ACLU SoCal Files Lawsuit Challenging Efforts to Shutter Transitional Housing in Hesperia

RIVERSIDE, CA – A charitable organization dedicated to reducing homelessness and several of its clients filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the city of Hesperia’s attempts to unlawfully restrict housing and support services for individuals with criminal records.

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Victor Valley Family Resource Center (VVFRC), a nonprofit in Hesperia that connects individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to transitional supportive housing. The suit argues that efforts by Hesperia to shut down three transitional homes are intended to banish residents released on probation.

“The city’s efforts to shutter these homes is little more than an attempt to banish individuals with criminal records from their community,” said Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney with ACLU SoCal. “That’s unacceptable and violates the California Constitution and the 1st & 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Currently, the San Bernardino County Probation Department refers individuals released from incarceration who have no place else to go to VVFRC, which provides transitional housing for up to one year, as well as meals, case management services and permanent housing placement.

The lawsuit, filed against the city of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon and other city and sheriff’s officials, argues that several Hesperia municipal codes which were used to target VVFRC violate both the California and U.S. Constitutions. In some cases, Hesperia enforced a code prohibiting residential structures that house more than one individual on probation who are not related by blood or marriage, violating the individual plaintiffs’ right to association. One of VVFRC’s transitional homes was forced to close as a result, and the remaining homes may face the same fate.

The city also violated privacy rights by enacting an ordinance requiring landlords to provide their tenants’ personal information to police in Hesperia for purposes of a background check and registration of tenants in a database administered by the police. Under the same ordinance, the city requires landlords to evict tenants if the chief of police sends a “notice of criminal activity” – even if the tenants are never convicted, charged, or even arrested for any crime.

Hesperia’s efforts to shut down or severely limit the operations of VVFRC are a direct challenge to the state Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109), the sweeping reform package enacted to ease severe overcrowding in California’s jails and prisons. AB 109 redirects state resources from building more prisons to investing in community-based programs that provide services such as transitional housing, addiction treatment, mental health counseling, job placement and more.

Also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are six VVFRC clients who are on probation and have benefitted from these and other services. Without VVFRC, these and other clients would be vulnerable to homelessness, which increases the risk of re-incarceration.

“The city’s stance is not only unlawful but it also undermines public safety by eliminating the kind of re-entry and sober living group homes that provide crucial services to individuals who have no other recourse,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU SoCal general counsel and director of its Dignity for All Project. “Without a safe and supportive environment, they are at great risk of falling into homelessness and returning to criminal activity. Efforts by the city of Hesperia to eliminate this critical resource are ill-considered, unconstitutional and detrimental to public safety.”

Read the complaint

Contact:
Sandra Hernandez 213.977.5247, shernandez@aclusocal.org
Tony Marcano 213.977.5242, tmarcano@aclusocal.org

Via: https://www.aclusocal.org/pr-vvfrc-v-hesperia/ 

This Chart Blows Up the Myth of the Welfare Queen

The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows us the frugal reality of life on the social safety net. 

By JORDAN WEISSMANN

Here's a useful graph to keep handy for the next time Fox News airs a report about food stamp users buying lobster with their benefits.

This month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics compared yearly spending between families that use public assistance programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid, and families that don't. And surprise, surprise, households that rely on the safety net lead some pretty frugal lifestyles. On average, they spend $30,582 in a year, compared to $66,525 for families not on public assistance. Meanwhile, they spend a third less on food, half as much on housing, and 60 percent less on entertainment.

These figures, drawn from the 2011 Consumer Expenditure Survey, don't capture all non-cash perks some low-income families get from the government, such as healthcare coverage through Medicaid. But they give you a sense of the kind of tight finances these families deal with.

Take the food budget: There were, on average, 3.7 people in each family on public assistance (I know, that sounds weird, but bear with me). So that $6,460 spent on food comes out to about $34 per person, per week. Not exactly a shellfish budget. 

via: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/this-chart-blows-up-the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen/282452/

Southern California home prices rise; foreclosures fall statewide

Southern California’s housing market in January posted strong median home price gains as new foreclosure starts plummeted dramatically across the state.

The six-county region's median home price rose 23.5% from the same month a year earlier to $321,000, according to real estate research firm DataQuick. Home sales rose 10.6% to 16,058 over the same period.

The rise in home prices came as foreclosure starts in California took a massive tumble. The foreclosure decline came as new state laws aimed at prohibiting certain aggressive bank repossession practices went into effect. 

The real estate website ForeclosureRadar.com reported a 60.5% decline in the number of default notices issued in California in January compared with December. The number of default notices — the first formal step in the state’s foreclosure process — fell 77.7% from December 2011. A total of 4,500 such filings were logged last month, the lowest number since at least September 2006, when the website’s records begin.

The website gave no explanation for the sharp decrease in notices of default, but noted that the drop coincided with a package of tough new laws that provide homeowners with some of the nation's strongest protections from bank repossession practices taking effect in January.

Most notably, the Homeowner Bill of Rights bans the practice of “dual tracking,” in which a lender seizes a home even while negotiating a lower mortgage payment with the owner.

Passed last year, the legislative package was sponsored by California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris and written by 10 Democratic lawmakers.

The laws also outlawed so-called robo-signing -- the improper or faulty processing of foreclosure documents -- and would allow state agencies and private citizens to sue financial institutions, under limited conditions, for economic compensation and for additional civil damages of up to $50,000 if lenders willfully, intentionally or recklessly violate the law.

via LA Times