[Hpn] STREET SHEET E-Zine -- July 2001 -- Part 2
Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:20:37 -0700
MIZ FEINSTEIN¹S SKOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
Last month, amidst self-congratulatory speeches about helping poor children
receive a high quality education, the U.S. Senate passed an education
package that would keep many of California¹s poorest children in ³homeless
only² schools or classrooms.
The Senate bill would permit certain school districts that currently
segregate homeless students to continue to do so, and to receive federal
funding. In effect, the bill will make it legal for these school districts
to segregate homeless students ‹ a practice that clearly has been illegal
under current federal law, which entitles homeless students to a free,
appropriate public education, and prohibits their separation from the
mainstream school environment.
This provision is the result of efforts by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein,
who alone among Democrats joined Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona to push for
federal funding for separate schools for homeless children. As a result, six
schools were grandfathered ‹ five in California, and one in Arizona.
Feinstein appears to have been seduced by the self-serving pleas of the
segregated schools, such as the ³Transitional Learning Center² in Stockton -
a ³school² that segregates children in grades K-6 into three classrooms at a
day center for homeless people, and only provides a four and a half hour
school day. Segregation proponents claim that without separate schools,
homeless students would not attend school, and that separate schools provide
³unique² services, such as food and counseling. These blatantly false
contentions, apparently endorsed by Feinstein and Kyl, display an arrogant
disregard for current law and practice.
The McKinney-Vento Act requires States to remove barriers to homeless
student¹s enrollment, attendance, and success in school. Separate schools
were created because certain school districts refused to remove these
barriers, in blatant disregard of federal law. Rather than stabilize
children in the same school that they were attending prior to losing their
housing, or in a regular neighborhood school, some school districts have
chosen to increase the disruption and loss in the lives of homeless children
by forcing them into homeless-only schools, thereby depriving children of
the normalcy, stability, resources, and opportunities of the mainstream
education to which they are entitled. And now they¹ll get federal funding to
Many school districts in California are complying the McKinney-Vento Act,
with remarkable results. For example, in the Fresno Unified School District,
there has been a decrease in student mobility, increased attendance, and
improved test scores for more than 2,000 children experiencing homelessness
throughout the district ‹ all of whom are educated in regular neighborhood
schools. Like other school districts throughout California and the nation,
the social service needs of homeless students are met without separating
these students from their housed classmates.
Apparently unconcerned with the policy and humanity issues, Feinstein forged
ahead with her efforts, despite the objections of the California Board of
Education, the entire Bay area Congressional delegation, and integrated
education programs throughout the state ‹ programs that the Senator never
bothered to visit.
Segregation should be a thing of the past in America. It is indisputably
unacceptable to segregate children of color, children with disabilities, and
children with a limited knowledge of English to separate schools, and the
same should be true for homeless children. Homelessness is not an
educational condition. Homeless students have the same educational needs as
their housed classmates and are capable of reaching the same academic
standards. Yet separate schools fail to provide curricula equal to that
offered in regular schools, including the opportunity to interact with
students from diverse economic and social backgrounds.
Most people remember the disastrous results of allowing public school
districts to not educate those children they do not want. It is traumatic
enough to lose one¹s home ‹ to then remove those children from their friends
and school activities is simply cruel.
By championing segregation, Senator Feinstein has sacrificed the futures of
our most vulnerable children. Indeed, the segregation provision is the sad
triumph of politics over policy ‹of prejudice over tolerance; pity over
respect; and charity over justice. History will judge us by the strength of
We urge our readers to contact their members of Congress, including Senator
Feinstein, to demand that the segregation measure be eliminated in the
House/Senate Conference Committee meetings, and to ensure equal educational
opportunities for all students.
King Willie¹s City Budget Power Plays
There is certainly no question that our City¹s Mayor is an accomplished
power-broker. His skills in this area are nowhere more evident than the
City¹s budget process, where he has managed to consolidate the lion¹s share
of power inside his own office, leaving the City Departments and Board of
Supervisors behind to squabble over the scraps.
The City¹s budget process is probably the most important venture in
policy-making that our elected officials must undertake. It determines what
priorities the City sets forward, and it shapes every aspect of life in San
Francisco. The City budget will determine how poor our citizens are, whether
we each have a home to live in, whether we have access to health care, and
even affects our civil and human rights. Within the budget constructs, Mayor
Brown has ensured he has increased control of the City¹s budget each year
since his election.
City Departments hold budget hearings around the New Year and submit their
budgets to the Mayor¹s office February 1st. The Mayor¹s office releases it
to the Board of Supervisors on June 1st ‹ a full four months later. The
Board of Supervisors, a larger legislative body, has only six weeks to
review the budget. As a result, the Mayor¹s office has time to comb through
the budget, set priorities, make major funding shifts, and determine
everything the City will fund. The Board has taken steps ensuring it will
have more time next year.
Meanwhile, the Mayor¹s current budget instructions have demanded baseline
budgets from the Departments. A baseline budget is the amount of funding the
Department received the year before ‹ in other words, no new funding, and
cost increases must be funded within the total amount from the year before.
The budget instructions from the Mayor¹s office have become increasingly
restrictive each year.
This has dramatically changed the way Departments prioritize. Previously,
City Departments would garner input from the community through their budget
hearings and submit a budget to the Mayor that would reflect the total needs
of those communities the Department is supposed to serve. Now, Departments
submit budgets that must cut services just to make up for cost of living
increases. The Mayor¹s office is then able to do its own prioritizing of new
programs that it wants to fund. But the Mayor has no hearings or other ways
to garner systematic community input.
The Department of Public Health is notorious for making up for these cuts by
hiding them under inflated ³salary savings,² which is the amount of money
the City saves by leaving jobs open. By forcing the Department¹s budget to
reflect 10% in salary savings ‹ twice the normal amount of attrition ‹ they
are unable to refill vacant positions. While it appears that the City is
fully funding programs, in fact the vacant positions remain vacant,
therefore the services are not being offered. These stealthy budget cuts are
hard to place a number on, and as such are difficult to organize around. And
the resulting impact on poor folks¹ ability to access treatment is
The City charter allows for Supervisors to add money back into the budget
(new funds authorized by the Board are called ³add-backs²), but the Supes
must first locate these funds by finding other items to eliminate from the
City budget. For the past few years, the Mayor required that the Board¹s
add-backs be ³one time² funding, meaning any new program funded by the Board
is funded for only one year. In contrast, new programs funded by the Mayor
enjoy annual funding every year. This means the Board must re-fund their
programs each year, making these programs very unstable ‹ and extremely
minimizing any impact the entire participation of the Board will have in the
budget process. With one time add-backs, the Board cannot fully re-shape the
budget, shift priorities, or do much of anything but merely tinker with the
An example of this is the money for back rent and eviction assistance funded
a few years back by the Supervisors. Once started, the program was a huge
success. However, a year later it wasn¹t included in the Department of Human
Services¹ budget, due to the baseline budget requirement. The Mayor didn¹t
bother funding it, either. So the Supervisors had to add it back with
savings found by cutting from other programs. This has happened every year
for three years, and has destabilized the program ‹ a vital component in
efforts to fight gentrification and evictions.
Lastly, the Mayor utilizes his veto power to ensure he gets what he wants in
the City budget. Last year, he threatened to veto the entire City budget if
a program to prosecute homeless people for ³quality-of-life² infractions was
Our not-so-newly-elected Board of Supervisors is now positioned to radically
reverse the power structure. They can now demand their add-backs be funded
every year. They can now pool enough votes to override the Mayor¹s veto.
They can now threaten funding for Mayor Brown¹s pet initiatives. And they
can now resist their diminished position and finally demand that notoriously
money-grubbing and pork-laden city departments (like SFPD, SFFD, the Dept.
of Public Works, and the Mayor¹s office itself) turn squandered tax dollars
over to address the real crisis our City faces.
San Francisco is a wealthy city with a permanent underclass whose most basic
needs ‹ living wage jobs, housing and health care ‹ are not being met. We
must meet those needs.
To learn more about the People¹s Budget Collaborative, or to get involved,
contact Riva Enteen at 415 / 285.1055.
THIS YEAR¹S BUDGET SUCCESSES!
The City budget process is not even over yet, and the Coalition on
Homelessness has already chalked up some successes for homeless and poor
€ The money to prosecute homeless people for being homeless has been taken
out of the budget.
€ A uniform grievance procedure ‹ modeled after the shelter grievance
procedure ‹ for people in substance abuse treatment programs has been
funded. Folks suffering from addictive disorders will enjoy some increased
rights ‹ they will have access to an advocate and an independent panel will
decide whether or not they should be put out of a program. It will force
substance abuse programs to begin following their own policies.
€ The Coalition has been embarked on a campaign for treatment on demand for
several years. We advocated for its creation, and continue to support the
Treatment on Demand Planning Council¹s efforts. This year they got an
additional $500,000 to treat Latinos in jails; African Americans, Samoans
and Asian women in mental health programs.
€ We also got two mental health initiatives funded, including the peer
counseling treatment program funded last year, and an access advocate for
Right To A Roof!
Organized Labor and COH to Join Forces
On July 10th, 2001 Laborfest and the Coalition On Homelessness will present
³Right To A Roof.² This evening of music and spoken word will gather support
for the ³National Affordable Housing Trust Fund;² crucial federal
legislation to end the national housing/homelessness crisis. The evening
takes place at the Musicians Union at 116- 9th Street at 7:00 p.m. and will
feature the civil rights-style gospel of Bay City Love, labor-themed
bluegrass by the Wobbly Giraffe and poetry by members of POOR Magazine¹s Po¹
The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will establish permanent funding
for new housing construction, using the existing surplus interest from
Federal Housing Administration Bonds. Federal policy has been geared towards
steadily shrinking the budget for housing for the past three decades.
The Coalition¹s Housing Workgroup will make a short presentation on the
Unemployed Worker¹s Movement of the 1930¹s that contributed to the
establishment of the affordable housing safety net. That movement has many
valuable lessons for the housing struggle today.
Housing shortages such as San Francisco¹s aren¹t anything new. During both
boom-times and busts, we experience waves of evictions, homelessness and
gentrification. Unemployed workers in the 1930s organized creative struggles
that forced the government to build low-cost housing and ended thousands of
eviction. At the end of World War II, returning service people, unemployed
and trade unionists trade faced a severe housing crisis that even the New
Deal hadn¹t addressed completely. The International Longshoremen and
Warehouse Union (ILWU), led actions, including office occupations and work
stoppages, to force federal representatives to build new affordable housing.
During the Great Depression, when the police came to evict black people in
Harlem, thousands would turn out to defy the sheriffs. Neighborhood councils
aided by radical activists would confront marshal when they came to carry
out court-ordered evictions. Through such direct actions, landlords were
deterred from evicting.
As a result of the struggle against ³urban renewal/removal² programs of the
1960s and Œ70s, local government was forced to produced new subsidized
housing units. At that time, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency used the
power of eminent domain to demolish thousands of units of working-class
housing in the Western Addition, South of Market and Manilatown
neighborhoods. San Francisco non-profit housing developers such as TODCO and
Mission Housing and Development exist because communities organized to
demand control of housing development without profiteers.
Unfortunately, it was during this time that some organized labor heads
actually supported the demolition of working class housing-because of
political paybacks and wrong-headed assumptions that by simply stimulating
jobs. Even ILWU President Harry Bridges was instrumental in signing off on
the destruction of housing in the South OF Market area. By joining forces,
the Coalition on Homelessness and Laborfest hope to set a new agenda of
solidarity working for the things all workers need ‹ jobs, housing and
Our Word is our Weapon: The Selected Writings of Subcomandante Marcos
It all started at midnight January 1 1994 when a group of masked guerillas
came down from a mountain in southeastern Mexico, raised arms against a
corrupt Mexican government, and demanded Justice, and Liberty, and
By the time the news broke the next morning a place called Chiapas would
become a household word, and a pipe smoking, black ski-masked Zapatista
named Subcomandante Marcos would become a spokesman for not only an
uprising, but of a generation of revolutionaries.
Some would label Marcos a terrorist; others, through his writing, a new
voice of liberation. But it is through his many letters that he enlightens
the world on not only the problems of classism, but the poor, and the
effects of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is international finance¹s
strategy of removing all labor, environmental and human rights
considerations from national laws. They accomplished this through North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization
(WTO). He tells what happens to third world indigenous peoples when
power-mad countries Like The United States of America, and his own country,
Mexico, sink their claws in the poor and drain them of everything land, oil,
food, education, leaving them with alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution,
You cannot beat what you cannot see. This is the reason the Zapatistas wear
masks, and are nameless. ³We are the faceless ones,² Marcos writes, ³Being
silent our voices are passing away.² To the Zapatista movement this is very
important. As Marcos explains it is time we broke out of the history of pain
and humiliation and make our new history, and with this our own pantheon of
Revolutionary Gods such as Pancho Villa, Zapata, and El Che¹.
Their voices ring out from these letters, some are funny, some are so
intense they make you cringe when you realize all they want is what the rest
of the world takes advantage of everyday, but thinks nothing about. Three
words that have changed history: Liberty, Justice, Democracy. And with their
voice they will scream ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! or ¡YA BASTA!
The Word is our Weapon is an amazing collection of letters that not only
record a struggle that has been going on for 509 years but let us in to the
secret world of the Zapatista through their eyes and through their myths,
their stories. Through the letters we see everyday life - from children
fighting over candy to Marcos letting the author of a lost poem know how he
missed whispering it into the ear of his lady. In the eyes of the world
Marcos is not only a solider and a leader in the truest sense of the word,
but also a poet, and a hero. And through this timeless work he has showed us
the Zapatista¹s struggle is justified.
Our Word Is Our Weapon : Selected Writings
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Seven Stories Press
9000+ articles by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
INFO & to join/leave list - Tom Boland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Nothing About Us Without Us - Democratize Public Policy
A Publication of the Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
468 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
415 / 346.3740-voice € 415 / 775.5639-fax