrees, as established more than 50 years ago in the Master Plan for Higher Education. Senate Bill 850 will allow colleges to experiment with four-year degrees. 

The pilot program is set to begin no later than the 2017-18 academic year and end in 2024.

In recent years, advocates have argued that growing industry demand for more educated workers in fields such as dental hygiene and automotive technology could be met by expanding existing programs at community colleges.

“This is landmark legislation that is a game-changer for California’s higher education system and our workforce preparedness,” state Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, who authored the bill, said in a statement. “SB 850 boosts the focus of our community colleges on job training and increasing the accessibility and affordability of our state’s higher education system.”

Brown also vetoed Assembly Bill 46 from Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, which would have required California State University to share performance data from online courses with its faculty academic senates.

In a veto message, Brown called the bill unnecessary, and cited student privacy and cost issues.

“I am aware of the deep concerns that the sponsor of the bill has expressed regarding online courses,” Brown wrote. “These courses, however, could play an important role in helping to reduce the bottleneck that too often prevents students from graduating on time.”

“This is one of the reasons I believe that we should not unduly limit the introduction of online courses in the Cal State system.”

Brown has been a strong supporter of online education, including a 2013 experiment at San Jose State University that was canceled after dismal early results, prompting Pan’s legislation.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/29/6744704/jerry-brown-approves-community.html#storylink=cpy

AM Alert: Should California reduce penalties for nonviolent crimes?

In November, voters will be asked to weigh in on Proposition 47, which would reduce some petty crimes – such as shoplifting less than $950 worth of merchandise and possession of cocaine or heroin – from felonies to misdemeanors.

The goal of the initiative is to cut the state prison population, saving potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent incarcerating criminals. An estimated 40,000 offenders would be affected by Proposition 47 annually, instead serving time in county jails or facing no significant time behind bars. The savings would be used for truancy and dropout prevention programs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.

Law enforcement groups oppose the measure, arguing it could hurt public safety, but have raised little for their effort. Meanwhile, big money is pouring into the yes campaign, including six-figure contributions from Public Storage executive B. Wayne Hughes, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, and Sean Parker of Napster and Facebook fame.

The state Senate and Assembly public safety committees will hold a joint informational hearing on Proposition 47, starting at noon in Room 4203 of the Capitol. After an overview from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, supporters including San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, and opponents such as Harriet Salarno, chair of Crime Victims United, will provide testimony on the measure.

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/02/6753371/am-alert-should-california-reduce.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/02/6753371/am-alert-should-california-reduce.html#storylink=cpy

California Proposition 48, Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts

California Proposition 48, the Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts, is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as a veto referendum. If signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed with the Secretary of State, this petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and the Governor. The law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into effect. The law ratifies two gaming compacts (with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the Wiyot Tribe); and it exempts execution of the compacts, certain projects, and intergovernmental agreements from the California Environmental Quality Act. (13-0007).

If the measure is approved by the state's voters, it will:

• Ratify AB 277 (Ch. 51, Stats. 2013)
• Ratify two gaming compacts between California and, respectively, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the Wiyot Tribe.
• Exempt execution of the compacts, certain projects, and intergovernmental agreements from the California Environmental Quality Act.

This measure is a veto referendum; this means that a "yes" vote is a vote to uphold or ratify the contested legislation (AB 277) that was enacted by the California State Legislature while a "no" vote is a vote to overturn AB 277.

Read more about the veto referendum by visiting: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_48,_Referendum_to_Overturn_Indian_Gaming_Compacts_(2014)