Tibute to a remarkable woman and friend

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=10-16-07&storyID=28229

My Days as an undercover homeless person

November 5^th, 2002

 

Statement of Karen Leonard to City Council regarding Brookwood Shelter

 

Dear City Council Members;

 

For five days and nights, I lived at the Brookwood shelter as a homeless person. This has given me insights into the living conditions of these residences that I believe is important to those who have rule over their lives.

 

Although people from Catholic Charities refer to Brookwood as these people’s “home” whenever they try to prevent people from the community coming into the shelter to interact and work with the people there, in reality, this place more closely resembles a “halfway house” for criminals. Although they have committed no greater sin than not having enough money to afford a place of their own in Sonoma County, we treat them as though they are the enemy in our midst.

 

Imagine living these realities; you work at night, but you are not allowed in your “home” to sleep during the day. When your children get out from school, they cannot go “home” for many hours, and you cannot afford day care. If either you or your children are sick, you cannot go “home”. Although you are not allowed to have any visitors in your “home”, police are allowed to walk through your room any time they choose. Although a budget for $7,000 dollars has been allotted in monies paid by taxpayers for your phone use, the only phone available to you is a pay phone you must share with 40 other people. Although an ample budget was set for furnishing, the only furniture there is was donated from the sheriff’s jail. Although there is a budget for food, the only food that arrives is food that the grocery stores can no longer sell because it is no longer fresh. You must mop floors while people are walking on them; because you cannot do them when everyone is gone…you are not allowed inside then, either. You may have to come “home” from a long day of work or job hunting and cook for 40 people. You must sleep with the lights on. You are blamed for everything that goes wrong, and told you deserve this because you are homeless. Although you need a good paying job to be able to pay rent, the only well paid people in your “home” are the guards who are not there to keep you safe, but to keep your neighbors safe from you. Even though the waiting list to get subsidized housing is two years or longer, you are told your stay here can only be at most a few months. The stress factors in your life, and those around you are stupendous, and yet you are told in countless ways, every day, you are not worthy of respect and the neighbors loathe the sight of you. And you must constantly remind yourself, that you are the “lucky” one, staying in the best shelter Santa Rosa offers, and complaints can land you back on the street.

 

These were my experiences during my short stay at Brookwood. After that I began showing up at the Brookwood’s Advisory meetings. I was not welcomed, in fact I was threatened to be arrested for impersonating a homeless person, and ordered to leave. When I finished laughing I asked for the statute that makes pretending to be homeless a crime. I stayed and returned again the next month, even though again I was told to leave.

The advisory committee went through quite a lot of commotion during those two visits of mine. After having talked with the “neighbor” who was selected to be on this committee I discovered that this committee has never taken a vote. It has never followed the original guidelines of its conception. Police presence has often outnumbered the people from the public. The public members have been refused their right to see Brookwood’s budget, and have been told they have no business discussing the operations of Brookwood. Although the advisory committee is suppose to be composed of a majority of people from the community and be ruled by consensus, in the six months since its conception it has yet to achieve either of these goals.

 

But one amazing thing did occur. A tenacious woman from the community insisted in being able to interact with the residences of Brookwood. She was told firmly that she would be interfering with the “rights” of the homeless to their “privacy”.  Fortunately, another public member pointed out that Catholic Charities has no authority over the lives of these people once they are outside of the shelter. A magical thing then occurred, the people inside the shelter and the people in the rest of the community organized. They created a wonderful Halloween party for the children inside Brookwood, and began to socialize together. I believe this is the start of something wonderful. This happened in spite of the Advisory committee’s efforts to marginalize and exclude the outside community from participating with the inside community of Brookwood.

 

If the City Council allows Catholic Charities to have complete authority over this public advisory committee there will be no oversight of how this agency runs Brookwood, and oversight is sorely needed. I must also remind everyone here, that the residences of Brookwood are part of our community and are not to be treated like property. The rights of the people in this shelter need to be defended, and respected. Most of the people in Brookwood were born and raised here in Sonoma County; they must be regarded as part of the community and not segregated and alienated from the rest of the community. Changes in policy must be allowed in order to improve the quality of life for these people within our community. There is more to the public’s concerns than simple fear and ignorance, and yet these are the only sentiments being catered to. I fear that caring for the homeless has become big business, both costly and largely ineffective. As a tax payer, whose funds are used in services to the poor, I demand greater accountability and transparency in these operations. It is not the people without houses I fear, but those whose livelihoods come from distributing services to the poor that I suspect of having vested interest in keeping the haves and have-not’s separated.

 

 

Jessica’s Law

Editorial: Jessica’s Law needs work
Ventura County Star
Bigger problems created
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Beware of unintended consequences, especially when voters take the law into
their own hands, as demonstrated by the passage of Jessica’s Law last
November. The law bars sex offenders, released after November 2006, from
living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. It sounded good on paper and
70 percent of California voters approved it.

However, as a result of that law, Ventura County’s first designated sexually
violent predator, Ross Wollschlager, has been living in a tent in a riverbed
since August, after he was kicked out of seven hotels throughout the county.
He was offered a place to stay with a friend, but couldn’t accept because
the friend lives within 2,000 feet of a park.

That is one example of thousands of potentially homeless sexual offenders in
California. That is worrisome on two counts:

- First, studies show the risk of sexual predators reoffending drops when
they have a stable place to live.

- Second, it is much harder to keep track of someone who is homeless.

For instance, if sex offenders have a place to live, their address is listed
on the Megan’s Law site. If they are homeless, no address is given and they
are listed only as “transient,” as is currently the case with Mr.
Wollschlager.

Certainly, Mr. Wollschlager’s living in a river bottom makes it harder to
keep track of him, even though he is monitored by a global positioning
system.

It was just the circumstance those opposed to the law – including The Star -
warned about at the time Proposition 83 was voted on.

Michael Schwartz, Ventura County’s special assistant district attorney, told
The Star in September: “The status of this case with him (Wollschlager)
living in a river bottom is not a good state of affairs. I think the state
has got to come up with a better solution where to house these people where
we can keep track of them.”

The solution the state is employing at the moment is arresting released sex
offenders who live too close to schools and parks. Although the state
Supreme Court last week blocked the arrest of four parolees who claim
Proposition 83 is vague and unfairly punishes sex offenders after they are
released from prison, it declined Monday to expand its ruling to cover all
paroled sex offenders affected by the law.

That is despite the fact state prisons are so overcrowded federal judges
have threatened to release some prisoners before they have served their full
sentences.

In July, it was determined that some 2,100 newly paroled sex offenders in
California were living illegally near schools and parks and they were given
45 days to find new homes. In Ventura County in August, 33 registered sex
offenders were identified by their parole agents as having to move.

Thursday, parole agents around the state were directed to arrest sex
offenders who could not prove they were living outside the restricted zones.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, co-author of Jessica’s Law, said in
July that he would be willing to amend the law if housing for sex offenders
becomes a problem.

We think the evidence is in that housing is a problem, as demonstrated by
Mr. Wollschlager’s situation and the ongoing arrests. Those arrests should
be halted at least until the court challenge on behalf of the four parolees
is decided.

Jessica’s Law was well-intentioned, but that does not make it a defensible
law.

Sen. Runner needs to amend his law or the courts, no doubt, will eventually
amend it for him, as they should.

Dear Editor

Knee jerk reactions are the norm when people are confronted with a horror
story such as Jessica’s. Politicians-ever anxious to make a name and rep for
the public eye, throw their cape back and declare themselves “Here to save
the Day!” They quickly score points for the most draconian of laws that
under normal circumstances would at least cause the public to ponder and
debate. Decisions made from pandering to your most volatile emotions
invariably create chaos and injustice. Thus; California imprisons more
people per capita than any country in the entire world. Thus; prison guards
make more than teachers and “Prisons” become our states fastest growing
industry with income from slave labor.

Tryanny of the Tiny Minority

Tyranny Of The Tiny Minority

 

 

 

Wondering why Congress rarely passes anything the public wants? Then grab Thomas Geoghegan’s 1999 memoir, “The Secret Lives of Citizens.”

The book shows that, like the Da Vinci Code, the answers to such important questions are often out in the open, encrypted only by our inability to step back and see them. And when you crack this particular mystery about Congress, you learn not only why Washington is paralyzed, but also where to look for domestic progress, and how stopping bills — rather than passing them — is probably the only way to end the Iraq war right now.

As Geoghegan notes, in the 100-member Senate, just 41 “no” votes kills most legislation with a filibuster. You might think that if 41 percent of our representatives oppose a bill, maybe it should die. After all, civics class taught us that the Senate is supposed to protect the voice of a significant minority.

But here is what civics class didn’t teach: With each state getting two senators regardless of population, 41 percent of the Senate often represents not a significant minority, but an infinitesimal one.

Using Census figures, Geoghegan discovers that the 11 percent of Americans living in the least populated states have enough Senate votes — 41 — to sustain a filibuster. Yes, 89 percent of the population may support a policy, but 11 percent of the population has the senators to block that policy’s enactment. When you go further than Geoghegan and consider the election-focused mindset of politicians, you see the situation is even more absurd.

Lawmakers trying to keep their jobs only need support from a majority of those who turn out to vote. In those 21 least populated states with filibuster power, that majority is typically about 7 million voters, based on turnout data. That’s just 3 percent of America’s total voting-age population wielding enough Senate representation to stop almost anything.

To see how this works, consider what followed a July CBS News/New York Times poll that found 69 percent of Americans support Congress either enacting a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq or defunding the war completely. When the Senate voted on timetable legislation that month, 47 senators voted “no” — enough to filibuster.

Should we be surprised that a policy supported by more than two thirds of America drew opposition from almost half of the Senate? No, not when we consider the math.

Those 47 senators understand they don’t answer to mainstream public opinion.

They rely on merely 16 percent of the nation’s total voting-age population to get elected and re-elected — a miniscule segment of America comprising the hard-core Republican base.

Obviously, small-state senators would block Constitutional amendments making our government more democratic. So why bother to know these numbers? Because they tell us how and where we can achieve progress.

In the Karl Rove age of base politics, this Senate setup means that most domestic reforms will not come from D.C., no matter which party controls Congress or the presidency. Change will come instead from the arenas that are more democratic and have no filibuster: state legislatures.

This isn’t wishful thinking. As energy, universal health care and consumer protection initiatives face Senate filibusters, legislatures are acting. For instance, California already passed one of the planet’s most far-reaching clean energy mandates and may soon enact a universal health care plan. North Carolina passed predatory lending laws that are setting national standards. Such examples could fill a phone book.

Of course, foreign policies like the Iraq War are federal issues and legislating those policies must involve the Senate. But the filibuster hardly means the campaign to end the war is pointless — it just means it requires a new strategy making the Senate’s drawbacks the campaign’s strength.

Specifically, Senate Democrats whine about not having 60 votes to pass Iraq-related legislation. They pretend they are innocent bystanders with no means to act, and some anti-war groups give the charade credence by echoing these excuses. Yet, if properly pressured, those Democrats might be able to muster 41 votes to stop war funding bills.

It is all about comprehending power. Geoghegan’s book exposes the mechanics permitting a tyranny of the tiny minority — one that makes most of us feel disenfranchised. But the numbers also explain which arenas will likely deliver results, and which will not; where we should expend resources pushing for change, and where we should not; and what strategies are appropriate, and what strategies are not.

The question is, will we heed the lesson?

Writer and political analyst David Sirota is the bestselling author of “Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government & How We Take It Back.” His daily blog can be found at www.workingassetsblog.com/sirota. To find out more about David Sirota and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/tyranny-of-the-tiny-minority.html