The New York Times has an article today

In South Florida, Eviction Spares Few that is reminiscent of the scenes depicted in Michael Moore's first film, Roger and Me. (which is about Flint, Michigan) It seems that both Michigan and Florida have a BIG problem with evictions these days. Lots of people are losing their homes.

Todays NYT article is about how evictions of the poor and middle class are rapidly on the rise in Florida. Evidently, the backlog between the filing of papers and the sheriffs arrival to put the belongings of poor families out on the street is increasing to two weeks or more.

""We do evictions, trash outs, rehabs" a contractor said.. Banks are seizing homes that are in foreclosure, and landlords are evicting tenants who have fallen behind in their rent.

"We work seven days a week"

Business for pro-eviction companies and businesses appears to be booming, a bright spot in an otherwise dismal economy..

"customers seemed to be lining up. When the eviction contractors were asked if they saw any sign of a turnaround, of their market's bottoming out, their answers were clear.

"We see it getting worse," Mr. Fedor said. "And worse. And worse."

"In the first three months of this year, Broward County tallied 3,043 eviction requests -- more than it has received in the same period since at least 1999, and an increase of 54 percent over last year. In Miami-Dade, landlords filed for 4,726 evictions from January through April, up 1,157 from the first four months of last year."

New Investors Rapidly Push To Achieve Market Rate Returns On Housing Investments, Some Say Destroying Working Class Neighborhoods.

The New York Times has another article about US internal displacements today, "
Tenants Roiled by Challenges on Residency" - as the alleged harassment of rent stabilized tenants in some of New York City's largest apartment complexes moves to a new level of complexity and organization. Millions of homes and trillions of dollars are at stake in changes that could dramatically change US cities, driving away millions of working people from apartments they can no longer afford as urban rents continue to respond to rising gas prices.

Apparently, the new investor/owners of some of these huge building complexes have been hiring firms to conduct computerized searches of the nations homeowners and renters for other people who share the same names as tenants, elsewhere. When they find a name match, such as another person who shares the same name (Mary Jones, for example - even if initials are different) they send the rent-protected tenant an eviction notice claiming that they live elsewhere and hence are disqualified from rent protection. Often, these claims are unfounded, but they force the tenant to hire an expensive lawyer (typically at a cost of $300/hr or more) to defend themselves against the false charges or they lose their tenancy's rent protection by default, which results in their rent being increased to market rate, increases that can amount ot thousands of dollars (for example, monthly rent is $1,241 for rent-stabilized units and $2,767 for - often smaller - market rate units - well over 200% of the stabilized rent!)

This is an example of the kind of increases California communities with rent stabilization laws will face under June's 6th
Proposition 98, if the well-organized and well funded slumlord lobby can succeed in driving the existing tenants out, rent controls on each unit will end, FOREVER.

As gas prices go up, and trillions of dollars in real estate profits at stake, it is clear that this is only the beginning of this war, which threatens to turn our cities into huge, exclusive theme parks for the ultra rich.

The New York Times has
yet another article today about the wave
of urban mass displacements that are sweeping American
cities as gas prices go up.

Seeing gold in low and moderate income urban neighborhoods,
investment companies are buying up literally millions of
apartment complexes, including many with rent stabilized
apartments, and making it known to investors that they
intend to increase turnover to increase rents, which are
sometimes very low considering their geographical locations
near urban employers.

As many residents of these urban neighborhoods are tenants
who do not own, and many are working class or fixed income
and have nowhere they can afford to go, they need to be
displaced somehow first to free up the valuable real estate.

This is called 'churning' in the real estate business, but its really a form of economic
cleansing. It destroys families and communities as surely as
a hurricane like Hurricane Katrina can, leaving urban wastelands
of unaffordable 'half million dollar' and up condo housing.

Long-term tenants in stabilized apartments or longtime renters who pay below market rate are being expressly targeted as city governments are overwhelmed and overloaded with complaints.

Washington has given this the green light as it has let it be known that it opposes rent stabilization
ordinances and the whole concept of public housing
'on principle'.

This is going to be a HUGE issue in the coming decades as gas prices continue to rise. Urban land will become more and more valuable, especially if it can be sold unencumbered, i.e. cleared of renters.

Some people have wondered why many working people, especially Catholics have stood by Hillary Clinton.

They accuse them of racism or simply of being 'out of touch' with their 'movement'

I think it is much less complicated. They are terrified of an increasingly terrifying aspect of our free market economy, incredibly high health care costs, costs which can destroy a family's hopes and dreams for a better future forever and leave them homeless and starving. The most common cause of bankruptcy and homelessness.

Obama is trying to work with the insurance companies. His healthcare guy, Jim Cooper, is a big benificiary of insurance company money. He helped kill universal healthcare in 1994. Its also come out in the past weeks that, embarassed, he is LYING to us on health care. Obama's healthcare plan would NOT SOLVE THE HUGE PROBLEMS THAT A GREAT MANY OF US WHO HAVE ANY KIND OF HEALTH ISSUE FACE WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABILITY. It does not even attempt to. Instead, he focuses on healthy people and getting them on paper as being insured BY CUTTING BENEFITS.

Many so called 'elites' may think they are immune from job loss. However, its NOT TRUE. Working people have no ILLUSIONS. They also realize how one health incident can ruin someone's life. A few weeks ago I wrote about that young woman who died because she could not pay off an older clinic bill.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the cost of an average 'difficult' pregnancy, uninsured is
$287,000. A hospital faced with an indigent patient and a bill that large, may write, say half of it off. But a person will still have their wages garnished for the rest of their life. If they own a home with their family, or any other large convertible assets, it WILL be taken. And, with bad credit, they will not be able to rent.

This is why many people are voting for Hillary Clinton.

Working people, like many others, are disturbed by Obama's stance on healthcare relative to Ms. Clinton's. They realize that Obama isn't really solving the problems, just nibbling around the edges.

Ms. Clinton's healthcare plan would make a huge difference for that 20% of Americans who are currently
uninsurable outside of a group plan. Obama uses deceptive language like "nobody can be turned away" and "no pre-existing condition can be excluded" to pretend he is, but his own economic advisor has admitted that it would be 'too expensive' to SUBSIDIZE the sicker 20% of the American people. (That is MUCH more than the 15 million Hillary claims - much more) - It would be too expensive, is what Goolsbee claimed (for both candidates, but Clinto has showed that SHE can overcome it, with a mandate.). Clinton HAS done the numbers and says it can be done while still covering everybody AND
capping out of pocket expenses at 5-10% of a family's income. The way it can be done is by exercizing CLOUT. The clout that a government negotiation team would have IF THEY HAD A BUNDLE OF BOTH HEALTHY AND ILL TO BARGAIN WITH. If you just have ill, there is no bargaining power. You are at a disadvantage BECAUSE TREATING ILL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES DOES COST A LOT OF MONEY. That is also why McCain's plan is doomed to fail. There is room for savings BUT NOT ENOUGH AS TO MAKE THESE DISEASES AFFORDABLE FOR MOST AMERICANS WHO HAVE THEM AT CURRENT WAGE LEVELS. Wages would have to go up dramatically, which is not going to happen in the current world economy. Wages will continue to go down, and we need to make it so people CAN STILL SURVIVE.

Hillary will give Americans the peace of mind that comes with having good healthcare coverage, a peace of mind that most other citizens of developed nations TAKE FOR GRANTED.

That is what is so new and LIFE CHANGING about Hillary Clinton's proposal. For many people, it would be the first time they had been able to get affordable health care. Our experience during World War II shows that when a large number of people gain health care, healthy lifespans and productivity increase. Dramatically. Studies have shown that some people are making important life decisions based on healthcare issues. Clinton's proposals would free millions. That would revitalize the economy. Perhaps that is what scares some. Wages might need to increase because people's insurance would no longer be so dependent on where they worked. People could start small businesses and business could stop laying off their older employees to lower their healthcare bills.

Under Obama, rationing would continue, even worsten. To get cheaper insurance, people assume more risk. Insurance companies pay less. They save the difference in their medical savings accounts so they are not broadsided. But many people don't have that money. Sick people often cant afford the cost. Insurance companies could ask 'a fair price' which for some people might be very high, as its based on the cost of their care, as well as the risk, Under Clinton, its based on income, the very poor and the unemployed would pay nothing or next to nothing. A major - actually, the largest - larger than simple unemployment - driver of the breakup of homes and families would be averted.

Thats much less than most poor families and individuals are paying now. The mandate makes it possible - its been explored in countless other countries and thats just the way it is. However, most low and medium income people would pay FAR LESS than they do now, and people without insurance - not just insurance, WORKING COVERAGE WITHOUT GAPS would not exist.

Obama
is clearly against real universal coverage.

Over the past year a group of Edwards supporters formed what is known as Edwards Evening News Roundup. Now that Edwards suspended his campaign, we're not ending our own. Every Sunday night over at Daily Kos, the same group of Edwards supporters will be posting nightly diaries on the issues of economic injustice. Last night I posted my fist installment, it's about homelessness in America and action you can take now!

This is the time of year when a lot of parents are working their way through the list of typical back-to-school purchases, such as fall clothes, books, and school supplies.

For the families sponsored by SafeHome Philadelphia, on whose board of directors I sit (the website is out of date),  the back-to-school priority list reads a little differently:

1) Get out of unsafe housing, off the streets, and find a place to call home

Without a place to call home it's virtually impossible for parents to even consider school for their kids. SafeHome Philadelphia is a non-profit, privately funded organization dedicated to ending homelessness by working with landlords in local communities to identify safe, clean environments for families and their children. We get families off the street, into a home of their own.  

It's called the Housing First philosophy, and it is a radical attempt to end homelessness.  Rather than put families in a shelter system and wait for them to take care of the issues that led them there, we believe in giving people housing first, and then connecting them to the mainstream and neighborhood services they need to maintain permanent housing. This community-based approach helps prevent people from entering the homeless service system, and helps those already homeless to rapidly exit the cycle of temporary solutions. Give people the stability and dignity that permanent housing affords, rather than use the more expensive shelter system as a bandaid. (We have a 90%+ success rate that proves it works.)

2) Get support to re-establish my family

Coming off the street, working families typically do not have the necessary first and last month rent, security deposit, etc., let alone credit to qualify for basic utilities. SafeHome Philadelphia makes available a general "housing success" fund, which helps with up-front, move-in expenses. Our term family advocates help families work through legal and financial challenges to setting up and making their home permanent.

3) Find basic household items to cook with, bathe with, eat from, etc.

SafeHome families typically lack things that most people take for granted. Children need chairs to sit on and tables to put their books on - at the minimum. Then consider the things required for basic cooking, eating, sleeping in a bed (often as opposed to the bare floor or a cast-off couch). As part of the "housing success" fund and donations, SafeHome helps families with the basic household goods to make their home ... home.

The good news: we've found the solution, and we've housed and stabilized 41 families, including 102 children, in less than 2 years.

We can demonstrate that SafeHome can end homelessness in ways other programs can't. That we can re-connect families with society by giving them a home first. A place of their own from which to build pride, regain hope, become self-sufficient... and to do homework.

I met one of our families at a rally we held on Wednesday in Philadelphia,   Twin sisters in a shelter with their mother and siblings.  Their grades plummeted, and one was held back. Conditions in the shelter were so unbearable that their mother rented a house she couldn't afford; they were forced to live without furniture, and still remained on the brink of homelessness. Desperate, they found SafeHome Philadelphia on a library computer.

Today, the family's income is stable and their house is furnished --including a computer for homework! Now, when the twins get home from school, homework comes first - and they're getting A's & B's on their report cards.

And it's cheap: we are able to house and stabilize a family for a one-time cost of only $4,000.

Sounds like a lot? It costs the City of Philadelphia $35,000 annually in taxpayer dollars to put a family in a shelter.  A shelter is not a home.  At the end of that year, there still is no permanence, no option, no future. We spend half of $4,000 (raised privately, without governmental red tape or restrictions) on up-front rent and security deposits, and the other half on support staff, including the family advocate. Our dollars flow straight to the solution.

But we absolutely need your support now.

Basically, SafeHome was our gamble.  We decided that the best way to turn around homelessness in Philadelphia was to use the reserves we had to support as many families as possible, to demonstrate that a "housing first" philosophy worked, and then use those results to generate the support for the funds needed to sustain and expand the program.  That's where we are right now -- we are running out of funds for new families, and we have more calling every day.  

We are running out of time, and running out of money. Can you help us find more places for more kids to do their homework?  Please click on the "make a donation" link and help us out.

What's important here is to realize that homelessness is not a permanent, intractable condition. We can do something about it.

(Originally posted on The Bilerico Project by the Reverend Irene Monroe. She referring to the "gay debate" - a Democratic presidential forum set up by the largest LGBT advocacy group in America, the HRC, which will air tomorrow night on Logo.)

There has been a lot of talk with enthusiasm and optimism concerning the upcoming historic televised HRC-Logo Forum on issues important to America's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer voters. With a star-studded cast of 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls like  frontrunning senators Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama to the low-polling but queer-friendly former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel bringing up the rear, the excitement is palpable in many queer communities across the country.

There is, however, at least one LGBTQ community nationwide that knows very little about the HRC-Logo debate - the LGBTQ community of African descent.

This is the second in my series of diaries about traveling along with the Road to One America Tour.  The series started with yesterday's diary about John Edwards visiting a neighborhood struggling with home foreclosures in Cleveland.

On Tuesday, I was following the Edwards campaign as John Edwards visited the women of Beatitude House, a shelter for homeless women seeking to reclaim their lives, in Youngstown, Ohio. To quote the Beatitude House website:

Beatitude House, sponsored by the Ursuline Sisters, is committed to disadvantaged women and children in the Mahoning Valley. In an atmosphere of care and compassion, the programs focus on counseling to promote self development and education to obtain needed skills.

Through this holistic approach, both women and children are empowered with the work habits and motivation to realize their full potential.