ASWAN Main page

Bound To Happen
In Richmond Virginia

ASWAN E-Mail City Council
2001 Homeless Petition
Founding Advisers
Founding Members
ASWAN leadership
ASWAN Advisers
ASWAN by-laws
ASWAN links

The Rainbow program is taking homeless off the streets, motivating them on their dignity and to be successful, so that they can later succeed into the mainstream. Many of the participants could sit back and do nothing and collect SSI, but they instead have chosen to be productive and a viable resource for the community.

Daily Planet has a monthly budget deficiency that runs into the thousands, due to funding cuts by both the city government and ACCESS (after they broke away from the city), which caused board members of the Daily Planet to consider cutting one of their programs. During a September board meeting, Rainbow program was nearly cut (seven votes for and ten votes against the cut).

ASWAN's spokesperson Marty Jewell discussed a proposal with Councilman McCollum to save the Rainbow with help from the city government. In December, an ordinance was introduced by City Councilman McCollum to fund $50,000 a year to the Daily Planet. The City Council will hear and vote on this issue on Monday, January 13, 1997 at 6PM. Rainbow needs homeless, former homeless, service providers, churches, and friends of the homeless to come togetrher in harmony for this cause. No matter what color you might be, lets band together and make this Rainbow work. PLEASE COME AND STAND WITH US AND LET THE COMMON GOOD PREVAIL!

"While concentration of services may be an efficient means of providing assistance to the homeless, it comes at a price to downtown image. Places with an abundance of people loitering or aimlessly inhabiting the streets are perceived as potentially confrontational and unsafe.

The homeless issue is complicated by the casual use of the term homeless to refer to all 'street people' -- persons who habitually loiter on the public right-of-way and public spaces. The Downtown Plan does not provide specific solutions to existing and proposed sites for service providers. Instead, the plan acknowledges the seriousness the homeless issues has upon the economic and cultural health of downtown Richmond.

The following goal and objectives are intended to help direct decisions regarding this issue in a way that enhances the multiple roles downtown plays within the community.
GOAL -- Minimize the negative impacts street people have on the image and safety of downtown.
OBJECTIVES:
1. The number of adult home residents and homeless shelters clients in down- town should remain static or be reduced.
2. Promote equitable geographic distribution of services beyond the downtown area.
3. Evaluate pros and cons of centralizing decentralizing facilities of service providers, including feeding centers, and feeding programs located downtown.
4. Direct service providers to locate their facilities and activities away from high visibility areas, such as major gateways to downtown or areas of visitor domain."

"In closing the understanding we have of the past as well as the present, know it is the policy of a minority of influential people who are standing in the background, using their influence on people in high offices of city government to pursue policies in order to move the homeless out of the downtown area. They have gone to great lengths in offering to donate their private wealth to charities to control public money to do the same. It is these people and their unfounded fear and prejudices that have exacerbated the homeless issue and the poverty-stricken citizens of the City of Richmond. Your "Homeless Issue Draft for Downtown Plan" is segregation in the purest form, superficially appealing but beneath, clusters good citiznes of the City of Richmond into a caste. And casted out, the homeless and the poverty stricken will have to sustain as they always have in the past; the heavy burden of prejudice."

From: Matthew J. Hilgeford
ASWAN Co-Convener

To: Bill Veno
Dept. of Community Development

A Society Without A Name, For People Without A Home

Vol. 1 No: 8 ASWAN Newscut January 5, 1997

ASWAN

{Entity or End-ity}

There are a few cities in the United States that have developed "Entities" (coordination bodies). These Entities are much like the one that some service providers and city government officials are trying to generate. The Richmond model would be designed to offer systems integration to homeless providers and the homeless, making it easier for homeless to receive assistance more efficiently and to deter duplication of services. It also would be an increase in funding? Sounds good if everyone was a perfect person with no faults or prejudices. ASWAN opposes centralized control of federal funding through the proposed Entity. ASWAN's opposition to that is not opposition to the benefits of systems integration. This issue of ASWAN's Newscut will show some examples of prejudice patterns and the negative consequences imposed on the homeless.

1. Love Thy neighbor:

An article written by Rev. Timothy Whitaker in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on December 14, 1996 "Love Thy Neighbor, and thy Neighborhoods: How to Serve the Poor Wisely" he has been misinformed concerning the "Entity" and the city government performances towards the homeless. Rev. Whitaker, a senior minister of Centenary United Methodist Church and Chairman of downtown community ministry, means well, churches and service providers alike have done an exceptional job in aiding homeless under circumstances of dwindling grants, harsh restrictions, and public prejudices.

He has obtained information about the city government and the Homeless Task Force on the wrong side of the coin. As a member of the Homeless Task Force, I can honestly reveal differently. A 1994 survey based from Washington, D.C. indicated that Richmond city government has adopted a policy of not increasing shelters bed spaces, but homeless people were turned away from shelters over 5,000 times, there were near as many shelter bed spaces in the 1970's as there are today!

A R-6 zoning ordinance by the city government would allow churches in that zone to feed the poor only seven times out of the year, churches were also restricted to feed not over thirty homeless (until the federal government intervened). A motion by a church (First English Lutheran Church at Stuart Circle) that the city had stopped from feeding the poor requested that they be allowed to feed the poor for 10 days. The city refused to agree on the matter, but the judge indicated that the city possibly may have violated the First Constitution Amendment and he agreed to allow the church to feed again not for 10 days, but starting that week and all during the trial the starts in February.

The federal judge asked Zoning Commissioner Mr. Benbow if there were any restriction on feeding, if those being fed weren't homeless, the response was "No". Rev. Whitaker seemed to be praising the city government on the great job they are doing in helping the homeless. The city government with their present zoning law went as far as to stop a church from feeding hungry men, women, and children. The American Constitution is based on protection of fundamental rights of the people.

2.The Real Truth:

ASWAN's symbol of a cat at the top of this issue looks as if he was swatted by a thick newspaper. On October 19, 1996 one of the Times Dispatch editorial editor wrote this in an article:

"Consider Richmond's problem with Monroe Park, it will continue being a gathering place for the homeless as long as do-gooders bring meals and prizes. The homeless will stay on the streets of any city if that is where they are made most comfortable"

This is pure prejudice at its finest. Seems that this Times Dispatch editor found it offensive and a problem if people helped the poor. As far as prizes, didn't know that a given blanket to a homeless who is sleeping out in the cold, is a prize by his standards. I don't think people sleeping in the streets are feeling comfortable with that, especially a homeless child.

The city government and the Homeless Task Force has acted in disfavored of the homeless on some issues, including seeking for the Entity $138,000 of HUD funding, which was supposed to proceed in helping homeless in Richmond, but actually went to another city. Why? Because of miscalculation that the Homeless Task Force and the city made, when they thought HUD funding could be used in jump starting the Entity, even though not one red cent of the Entity's money would be spent in direct services of helping the homeless off the streets.

The Entity's purpose is to upgrade services providers technology, research homelessness, and to form a body to coordinate and distribute federal funds among the services providers. There is no proof to date that the Entity would increase funding unless you consider private donations like the two million dollars influential offer to move the Daily Planet to 17th and O Streets. Since the Entity's application was rejected, the homeless in Richmond were the ones that got short changed. That money could have been used for direct shelter or transition of homeless to be self sufficient.

3. Ranking gets Spanking by Homeless Task Force:

On March 15, 1996 HUD issued a report that federal funds were to be awarded for service providers that help homeless in Supportive housing, Shelter PlusCare, and "SECTION 8 SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY." A Ranking Committee was set up as a result of a 5-13-96 meeting at the United Way to rank area service providers for these federal grants. The top service providers voted by the Ranking Committee would be able to obtain grants through this Act, (Wrong).

The Homeless Task Force didn't like the way the Ranking Committee voted, especially concerning the Entity. So they changed the ranking so the Entity could get funding, (Wrong again). Had the Ranking committee consisted of more prominent people, the rankings would had never been changed. Out of ten members, four of them were homeless or formerly homeless, which was a historical event of permitting homeless to be part of the process concerning funding (or maybe the rear-end process).

At a September 27, 1997 Homeless Task Force meeting, ASWAN's members were informed that the rankings were changed back. Many members of the Homeless Task Force are with service providers and are people, who, in fact, make genuine efforts in attempt to improve conditions of the homeless.

During a April 24, 1996 meeting to discuss NOFA (federal funding for the homeless) the issue about the "Entity" was introduced on the agenda, Bob Wynne (director of SRO) mentioned that it wasn't right to the homeless (in reference to using those HUD funds to financially support the Entity). Later, the Homeless Task Force asked SRO (who was voted third in the ranking) if they would step down to fifth.

On June 10, 1996 Bob Wynne faxed a letter saying that he would be willing to step down to fourth but not fifth (SRO wouldn't be able to receive funding at the fifth slot). On the same day, City Manager Robert Bobb sent a negative 213 letter which prevented SRO from obtaining any of those HUD funds which would have taken 50-some homeless off the streets with a new SRO site. ASWAN feels that there is good ground to speculate that the reason for SRO being stripped from receiving part of that federal funds, is the city's response to Bob Wynne's behavior for sticking up for the homeless.

This ASWAN Newscut prepared by John M. Felts

For tons of free resources & just plain good reading, visit John Felts personal page that includes his latest web site, pages, published articles, and essays.
http://www16.brinkster.com/6499