Read the original here...via The Washington Times.
MILLER: D.C.’s crime solution: Be a victim
City official insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves
by Emily Miller
The Washington Times
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed. With violent crime up 40 percent in the first two months of the year - including double the number of robberies at gunpoint - residents are looking for ways to protect themselves. Elected officials and police have no solution.
Take Benjamin Portman, who lives on Capitol Hill, part of the 1st District, where violent crime has increased the most. A total of 110 incidents have been reported in 2012, a 69 percent jump, according to statistics obtained by The Washington Times. Two weeks ago, Mr. Portman’s male roommate and his girlfriend were robbed by three armed men in ski masks as they walked home on a well-lit street.
That spurred Mr. Portman to attend a community meeting on the increased violence, which was held last week by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat. Mr. Portman asked officials why the city makes it so difficult for law-abiding residents to register guns and refuses to allow them to carry weapons outside of the home.
As you can see in the video below, Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice, responded that crime victims should give the criminals what they want. Mr. Portmanprotested, saying, “But how do you know you’re going live and survive? You’re completely at their mercy.”
Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”
Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union, also was at Ms. Cheh’s meeting. “Having the deputy mayor for public safety publicly announce that being victimized is something we, as residents of the District, must accept is disgraceful,” he told The Washington Times. “At the same time, Mr. Quander failed to offer a single short- or long-term solution to fighting crime in this city.”
The police officer added that, “This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District.”
The Washington Times caught up with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Wednesday and asked for her reaction to Mr. Quander’s comments. The police chief did not remember exactly what was said, but she said she thought Mr. Quander was referring only to victims of theft, not physical assault. “We always say, if you are a victim of a robbery, your best thing to do is comply and try to be safe,” the chief said.
Mr. Portman said Chief Lanier approached him after the meeting, but he left unsatisfied. “I think if the chief realized that the police cannot protect us all the time, everywhere, she might come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing for her to recommend relaxing the gun-control laws in the city,” he said in an interview. “I have the right to protect myself if the police can’t.”
While the council is working to ease some registration requirements, that’s not enough. The city needs to recognize that the Second Amendment guarantees not just the right to keep arms at home, but also to bear them. Doing so would give criminals reason to think twice before assaulting residents.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Poverty Rises, Income sinks...
Read the original here.
Poverty At Highest Rate In 15 Years, Business And Consumer Confidence Plunging « Hot Air
In his Rose Garden speech yesterday, Barack Obama insisted that his economic policies don’t consist of class warfare — and then insisted that Republicans raise taxes on the wealthy to fund his Porkulus II: Economic Boogaloo plan that he sent to Capitol Hill last night. The tax hikes Obama proposed were so toxic that even a Democrat-controlled Congress refused to consider them in 2009/10 for their biggest agenda item:
“It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past. We remain eager to work together on ways to support job growth, but this proposal doesn’t appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
The biggest piece of the payment plan would raise about $400 billion by eliminating certain deductions, including on charitable contributions, that can be claimed by wealthy taxpayers. Obama has proposed that in the past — to help pay for his health care overhaul, for example — and it’s been shot down by Republican lawmakers along with some Democrats.
In essence, it’s the same kind of short-term, gimmicky proposal as the first Porkulus bill in February 2009 that did nothing to right the American economy, offered with this White House’s usually trimmings of class warfare against oil companies (whose customers will pay the higher costs of the taxes) and “corporate jet owners,” ie, the rich. In other words, it’s classic Obamanomics — the Cash for Clunkers approach that attempts to preserve and expand central control of the economy, when it’s the central control that’s causing the problems we face now.
So how are Obama’s policies working out? According to the Census Bureau, poverty hit its highest rate in 15 years in 2010:
The national poverty rate in 2010 hit 15.1 percent — the highest level since 1993, according to a report Tuesday from the Census Bureau.
The report also indicated that median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower last year than any year since 1997.
The first full year after Obama’s first Porkulus doesn’t look very good, does it? It seems that Obama loves the poor so much that he’s going out of his way to create more of them. Much of that comes from the lack of job creation in an expanding population, which has left the US economy millions of jobs in the hole since the technical end of the recession in June 2009. Small businesses are the engine of job creation, and according to Bloomberg, they’re not terribly keen on hitting the ignition switch these days:
Confidence among U.S. small businesses dropped to a 13-month low in August as fewer companies projected better economic conditions and improving sales, a private survey found.
The National Federation of Independent Business’s optimism index decreased to 88.1, the weakest reading since July 2010 and the sixth-consecutive decline, from 89.9 in July. The number of small-business owners saying they expected the economy will improve six months from now fell to the lowest level since 1980.
“Hope for improvement in the economy faded even further through the month,” William Dunkelberg, the group’s chief economist, said in a statement accompanying the index report. “With such a dim outlook, owners are not going to do a lot of hiring or expanding.”
Small-business owners have grown less confident that conditions will improve as stagnant job growth weighs on consumer sentiment. Households “uncertain about the future” won’t “engage in the spending that would help lead us out of the recession,” Dunkelberg said.
Funny he should mention that. Yesterday, Reuters released a survey that showed consumers plan to scale back spending during the upcoming Christmas season, which is bad news for retailers:
Most than a quarter of Americans expect to spend less during the holidays this year, a survey showed on Monday in an early sign that retailers will have to try harder to win shoppers in the biggest selling season of the year.
The findings underscore the fragility of the U.S. recovery, since consumer spending accounts for almost 70 percent of the nation’s economy.
About 27 percent of people surveyed by America’s Research Group said they planned to spend less this year, while about 55 percent expects to spend only as much as last year. …
“Retailers better be worried about Christmas,” America’s Research Group President Britt Beemer said in an interview. “If half of Americans believe it is going to be worse before it gets better, they may not be too excited about buying much this Christmas season.”
Today, the CBO released its economic projections for the next two years, and says to expect 9% unemployment through the end of next year:
Incoming data and other developments since early July, as well as the latest Blue Chip consensus forecast, suggest that economic growth for the remainder of this year and next is likely to be weaker than the agency anticipated—with growth in the vicinity of 1½ percent this year and around 2½ percent next year.
With output growing at that modest rate, CBO expects employment to expand very slowly during the rest of this year and next year, leaving the unemployment rate close to 9 percent through the end of 2012. Weakness in the demand for goods and services is the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market—such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers—appear to be hindering hiring as well.
These are the wages of class warfare. Even more basically, these are the entirely predictable outcomes of central economic planning, selective regulation, regulatory ambiguity, and mixed messages on tax rates and fiscal burdens.
Poverty At Highest Rate In 15 Years, Business And Consumer Confidence Plunging « Hot Air
In his Rose Garden speech yesterday, Barack Obama insisted that his economic policies don’t consist of class warfare — and then insisted that Republicans raise taxes on the wealthy to fund his Porkulus II: Economic Boogaloo plan that he sent to Capitol Hill last night. The tax hikes Obama proposed were so toxic that even a Democrat-controlled Congress refused to consider them in 2009/10 for their biggest agenda item:
“It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past. We remain eager to work together on ways to support job growth, but this proposal doesn’t appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
The biggest piece of the payment plan would raise about $400 billion by eliminating certain deductions, including on charitable contributions, that can be claimed by wealthy taxpayers. Obama has proposed that in the past — to help pay for his health care overhaul, for example — and it’s been shot down by Republican lawmakers along with some Democrats.
In essence, it’s the same kind of short-term, gimmicky proposal as the first Porkulus bill in February 2009 that did nothing to right the American economy, offered with this White House’s usually trimmings of class warfare against oil companies (whose customers will pay the higher costs of the taxes) and “corporate jet owners,” ie, the rich. In other words, it’s classic Obamanomics — the Cash for Clunkers approach that attempts to preserve and expand central control of the economy, when it’s the central control that’s causing the problems we face now.
So how are Obama’s policies working out? According to the Census Bureau, poverty hit its highest rate in 15 years in 2010:
The national poverty rate in 2010 hit 15.1 percent — the highest level since 1993, according to a report Tuesday from the Census Bureau.
The report also indicated that median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower last year than any year since 1997.
The first full year after Obama’s first Porkulus doesn’t look very good, does it? It seems that Obama loves the poor so much that he’s going out of his way to create more of them. Much of that comes from the lack of job creation in an expanding population, which has left the US economy millions of jobs in the hole since the technical end of the recession in June 2009. Small businesses are the engine of job creation, and according to Bloomberg, they’re not terribly keen on hitting the ignition switch these days:
Confidence among U.S. small businesses dropped to a 13-month low in August as fewer companies projected better economic conditions and improving sales, a private survey found.
The National Federation of Independent Business’s optimism index decreased to 88.1, the weakest reading since July 2010 and the sixth-consecutive decline, from 89.9 in July. The number of small-business owners saying they expected the economy will improve six months from now fell to the lowest level since 1980.
“Hope for improvement in the economy faded even further through the month,” William Dunkelberg, the group’s chief economist, said in a statement accompanying the index report. “With such a dim outlook, owners are not going to do a lot of hiring or expanding.”
Small-business owners have grown less confident that conditions will improve as stagnant job growth weighs on consumer sentiment. Households “uncertain about the future” won’t “engage in the spending that would help lead us out of the recession,” Dunkelberg said.
Funny he should mention that. Yesterday, Reuters released a survey that showed consumers plan to scale back spending during the upcoming Christmas season, which is bad news for retailers:
Most than a quarter of Americans expect to spend less during the holidays this year, a survey showed on Monday in an early sign that retailers will have to try harder to win shoppers in the biggest selling season of the year.
The findings underscore the fragility of the U.S. recovery, since consumer spending accounts for almost 70 percent of the nation’s economy.
About 27 percent of people surveyed by America’s Research Group said they planned to spend less this year, while about 55 percent expects to spend only as much as last year. …
“Retailers better be worried about Christmas,” America’s Research Group President Britt Beemer said in an interview. “If half of Americans believe it is going to be worse before it gets better, they may not be too excited about buying much this Christmas season.”
Today, the CBO released its economic projections for the next two years, and says to expect 9% unemployment through the end of next year:
Incoming data and other developments since early July, as well as the latest Blue Chip consensus forecast, suggest that economic growth for the remainder of this year and next is likely to be weaker than the agency anticipated—with growth in the vicinity of 1½ percent this year and around 2½ percent next year.
With output growing at that modest rate, CBO expects employment to expand very slowly during the rest of this year and next year, leaving the unemployment rate close to 9 percent through the end of 2012. Weakness in the demand for goods and services is the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market—such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers—appear to be hindering hiring as well.
These are the wages of class warfare. Even more basically, these are the entirely predictable outcomes of central economic planning, selective regulation, regulatory ambiguity, and mixed messages on tax rates and fiscal burdens.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Should the government redistribute wealth?
I am concerned that 70% of Democrats believe that wealth should be redistributed. Again, to me that goes against the core principles of this country and self-reliance. The opinion that wealth should be taken away from rich people and given to poor people offends me on many levels:
Americans Divided On Taxing The Rich To Redistribute Wealth
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Graph here
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
Graph Here
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
Graph Here
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Graph Here
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes[1] as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data[2].
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com[3].
References
^ two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes (www.gallup.com)
^ View methodology, full question results, and trend data (www.gallup.com)
^ www.gallup.com (www.gallup.com)
- The widespread notion that wealth is a pie, so if rich people have more, poor people have less
- The notion that wealth is not deserved by the rich, so they must give it back. It should be charity, not compulsory.
- That people who do not have wealth are "owed" by the people who do have wealth.
- The number of people, whom I have seen use government assistance to finance Wii's, Plasma TV's, HBO, while their kids eat McDonalds on the floor because there's no table.
Americans Divided On Taxing The Rich To Redistribute Wealth
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Graph here
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
Graph Here
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
Graph Here
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Graph Here
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes[1] as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data[2].
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com[3].
References
^ two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes (www.gallup.com)
^ View methodology, full question results, and trend data (www.gallup.com)
^ www.gallup.com (www.gallup.com)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Lottery Winner kills Landlord in Detroit over unpaid rent
Read the original here.
Wayne County | Lottery Millionaire Charged In Detroit Landlord's Killing Spent Money On Cars
Last Updated: May 18. 2011 1:00AM
Steve Pardo and Mike Wilkinson / / The Detroit News
Detroit — Three months ago, Freddie Young became a lottery millionaire.
Today, the 62-year-old Detroiter is residing not in a luxury home but in a jail cell, accused of gunning down the owner of an apartment complex for evicting his daughter.
Young was one of 13 people in the P1 Gold Lottery Club — a group of postal workers and retirees who landed a $46.5million Mega Millions jackpot in February, Detroit police confirmed.
He allegedly confronted Greg McNicol, a 45-year-old Australian who was renovating a 10-unit apartment complex on Beniteau — not far from Young's home on Traverse. McNicol was arguing with Young's daughter, Ayana, 20, over nonpayment of rent.
Apartment resident Florida Benton said McNicol was more than a landlord — he was a person with a good heart who lived in the "worst apartment" in the complex while he made repairs on the other units.
She wonders why a newly minted millionaire would allegedly get so worked up over unpaid rent in a run-down complex.
"My question is: If (Young) had that type of money, what was his daughter still doing here?" Benton said. "It is just as easy to put someone in a new residence tomorrow as it is to come down here and shoot someone in cold blood."
Young faces a May 26 preliminary examination on charges of first-degree murder and using a firearm while committing a felony. He faces up to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, if convicted on the murder charge.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy issued a statement about the incident and McNicol.
"By all accounts, he was a landlord hoping to have a positive impact in the community," the prosecutor said. "This is extremely discouraging and I sincerely hope that this does not have a chilling effect for others who want to do business in the city of Detroit."
Suspect stayed in home, job
Young's lottery club members put in $10 a week each, participating for a dozen years before hitting it big.
Despite the win, Young stayed put. Records show he's lived in the same modest brick house, near the Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport and surrounded by overgrown lots and crumbling vacant structures, for the past 15 years. The ramshackle dwelling, with a deteriorating porch and long missing gutters, had an ominous sign on the door Tuesday warning everyone to stay away "except for the mailman." Recent property records indicate the house is worth about $15,000.
A woman who came out of the home declined to talk, and family members contacted by phone either declined comment or did not return calls.
Young also kept working at the priority mail processing center in Romulus. U.S. Postal Service spokesman Ed Moore said he's worked there for the past 13 years. But he apparently wasn't shy about spending his winnings on vehicles.
On March 15, about a month after winning the lottery, Young registered two new vehicles: a 2011 Chevrolet Corvette and a 2011 Chevrolet Avalanche, state records show. The least expensive Corvette starts at $49,000 and can run well into the $70,000 range. The Avalanche, a four-door pickup, starts at $36,000.
According to witnesses, Young pulled up to the complex on the day of the shooting in the Avalanche and opened fire.
'I'm so angry'
At a ceremony in Lansing on Feb. 4, representatives for Young's ticket group opted for the cash option of the $46.5 million prize. That translates to a split of $29 million before taxes. Lottery winners must pay 25 percent in federal taxes and 4.35 percent in state tax, explained Andi Brancato, a state lottery spokeswoman. Assuming an even cut, Young would still have netted $1.57 million — after taxes.
Meanwhile, McNicol, a native of Melbourne, Australia, lived in Palmdale, Calif., about 65 miles north of Los Angeles, with his wife, Katie Scartezini.
He decided to buy a complex in Detroit after falling in love with the city during a visit last year, Scartezini said.
He became a naturalized American citizen last year, said his next-door neighbor in Palmdale, Vivian Clark. "He was very proud of it," she said.
Clark said McNicol was friendly with neighbors as he worked to build his project management business. "He was always very wonderful to us," she said. The rents he charged were reasonable — $500 a month, lowered to $250 a month if a person lived in the unit while it was being renovated, Benton said.
Benton had lived in the complex only about a month, but she could see her new owner already was making improvements. He took care of faulty locks on her door when the former apartment caretaker wouldn't, she said. He was tearing out old toilets and installing cabinets he built himself.
"He was doing a great job," Benton said. "He wanted this to be a family building where people could just come and live. You don't have a lot, but you could have some decent housing."
Still, there was "an element" in the building, Benton said. People squatting in units were resistant to his changes, she added.
"He tried to work with them, but they had gotten used to living here for free," she said.
It's unclear if that was the situation with Young's daughter. On Tuesday, only two people were living in the complex — Benton and a friend, who declined comment.
McNicol wanted to convert a piece of land outside the complex into a picnic area for residents. There's a tree there he liked to sit against, wearing his "Crocodile Dundee Australia hat" and sip a beer, Benton said.
McNicol sometimes joined her and friends in her apartment to watch sports. She introduced him to mustard and turnip greens, candied yams and Jiffy brand cornbread.
"I enjoyed cooking for him and teaching him about the culture," Benton said.
When asked what she would say to the suspect, Benton said: "I pray for you and your family, but I'm so angry at you. He was trying to help the city of Detroit. He felt he could make a real investment in Detroit."
spardo@detnews.com
(313) 222-2122
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110518/METRO01/105180370/Lottery-millionaire-charged-in-Detroit-landlord’s-killing-spent-money-on-cars#ixzz1MjSByfTu
Wayne County | Lottery Millionaire Charged In Detroit Landlord's Killing Spent Money On Cars
Last Updated: May 18. 2011 1:00AM
Steve Pardo and Mike Wilkinson / / The Detroit News
Detroit — Three months ago, Freddie Young became a lottery millionaire.
Today, the 62-year-old Detroiter is residing not in a luxury home but in a jail cell, accused of gunning down the owner of an apartment complex for evicting his daughter.
Young was one of 13 people in the P1 Gold Lottery Club — a group of postal workers and retirees who landed a $46.5million Mega Millions jackpot in February, Detroit police confirmed.
He allegedly confronted Greg McNicol, a 45-year-old Australian who was renovating a 10-unit apartment complex on Beniteau — not far from Young's home on Traverse. McNicol was arguing with Young's daughter, Ayana, 20, over nonpayment of rent.
Apartment resident Florida Benton said McNicol was more than a landlord — he was a person with a good heart who lived in the "worst apartment" in the complex while he made repairs on the other units.
She wonders why a newly minted millionaire would allegedly get so worked up over unpaid rent in a run-down complex.
"My question is: If (Young) had that type of money, what was his daughter still doing here?" Benton said. "It is just as easy to put someone in a new residence tomorrow as it is to come down here and shoot someone in cold blood."
Young faces a May 26 preliminary examination on charges of first-degree murder and using a firearm while committing a felony. He faces up to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, if convicted on the murder charge.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy issued a statement about the incident and McNicol.
"By all accounts, he was a landlord hoping to have a positive impact in the community," the prosecutor said. "This is extremely discouraging and I sincerely hope that this does not have a chilling effect for others who want to do business in the city of Detroit."
Suspect stayed in home, job
Young's lottery club members put in $10 a week each, participating for a dozen years before hitting it big.
Despite the win, Young stayed put. Records show he's lived in the same modest brick house, near the Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport and surrounded by overgrown lots and crumbling vacant structures, for the past 15 years. The ramshackle dwelling, with a deteriorating porch and long missing gutters, had an ominous sign on the door Tuesday warning everyone to stay away "except for the mailman." Recent property records indicate the house is worth about $15,000.
A woman who came out of the home declined to talk, and family members contacted by phone either declined comment or did not return calls.
Young also kept working at the priority mail processing center in Romulus. U.S. Postal Service spokesman Ed Moore said he's worked there for the past 13 years. But he apparently wasn't shy about spending his winnings on vehicles.
On March 15, about a month after winning the lottery, Young registered two new vehicles: a 2011 Chevrolet Corvette and a 2011 Chevrolet Avalanche, state records show. The least expensive Corvette starts at $49,000 and can run well into the $70,000 range. The Avalanche, a four-door pickup, starts at $36,000.
According to witnesses, Young pulled up to the complex on the day of the shooting in the Avalanche and opened fire.
'I'm so angry'
At a ceremony in Lansing on Feb. 4, representatives for Young's ticket group opted for the cash option of the $46.5 million prize. That translates to a split of $29 million before taxes. Lottery winners must pay 25 percent in federal taxes and 4.35 percent in state tax, explained Andi Brancato, a state lottery spokeswoman. Assuming an even cut, Young would still have netted $1.57 million — after taxes.
Meanwhile, McNicol, a native of Melbourne, Australia, lived in Palmdale, Calif., about 65 miles north of Los Angeles, with his wife, Katie Scartezini.
He decided to buy a complex in Detroit after falling in love with the city during a visit last year, Scartezini said.
He became a naturalized American citizen last year, said his next-door neighbor in Palmdale, Vivian Clark. "He was very proud of it," she said.
Clark said McNicol was friendly with neighbors as he worked to build his project management business. "He was always very wonderful to us," she said. The rents he charged were reasonable — $500 a month, lowered to $250 a month if a person lived in the unit while it was being renovated, Benton said.
Benton had lived in the complex only about a month, but she could see her new owner already was making improvements. He took care of faulty locks on her door when the former apartment caretaker wouldn't, she said. He was tearing out old toilets and installing cabinets he built himself.
"He was doing a great job," Benton said. "He wanted this to be a family building where people could just come and live. You don't have a lot, but you could have some decent housing."
Still, there was "an element" in the building, Benton said. People squatting in units were resistant to his changes, she added.
"He tried to work with them, but they had gotten used to living here for free," she said.
It's unclear if that was the situation with Young's daughter. On Tuesday, only two people were living in the complex — Benton and a friend, who declined comment.
McNicol wanted to convert a piece of land outside the complex into a picnic area for residents. There's a tree there he liked to sit against, wearing his "Crocodile Dundee Australia hat" and sip a beer, Benton said.
McNicol sometimes joined her and friends in her apartment to watch sports. She introduced him to mustard and turnip greens, candied yams and Jiffy brand cornbread.
"I enjoyed cooking for him and teaching him about the culture," Benton said.
When asked what she would say to the suspect, Benton said: "I pray for you and your family, but I'm so angry at you. He was trying to help the city of Detroit. He felt he could make a real investment in Detroit."
spardo@detnews.com
(313) 222-2122
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110518/METRO01/105180370/Lottery-millionaire-charged-in-Detroit-landlord’s-killing-spent-money-on-cars#ixzz1MjSByfTu
What is poor? What is rich?
Read the original here.
Man Still On Food Stamps Despite Winning $2M - News Story
POSTED: 3:00 pm EDT May 17, 2011
UPDATED: 8:48 am EDT May 18, 2011
AUBURN, Mich. --
A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told TV5 that he still uses food stamps.
Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told TV5's Bill Walsh that more than half the prize went to taxes.
Man Still On Food Stamps Despite Winning $2M - News Story
POSTED: 3:00 pm EDT May 17, 2011
UPDATED: 8:48 am EDT May 18, 2011
AUBURN, Mich. --
A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told TV5 that he still uses food stamps.
Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told TV5's Bill Walsh that more than half the prize went to taxes.
Watch Original Story:Lotto Winner Still Using Bridge Card[1]
Fick said the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with Michigan tax dollars.
"If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it," said Fick.
Neighbor's told TV5 that they have also seen Fick driving a new Audiconvertible[2]
Meanwhile, Fick's lawyer says his client hasn't done anything illegal. Attorney John Wilson said the state knows Fick won the lottery money, since it "issued the check."
State Department of Human Services inspector general's office director Al Kimichik said food assistance[3] on the Bridge card is guided by federal regulations.
DHS spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said under federal guidelines, if a person receives a lump-sum payment, the winnings are not counted as income.
Fick said the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with Michigan tax dollars.
"If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it," said Fick.
Neighbor's told TV5 that they have also seen Fick driving a new Audiconvertible[2]
Meanwhile, Fick's lawyer says his client hasn't done anything illegal. Attorney John Wilson said the state knows Fick won the lottery money, since it "issued the check."
State Department of Human Services inspector general's office director Al Kimichik said food assistance[3] on the Bridge card is guided by federal regulations.
DHS spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said under federal guidelines, if a person receives a lump-sum payment, the winnings are not counted as income.
Watch Bill Walsh's investigative story below:
Copyright 2011 by WNEM.COM.[4]
The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
References
^ Lotto Winner Still Using Bridge Card (www.wnem.com)
^ convertible (www.wnem.com)
^ food assistance (www.wnem.com)
^ WNEM.COM. (www.wnem.com)
Copyright 2011 by WNEM.COM.[4]
The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
References
^ Lotto Winner Still Using Bridge Card (www.wnem.com)
^ convertible (www.wnem.com)
^ food assistance (www.wnem.com)
^ WNEM.COM. (www.wnem.com)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Don't be a landlord in San Francisco
Read the original here.
The Small-Time Landlord Vs. Big-Time Tenants’ Rights
In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago. (Scroll down to see a map of vacant housing units in the Bay Area.)
To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.
But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.
“For eternity,” Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”
Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.
So while Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.
Last spring, Koniuk offered Murphy $45,000 to move out. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.
Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Murphy.
Murphy is afforded extra protections as a renter because he is more than 60 years old. Koniuk might still be able to evict Murphy and allow his younger son, Adam, to move in by invoking the Ellis Act, which would entitle Murphy to about $10,000 in compensation and give him a year to vacate. But doing so would impose permanent restrictions on the Divisadero building’s future use, seriously depressing its value. And should 24-year-old Adam decide to move elsewhere, the Koniuks would be legally required for a decade to offer Murphy his old apartment, at his old rent. Invoking the Ellis Act would also mean that any new tenant to the unit, should Murphy decline the chance to return, would also be entitled to Murphy's old rent amount for many years to come. So the Koniuks would likely opt to just leave it vacant.
Increasingly, small-time landlords like Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.
“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.
San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”
Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.
This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.
Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate website Zillow values at $1.7 million. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.
Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.
“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”
A version of this article appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)
The Small-Time Landlord Vs. Big-Time Tenants’ Rights
In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago. (Scroll down to see a map of vacant housing units in the Bay Area.)
To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.
But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.
“For eternity,” Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”
Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.
So while Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.
Last spring, Koniuk offered Murphy $45,000 to move out. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.
Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Murphy.
Murphy is afforded extra protections as a renter because he is more than 60 years old. Koniuk might still be able to evict Murphy and allow his younger son, Adam, to move in by invoking the Ellis Act, which would entitle Murphy to about $10,000 in compensation and give him a year to vacate. But doing so would impose permanent restrictions on the Divisadero building’s future use, seriously depressing its value. And should 24-year-old Adam decide to move elsewhere, the Koniuks would be legally required for a decade to offer Murphy his old apartment, at his old rent. Invoking the Ellis Act would also mean that any new tenant to the unit, should Murphy decline the chance to return, would also be entitled to Murphy's old rent amount for many years to come. So the Koniuks would likely opt to just leave it vacant.
Increasingly, small-time landlords like Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.
“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.
San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”
Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.
This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.
Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate website Zillow values at $1.7 million. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.
Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.
“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”
A version of this article appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Not so good for Michigan
Read the original here.
Nearly Half Of Detroiters Can’t Read « CBS Detroit
DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit[1] Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.
“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting ajob[2] — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said.
“I don’t really know how[3] they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” Tyler-Ruiz said.
Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.
“For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.’s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland,” she said.
Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can’t read have gotten any help to resolve it.
The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.
- View a copy of the report[4] - (.pdf format)
References
^ Detroit (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ job (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ know how (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ View a copy of the report (cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com)
Nearly Half Of Detroiters Can’t Read « CBS Detroit
DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit[1] Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.
“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting ajob[2] — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said.
“I don’t really know how[3] they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” Tyler-Ruiz said.
Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.
“For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.’s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland,” she said.
Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can’t read have gotten any help to resolve it.
The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.
- View a copy of the report[4] - (.pdf format)
References
^ Detroit (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ job (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ know how (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ View a copy of the report (cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com)
Monday, April 11, 2011
SUNY teaches people to become squatters
Read the original here.
SUNY Purchase Professor Holds Instructional Seminar On Squatting
What's next, extra credit for going freegan?
An eccentric SUNY Purchase art professor held a "class" yesterday in SoHo where he instructed his hipster students on how to illegally squat in condos around the city.
Chris Robbins organized the seminar with the hopes that at least one or two of the 20 attendees will find an unoccupied apartment or condo and unsafely and illegally move in -- without paying rent or taxes.
Robbins, who lives in idyllic South Salem in Westchester, advocated that people need to move outside their comfort zones.
"My biggest goal in this is to activate people with political beliefs who aren't actually engaging and get them to cross a boundary," said Robbins.
HOME FREE: Chris Robbins (right) yesterday offers tips on moving into disused condos to students (from left) Ayun Halliday, Stefan Fink and Elena Wegmann.
"Basically, we don't know what we are doing, but we have this impetus that we are going to make it happen."
Robbins, whose hourlong class was housed inside a shuttered Catholic school on Mott Street, advocated looking in Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, for the ideal targets.
"Sunset Park has tons and tons of these condos that are finishing" and unoccupied, he explained in an interview with The Post.
"Jamaica, tons and tons of foreclosed single and two-family homes that were boarded up, and that seems like an ideal spot," he added.
Robbins took students step-by-step through the process of converting someone else's property into their own.
First, he said, determine if a building is indeed empty. Then check to see if it's structurally sound. Try to pick a building owned by a bank or the city, since it's easier to stay longer, he suggested.
And once all that's done, make friends with the new neighbors and "become a member of the community."
The former Peace Corps [1]volunteer organized his tutorial through The Trade School, a social-networking site at OurGoods.org where people teach a skill in exchange for gifts. It has no affiliation with his college courses.
Robbins received fruits, vegetables and a Cormac McCarthy [2]novel for his troubles yesterday.
References
^ Peace Corps (www.nypost.com)
^ Cormac McCarthy (www.nypost.com)
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/his_students_know_squat_jT82sJWplM6tbhrkzctflN#ixzz1JFPo1XdP
SUNY Purchase Professor Holds Instructional Seminar On Squatting
What's next, extra credit for going freegan?
An eccentric SUNY Purchase art professor held a "class" yesterday in SoHo where he instructed his hipster students on how to illegally squat in condos around the city.
Chris Robbins organized the seminar with the hopes that at least one or two of the 20 attendees will find an unoccupied apartment or condo and unsafely and illegally move in -- without paying rent or taxes.
Robbins, who lives in idyllic South Salem in Westchester, advocated that people need to move outside their comfort zones.
"My biggest goal in this is to activate people with political beliefs who aren't actually engaging and get them to cross a boundary," said Robbins.
HOME FREE: Chris Robbins (right) yesterday offers tips on moving into disused condos to students (from left) Ayun Halliday, Stefan Fink and Elena Wegmann.
"Basically, we don't know what we are doing, but we have this impetus that we are going to make it happen."
Robbins, whose hourlong class was housed inside a shuttered Catholic school on Mott Street, advocated looking in Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, for the ideal targets.
"Sunset Park has tons and tons of these condos that are finishing" and unoccupied, he explained in an interview with The Post.
"Jamaica, tons and tons of foreclosed single and two-family homes that were boarded up, and that seems like an ideal spot," he added.
Robbins took students step-by-step through the process of converting someone else's property into their own.
First, he said, determine if a building is indeed empty. Then check to see if it's structurally sound. Try to pick a building owned by a bank or the city, since it's easier to stay longer, he suggested.
And once all that's done, make friends with the new neighbors and "become a member of the community."
The former Peace Corps [1]volunteer organized his tutorial through The Trade School, a social-networking site at OurGoods.org where people teach a skill in exchange for gifts. It has no affiliation with his college courses.
Robbins received fruits, vegetables and a Cormac McCarthy [2]novel for his troubles yesterday.
References
^ Peace Corps (www.nypost.com)
^ Cormac McCarthy (www.nypost.com)
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/his_students_know_squat_jT82sJWplM6tbhrkzctflN#ixzz1JFPo1XdP
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Quote of the Day
I'm sure Steve Jobs would love that. If Jesse Jackson got his way, I'm buying Apple Stock. As of Census 2000, there were 54,500,000 children enrolled in K through 12 schools. Even if the Federal government bought Dell laptops, the ipods (at base price $229 each) would be worth $12,480,500,000. I'd say that should help stock prices....
The original statement from Rep. Jackson below...
__________________________________________________
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) 3/2/2011, statement in the US House of Representatives
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the answer to long term unemployment is actually in the Constitution of the United States. Well, let me say that a little differently. It's not in the Constitution of the United States. It should be in the Constitution of the United States and one of these days we are going to get there... We need to add to the Constitution the right to a family to have a decent home. What would that do for home construction, in this nation? What would that do for millions of unemployed people? He says (ed: not sure who "he" is, Jackson is reading from a newspaper) we need to add to the Constitution the right to medical care. How many doctors would such a right, create? He says we need to add to the Constitution of the United States the right to a decent education for every American. How many schools, would such a right, build? From Maine to California. How many people would be put to work building roofs and designing classrooms and providing every student with an ipod and a laptop? How many ghettos and barrios be touched by such an amendment? In fact, very little that we pass in the Congress of the United States even touches the long term unemployed. Only thing that touches them, that this Congress has access to, that can actually change their station in life is the Constitution of the United States... Mr. Speaker, there is an even greater America that's in front of us. It's the America that adds to our founding documents these basic rights.
The original statement from Rep. Jackson below...
__________________________________________________
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) 3/2/2011, statement in the US House of Representatives
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the answer to long term unemployment is actually in the Constitution of the United States. Well, let me say that a little differently. It's not in the Constitution of the United States. It should be in the Constitution of the United States and one of these days we are going to get there... We need to add to the Constitution the right to a family to have a decent home. What would that do for home construction, in this nation? What would that do for millions of unemployed people? He says (ed: not sure who "he" is, Jackson is reading from a newspaper) we need to add to the Constitution the right to medical care. How many doctors would such a right, create? He says we need to add to the Constitution of the United States the right to a decent education for every American. How many schools, would such a right, build? From Maine to California. How many people would be put to work building roofs and designing classrooms and providing every student with an ipod and a laptop? How many ghettos and barrios be touched by such an amendment? In fact, very little that we pass in the Congress of the United States even touches the long term unemployed. Only thing that touches them, that this Congress has access to, that can actually change their station in life is the Constitution of the United States... Mr. Speaker, there is an even greater America that's in front of us. It's the America that adds to our founding documents these basic rights.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The rich are getting poorer; the poor are getting richer
Thomas Sowell points out the secret truth that the Liberal Elite know too well but want to keep the masses from finding out: the Class War has been waged based on faulty intelligence.
For my entire life, the Democrats and the Liberal Elite in particular have been yelling loudly about "income inequality" and yammering nonsense about the "rich getting richer while the poor getting poorer." Never mind that the "poor" in America are largely food-secure, sheltered families with unimpeded access to plumbing, electricity, heat, cable television, and cellular phones. The Liberal Elite lament loudly that the "rich" are becoming more dominant. Of course, the Liberal Elite is large populated with ridiculously wealthy individuals such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards, so they know a thing or two about arranging statistics to exclude themselves from the discussions.
However, Sowell points to a recent IRS study which tracks individual, not incoming bands, and sees how these individuals have progressed over ten years. The results? Half of those in the top 1% 10 years ago, and three quarters of those in the top 1/100th of 1% then, are not in those respective classes now. He does not point out more specifically that those in the bottom fifth of income have had their incomes doubled on average during that time period even after inflation is factored in.
What does this mean? America remains the one place in the world where someone like Bill Clinton or John Edwards can go from nothing to everything, built it himself most easily. America has the most opportunity to allow those in the bottom to work their way up, most opportunity for those at the top to fall, and we must resist the Liberal Elite's attempts at forming a dependant underclass which locks those within it in perpetual near-poverty.
For my entire life, the Democrats and the Liberal Elite in particular have been yelling loudly about "income inequality" and yammering nonsense about the "rich getting richer while the poor getting poorer." Never mind that the "poor" in America are largely food-secure, sheltered families with unimpeded access to plumbing, electricity, heat, cable television, and cellular phones. The Liberal Elite lament loudly that the "rich" are becoming more dominant. Of course, the Liberal Elite is large populated with ridiculously wealthy individuals such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards, so they know a thing or two about arranging statistics to exclude themselves from the discussions.
However, Sowell points to a recent IRS study which tracks individual, not incoming bands, and sees how these individuals have progressed over ten years. The results? Half of those in the top 1% 10 years ago, and three quarters of those in the top 1/100th of 1% then, are not in those respective classes now. He does not point out more specifically that those in the bottom fifth of income have had their incomes doubled on average during that time period even after inflation is factored in.
What does this mean? America remains the one place in the world where someone like Bill Clinton or John Edwards can go from nothing to everything, built it himself most easily. America has the most opportunity to allow those in the bottom to work their way up, most opportunity for those at the top to fall, and we must resist the Liberal Elite's attempts at forming a dependant underclass which locks those within it in perpetual near-poverty.
That "Top One Percent"
Not an enduring class.
National Review OnlinePeople who are in the top one percent in income receive far more than one percent of the attention in the media. Even aside from miscellaneous celebrity bimbos, the top one percent attracts all sorts of hand-wringing and finger-pointing.
A recent column by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek (or is that Newsweak?) laments that "the share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent is at it's highest level since 1928."
Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?
The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.
But that's only good for once year, you may say. What if they don't have another house to sell next year?
Well, they won't be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that's not unusual.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Good news? CNN still can't help but take a dig on the Administration.
CNN has a positive report about dramatically declining rates of chronic homelessness in America. Note that before President Bush was elected, there were Democratic partisans who were attacking President Bush and Republican economics, saying that they would result in "armies" of the homeless. It turns out that the Administration's focus on moving people from temporary housing to permanent housing had reduced chronic homelessness by about 12%.
The most amusing part of the article (I love the first line): "The Federal Government is taking credit for..." They can't help but put a dig on the Administration. What's particularly amusing is that the advocates for the homeless that they've spoken with have largely agreed that it's the new Administration initiatives which have reduced the chronically homeless.
The most amusing part of the article (I love the first line): "The Federal Government is taking credit for..." They can't help but put a dig on the Administration. What's particularly amusing is that the advocates for the homeless that they've spoken with have largely agreed that it's the new Administration initiatives which have reduced the chronically homeless.
Report: 20,000 fewer chronically homeless on streets
CNNWASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking credit for what it says is a nearly 12 percent drop in the number of people who are chronically homeless, according to government estimates being released Wednesday.
About 20,000 fewer chronically homeless were on the streets from 2005 to 2006, says the Department of Housing and Urban Development citing its programs designed to move homeless people into permanent housing.
HUD says people are chronically homeless if they have been continuously living on the streets for a year or more, or if they have been homeless at least four times in the past three years. They also have to have a disability, often mental illness or substance abuse.
The number of chronically homeless people dropped from 175,900 in 2005 to 6,502 in 2006, HUD reported. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the number dropped from 831 in 2005 to 577 the following year. In Washington, D.C., the number increased from 1,773 to 1,891, though city officials told HUD they believed the change was caused in part by better counting methods.
A shameful statistic
A quarter of the homeless in America are war veterans. This is absolutely unacceptable. Everything the government could possibly do to help these vets must be done. I hate taxes and I hate government spending, but we owe these man and women an incredible amount of appreciation and gratitude for their sacrifice, and we absolutely must do whatever is necessary to help them.
Study: 1 Out of 4 Homeless are Veterans
Out of Uniform and on the Street: Study Finds That Veterans Are a Quarter of the Homeless
ABC NewsVeterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a study to be released Thursday.
And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.
The Veterans Affairs has identified 1,500 homeless veterans from the current wars and says 400 of them have participated in its programs specifically targeting homelessness.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit, based the findings of its reports on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,252 out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
True colors about to be shown
Sean Penn recently toured Venezuela's barrios. We're shortly going to see if he has any intellectual integrity at all. If he can see the squalor that Chavez's government has put the poor Venezuelans into without saying something, we'll know he clearly is nothing more than a tool for those who are enemies of our country.
Sean Penn Praised by Venezuela's Chavez
Associated PressCARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Sean Penn for his critical stance against the war in Iraq, saying the two chatted by phone and soon plan to meet in person.
Chavez said Penn traveled to Venezuela this week wanting to learn more about the situation in the country and walked around some of Caracas' poor barrios on his own.
"Welcome to Venezuela, Mr. Penn. What drives him is consciousness, the search for new paths," Chavez said Wednesday in a televised speech. "He's one of the greatest opponents of the Iraq invasion."
Chavez read aloud from a recent open letter by Penn to President Bush in which the actor condemned the Iraq war and called for Bush to be impeached, saying the president along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are "villainously and criminally obscene people."
The socialist president, who shares those views, said he and Penn talked by phone—"with my bad English but we understood each other more or less."
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
John Edward's poverty tour
Anthony Bradley’s analysis of John Edwards’ poverty initiatives is spot-on. Where he fails, however, is in addressing the issue fully.
He is absolutely correct in his analysis that having fathers involved in the lives of their children is a critical component in making sure those children stay out of poverty. Other than that, though, it’s bereft of alternate solutions.
America's poverty rate exceeds 18%, which is a national shame and embarrassment. Increased job opportunities, improvements in education, reduction of crime, and mentoring the youth to encourage the next generation to advance are all critical in the fight on poverty. Republican principals of economic development, personal responsibility, and reduction in crime can be instituted along side the existing support institutions to help people move to independence. Advocating policies which support job creation, reduced crime, improved education, and mentoring can solve the problems causing poverty, not just addressing its effects. Unlike the Democrat anti-poverty initiatives, which have shown decades of failure, investing money directly in the means to bring people out of poverty will result in a net increase of tax revenues as the people moving out of poverty get higher paying jobs and pay more in taxes than they received in benefits.
He is absolutely correct in his analysis that having fathers involved in the lives of their children is a critical component in making sure those children stay out of poverty. Other than that, though, it’s bereft of alternate solutions.
America's poverty rate exceeds 18%, which is a national shame and embarrassment. Increased job opportunities, improvements in education, reduction of crime, and mentoring the youth to encourage the next generation to advance are all critical in the fight on poverty. Republican principals of economic development, personal responsibility, and reduction in crime can be instituted along side the existing support institutions to help people move to independence. Advocating policies which support job creation, reduced crime, improved education, and mentoring can solve the problems causing poverty, not just addressing its effects. Unlike the Democrat anti-poverty initiatives, which have shown decades of failure, investing money directly in the means to bring people out of poverty will result in a net increase of tax revenues as the people moving out of poverty get higher paying jobs and pay more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Edwards' poverty tour embraces failed policies
The Detroit NewsThe oft-quoted saying from the book of Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun," is especially true of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards' well-intentioned but misguided "poverty tour." Edwards' proposals to help the poor are nothing more than a remix of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" and, like those previous initiatives, miss the mark.
Edwards proposes to raise the minimum wage as high as $9.50 an hour from the current $5.85, strengthen labor laws and promote "responsible families." Government wealth redistribution schemes, more unions and expanded government social programming have not helped the poor in the past and will continue to fail the truly disadvantaged in the future.
Raising the minimum wage does not help the poor over the long term. As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut both the number of workers they hire and their employees' working hours, which reduces overall job opportunities for the poor. Economic research shows each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment by roughly 2 percent.
In addition, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households. Most minimum-wage earners tend to be in nonpoor groups, such as suburban teens.
Labor unions don't help the truly disadvantaged either. They pursue their own protectionist interests, which include minimum wage increases that make unskilled labor too expensive for employers.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Feeding the Hungry
There's no reason that the developed world can't feed the world's hungry. With the United Nations worrying about being able to continue their programs, the $600 million a year the World Food Program pays out is a pittance when compared to the amount of money the United States alone pays to farm subsidies - price supports which interfere with the ability of the Third World to make a living off of agriculture. Elimination of these subsidies, which nearly universally go towards large corporations and not small, family farms, will enable Third World farmers to make a more livable wage and increase food production at the point of need. In addition, the billions the United States spends on farm subsidies could instead be used to feed the hungry, both here in the United States and abroad, particularly in Africa, Eastern Europe, and India.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
