Events


Decision fuels debate over shelters versus low-income housing

By Anna McCarthy
Marinscope Newspapers
Published: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:02 PM PST

Last winter, two homeless people in Marin were treated for exposure. In response, San Rafael temporarily opened the Marin Center and the National Guard Armory to host 40-80 of the county’s homeless residents. During that same time, a dozen churches and synagogues housed and fed about 60 people nightly. A grand jury report found these and other actions to be indicative of the county’s lack of emergency services to accommodate its homeless population.

Despite the efforts of county officials to expand emergency shelter space in the years following that report, Marin County still hosts just 55 permanent emergency shelter beds at the Mill Street Center in San Rafael, which is operated by the organization Homeward Bound of Marin.

This year, 15 churches and synagogues reopened their doors on Dec. 1 to host about 55 more local homeless residents in what’s now known as the yearly Rotating Emergency Shelter Team project, aka REST. Even with this added support, the St. Vincent de Paul dining room in San Rafael decided to open its doors temporarily last month to host roughly 40 homeless residents during an especially cold week.

Homeward Bound Executive Director Mary Kay Sweeney has been helping to find a place for another permanent shelter. The task is easier said than done, she said, “because there’s nobody in this entire county who wants a shelter near them.” The same goes for low-income housing. For the issue to be addressed, she said, “we need a groundswell of people who will say low-income housing isn’t what you think it is.”

In the meantime, the county is now looking to a new approach it hopes will curtail the need for emergency shelter. Marin County supervisors on Dec. 14 were scheduled to vote on whether to allocate $200,000 yearly toward a program called Housing First, which would provide housing subsidies for the county’s homeless.

The idea behind Housing First is to bypass shelters and instead put homeless residents in subsidized housing and provide support services to keep them there. Those chosen to participate would be scattered in housing units around the county. The program has proven in many jurisdictions to be a more efficient investment than shelter funding, according to Bobbe Rockoff, a policy analyst for Marin County Health and Human Services.

Rockoff said Housing First funding would not take any money away from the Mill Street Center and its existing emergency shelter beds. “However, it is an alternative to developing an expanded permanent shelter,” she said.

Larry Meredith, Marin County director of Health and Human Services, said the county’s search wouldn’t be abandoned. But it might be put on the back burner.

But some local homeless advocates believe putting emergency shelter beds on the back burner in lieu of emergency shelter housing is a mistake. “We need both,” said Rev. Paul Gaffney of the Marin Interfaith Street Chaplaincy, who co-founded the REST program.

Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco, agrees with Gaffney. She says investing so much in housing is “putting the cart before the horse,” even if the concept behind Housing First is a solid one. “The problem is that we have so many more homeless people than we do resources for housing,” she said.

Meredith said the county simply doesn’t have the resources to do both. “If you’re on the planet Earth these days, you know that the resources for publicly funded programs are in decline,” he said. Plus, many Marin communities have indicated they are not in favor of a large permanent shelter, he said.

The next step following the council’s decision is to select agencies to work with the county on the Housing First program, Meredith said. Sweeney said she expected that, given the amount of funding, the program would serve about 12 people total. Meredith said he could not confirm the number of people the program would serve.

Contact Anna McCarthy at amccarthy@marinscope.com.

Monthly cleanups in the Canal pay off

By Anna McCarthy
Marinscope Newspapers
Published: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:02 PM PST

On a recent drizzly Saturday, roughly 20 volunteers formed a circle in a parking lot in San Rafael’s Canal District and one-by-one described why they decided to brave the rain to spend the morning picking up garbage in their neighborhood.

Omar Guerrero, who has lived in the Canal District for the past year and a half, said he hoped the cleanup efforts would convince the city to make permanent changes to the Canal’s parking regulations. “We just want to be on the same level as everyone else,” he said. His feelings were reflected by many others in the group.

Guerrero and others were referring to a strict parking regulation specific to the Canal area that may be repealed by the San Rafael City Council at its Dec. 20 meeting. The Dec. 4 cleanup marked the last of 12 monthly cleanups the community has organized for the past year to prove to city officials that the neighborhood can reduce the amount of garbage in the streets.

Starting around 10 years ago, cars parked during street-sweeping hours would be towed automatically without any tickets or warnings issued beforehand. San Rafael Parking Services Director Vince Guarino said the regulation was imposed because the area was allegedly collecting an unprecedented amount of garbage in its drains, clogging them up. In addition, Guarino said cars were not being moved for street sweepers, making it difficult for Public Works to keep the neighborhood clean.

Until recent budget cuts, street sweeping was scheduled for four days per week in the busiest areas of the Canal, which meant that cars were frequently towed. Retrieving a car after it has been towed can cost hundreds of dollars. Unlicensed drivers must retrieve their vehicle accompanied by a licensed driver, according to San Rafael police representative Margo Rohrbacher. Guarino said the city does not make money off the towing, and only sees fees from citations.

The Canal Alliance, a nonprofit that provides services for the Canal community, has long argued that the rule unfairly targets the immigrant population living in the Canal. “It’s certainly not a fair policy,” said Canal Alliance Executive Director Tom Wilson in a recent interview.

Wilson said the availability of parking and garbage services in the Canal District is the real issue that needs to be resolved. He said building managers in the area often don’t provide enough trash dispensers for the number of residents living in their buildings. Trash that overflows from dumpsters can easily be picked up by the wind and blown into the streets.

However, the community organized to revoke the towing rule about a year ago. A group of Canal residents and members of the Canal Alliance approached city officials and promised to keep the area clean if the city eliminated the rule. In response, the City Council agreed to implement a six-month pilot program to suspend the rule and issue citations instead.

Over that time, city officials looked at the amount of garbage collected when the street sweeper came through, the number of cars ticketed during those times and the number of abandoned vehicles left in the streets. Meanwhile, members of the Canal Alliance’s Youth Concilio and the Vecinos del Canal organized monthly cleanups in the community and held community forums to spread awareness about the trash issue.

The first two cleanups yielded 40 bags of trash, and that number decreased with every month, according to a representative from the Canal Alliance.

But when the pilot program ended in May, city officials reported that the ticketing had not decreased as much as they hoped it would. Rather than make the towing suspension permanent, they decided to extend the pilot program for another six months.

Guarino said the problem stemmed in part from a change in the days and hours of the street sweeping as a result of budget cuts. In January, street sweeping in the Canal was reduced from four days to one day per week. Signage wasn’t immediately updated, and Guarino said the city saw a spike in citations during the first few months after this change.

Wilson said that the extension was frustrating, but the community rose to the challenge. “People were oddly not that disheartened by it,” he said. They redoubled their efforts, culminating in the final cleanup on Dec. 4.

Guarino said all the community’s efforts have “really had an impact on the amount of trash in the neighborhood.” Unless the item is taken off the council’s Dec. 20 consent calendar, Guarino said the suspension of the towing rule will likely be made permanent. He said that Public Works, parking services and the San Rafael Police Department all support the change. “It’s one of those win-win things,” he said.

Contact Anna McCarthy at amccarthy@marinscope.com.

Posted: 12/07/2010 02:30:01 PM PST

 

Hotel room fees — please don’t call them a tax — will double next year in some Marin communities.

County supervisors Tuesday adopted a measure raising to 2 percent the tax or fee on gross room rental bills imposed by the Tourism Business Improvement District on hotels and motels in San Rafael, Novato, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Larkspur, Corte Madera and some unincorporated areas.

The proposal was approved last month, but supervisors had to start over after inserting language that makes clear the resulting revenue will “provide a specific and direct benefit to the payors that is not provided to those not charged.” County lawyers said the measure thus complies with Proposition 26, approved by voters last month to curb fee increases.

Hotel room guests paying the tab will benefit from “increased sales of room nights” provided through marketing and related programs financed by the fee, the new measure says.

“This is not a tax” because it is “paid for by the hotel,” asserted Supervisor Judy Arnold. She joined other board members in giving the measure prompt approval.

Since 2004, the Marin Convention and Visitors’ Bureau has received 1 percent of room revenue from participating properties to pay for marketing efforts boosting tourism. Doubling the fee, a move supported by hotels, could generate an additional $400,000 or more annually for the tourism bureau.

The extra money will finance tourism management and marketing efforts,

perhaps including a cable television campaign. 

Contact Nels Johnson via e-mail at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com

Women’s group says Hooters should not serve minors

The Associated Press

Posted: 12/17/2010 06:43:02 AM PST

Updated: 12/17/2010 06:43:02 AM PST

 

SAN FRANCISCO—The National Organization for Women is asking authorities to bar Hooters restaurants in San Francisco, San Bruno, Sacramento and Orange County from serving children.The group’s California chapter on Thursday filed complaints against the restaurants with prosecutors and police.

Hooters is known for its scantily clad waitresses. But NOW says the restaurants it identified are classified as adult entertainment establishments and are violating state and local laws by serving minors.

Patricia Bellasalma, NOW’s California president, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that in recent years, Hooters has promoted itself as family friendly. It offers children’s menus and T-shirts in children’s sizes that say “Future Hooters Girl.”

Hooters did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

———

Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle

 

From Bloomberg.com:

“Federal Reserve data showing UBS AG and Barclays Plc ranked among the top users of $3.3 trillion from emergency programs is stoking debate on whether U.S. regulators bear responsibility for aiding other nations’ banks.

UBS was the biggest borrower under the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, with $74.5 billion overall, more than twice as much as Citigroup Inc., the top U.S. bank recipient, according to the data released yesterday. London-based Barclays Plc took the biggest single amount under another program that made overnight loans, when it got $47.9 billion on Sept. 18, 2008.

“We’re talking about huge sums of money going to bail out large foreign banks,” said Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who wrote the provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that required the Fed disclosures. “Has the Federal Reserve become the central bank of the world? I think that is a question that needs to be examined.”

The first detailed accounting of U.S. efforts to spare European banks may add to scrutiny of the central bank, already at its most intense in three decades. The Fed, which released data on 21,000 transactions, said in a statement that its 11 emergency programs helped stabilize markets and support economic recovery. The Fed said there have been no credit losses on rescue programs that have been closed.

The growth of the U.S. mortgage-backed securities market and the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency enticed overseas banks such as Zurich-based UBS to buy assets in the country before 2008. They paid for the holdings with U.S. dollars, and when funding seized up, the Federal Reserve refused to take the risk that European firms would unload the assets and further depress markets for housing-related investments.

‘Much Worse’

“Things would have been worse if they hadn’t lent to foreigners,” said Perry Mehrling, senior fellow at the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University and author of “The New Lombard Street: How the Fed became the Dealer of Last Resort.” “We’re finally getting to understand the role of the Fed in the world.”

Fed spreadsheets showed the central bank became the world’s lender of last resort as dollars flowed to European banks as well as Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co, among top borrowers from the Term Auction Facility at $45 billion each.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which posted record profit last year, borrowed more than $24 billion from another program. Milwaukee-based Harley-Davidson Inc. and Fairfield, Connecticut- based General Electric Co. sold commercial paper, a form of short-term debt, to the Fed under a program that lent as much as $348.2 billion at its peak.

Sanders, the Vermont senator, said yesterday he plans to investigate whether banks profited by borrowing from the Fed and investing the funds in Treasuries, benefiting from the difference in interest rates.

‘Bailout Protection Act’

U.S. Representative Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, said he planned to introduce a “European Bailout Protection Act” to restrict the flow of International Monetary Fund loans to European countries. He said he was responding to reports that U.S. officials might bolster a European fund designed to deal with this year’s debt crisis, which has spread from Greece to Ireland.

Edwin Truman, a former Fed official who is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said any push to confine the Fed’s role to U.S. banks would create a “massive exercise in financial protectionism.”

“It would lead to retaliation, so U.S. banks in London or Tokyo would expect the same kind of treatment,” Truman said. William Poole, senior economic adviser to Merk Investments LLC and a former Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis president, said he was surprised by the extent of non-U.S. bank borrowing.

Commercial Paper

“I was under the impression that each country bore the responsibility for supervising the banks headquartered in their borders,” Poole said in an interview.

The $74.5 billion received by UBS through the CPFF, which bought short-term debt, represents total borrowings by UBS over the life of the program. The total outstanding at any point in time never exceeded about half that sum, said Karina Byrne, a UBS spokeswoman.

Byrne said the bank’s tapping the Fed fund “should be seen in the context of our overall desire to maintain flexibility and diversification in our funding sources.”

The loan to a Barclays unit came from the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created to make sure U.S. securities firms and foreign firms’ U.S. affiliates had cash to satisfy clients’ financing demands.

Barclays took the loan the week in September 2008 that it acquired the U.S. operations of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Mark Lane, a spokesman for Barclays, declined to comment.

‘A Big Operation’

Paris-based Natixis borrowed $27 billion under the commercial paper program. “We’ve got a big operation in the U.S.A.,” Victoria Eideliman, a spokeswoman for the bank said. “It was, for us, natural that we participate in this program like all the banks. When we participated, the liquidity situation was very tense.”

The $182.3 billion rescue of American International Group Inc. spared European banks that traded with the New York-based insurer from having to raise as much as $16 billion in capital, according to a June report from the Congressional Oversight Panel, which reviews bailout spending.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke addressed questions in a 2009 Congressional hearing about why non-U.S. banks benefited from the AIG rescue.

‘The Obligation’

“I would point out that the Europeans have also saved a number of major financial institutions, and the issue of whether those institutions owed American companies money has not come up,” Bernanke said. “So I think that there is a sense that we all have the obligation to address the problems of companies in our own jurisdictions.”

Three of the top seven borrowers under the CPFF program were private firms. New York-based Hudson Castle received $53.3 billion in aggregate, BSN Holdings took $42.8 billion, and Liberty Hampshire Co., a unit of Guggenheim Partners LLC, drew $41.4 billion, Fed data show.

Hudson’s website says it develops “customized debt products.” A person who answered its phone said no one was available to comment. A Guggenheim spokesman didn’t return phone calls.

BSN Capital Partners Ltd., which was associated with BSN Holdings according to a 2006 Standard & Poor’s note, was founded by John Burgess, a former Deutsche Bank AG managing director. Burgess declined to comment.”

For the article provided by www.hussmanfunds.com please click here.

By Anna McCarthy
Published: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:43 PM PST

Marinscope Newspapers

The state is moving forward with plans for an estimated $356 million project to expand San Quentin’s death row facility despite a recent lawsuit filed by Marin County that aims to halt or postpone the project. On Nov. 9, the Marin Board of Supervisors agreed to file the lawsuit against the state, which claims Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line-item veto of a budget item that would have delayed the project was illegal. 

The bill language, introduced by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) placed funding restrictions for the project given certain conditions. Those conditions included requirements of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide thorough reports on the legality of placing two condemned inmates in one cell, requirements to provide an environmental impact report for modifications on the project since its introduction to the Legislature and the resolution of federal court litigation on prison overcrowding.

The county’s lawsuit claims that the governor does not have the authority to use a line-item veto to void these provisions. The lawsuit also claims that the governor’s purported factual basis for his veto is wrong. “The Governor contends that further delay of this project — which has already been delayed several years — would ‘cause unnecessary increased costs,’ ” the lawsuit reads. “Although the originally budgeted cost increased substantially between 2003 and 2005 … construction cost indexes for institutional building have remained relatively flat for the last several years.”

It goes on to say that a July report from the state auditor found that the state would actually save $18.6 million per year for five years in the state-delayed construction.

Lawsuit aside, bids are in for the first phase of construction on the project, according to Peggy Bengs, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections. The first phase would include demolition, site grading, utilities, housing units and towers. Bidding began on Oct. 19 and the state opened the bids on Nov. 9, she said. There were nine bids submitted, all of which were below the state’s estimated bid of $165 million. Bids ranged from a minimum of $126.3 million up to $145.3 million, she said.

Bengs said the state will be reviewing the three lowest bidders in the upcoming weeks, and then make a final decision on the contract. Bidding for the second and final phase of construction, which will include construction on the secure support buildings, nonsecure buildings, security, communications and inmate treatment center, is scheduled to begin at the end of August 2011.

Deborah Hysen, another spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections, said that contrary to the auditors report findings, the current economic climate is actually a preferable time to begin the project. “The economy is very favorable to bidding construction projects right now,” she said, pointing to the low bids. In addition, Hysen said, the project would help stimulate the economy by creating a significant number of construction jobs.

Still, Huffman said in an August prepared statement that the proposed upgrade “would be the most expensive inmate housing ever built, at a cost of more than $500,000 per cell,” and called it a “Cadillac Death Row.”

The cost was not always anticipated to be so high. The state Legislature approved in 2003 a $220 million new death row facility. But the cost increased significantly before construction began due to unforeseen costs, according to the Department of Corrections. To minimize the increases, the Department of Corrections reduced the size of the facility from 1,024 cells to 768. There are currently over 700 condemned inmates in the state prison system.

To mitigate costs and maximize capacity, the state planned to place two inmates in one cell for at least two-thirds of the population. Still, new estimates of the cost were $356 million, $136 million more than the state’s original estimate. And a 2008 state-run audit found that the proposed construction would be $39.3 million more than this figure, bringing the total up to $395.3 million. The audit found that staffing would cost roughly $58.8 million per year, for a total of $1.2 billion over the next 20 years.

The audit also found that placing two condemned inmates in one cell may not be feasible for security reasons. However, if the prison is not able to do this, the audit reports that the facility will reach capacity three years after its expected opening. At that time, the expected opening was in 2011. Today, the Department of Corrections estimates that construction will be complete in September 2013.

Schwarzenegger announced in August that he planned to take out loans of up to $64 million from the state’s general fund to start construction.

This is the county’s third attempt to block or at least postpone the death row complex. A 2006 suit alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had not adequately considered alternatives to the new facility in its environmental report. Another filed in 2007 claimed that corrections officials needed approval from the state Legislature to reduce the number of cells in the proposed facility. 

The state’s push for the expanded death row facilities is in part a response to criticisms of prison overcrowding and a federal court order requiring the state to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, or a reduction of more than 40,000 prisoners over a two-year period. In response to the order, the state said it would add “1,152 beds in a new Condemned Inmate Complex on the grounds of San Quentin.” 

Although the project was authorized before the federal suit was filed, Hysen said the project would add capacity to the prison. “It’s a project that we’ve needed for a long, long time,” she said.

But Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who has long denounced the expansion project alongside Huffman, issued a statement in August urging the governor to use the money available for other purposes. “The governor’s proposal to use general-fund dollars for this ill-conceived project at a time when he is decimating support for our children’s education and the sustenance of services for seniors and children makes no sense at all,” he said.

Contact Anna McCarthy at amccarthy@marinscope.com.

Read the NBC article here.

Read the Mercury News article here.

Read the Marinscope article here.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.