By Kim McDermott The Literacy Network of Greater Cincinnati (LNGC) hosted its ninth annual Handbags for Hope fundraiser on February 6, 2020 at the Newport Syndicate. More than 380 guests helped set a new record by raising $122,000 for Literacy Network programs. Carol Williams, former WCPO anchor, joined entertainer Tim Goldrainer, as the emcee of the lively and memorable event. Guests raised their paddles for designer handbags, concert experiences, and a condo stay in Siesta Key and enjoyed raffles with prizes from DSW Diamonds, Kendra Scott, Holy Grail and more. For the fifth year, members from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Young Professional Group volunteered to coordinate the raffle and silent auction booths. This year alone over three dozen volunteers from Cincinnati Children’s helped to make the event run smoothly. Mark and Angela Ginty were named the 2020 Honorary Chairs. In 2017, Angela and her employer, the Cincinnati Development Fund (CDF), hosted a meeting with Todd Bol, the founder of Little Free Libraries (LFLs). With Angela encouragement, the Literacy Network led the growth of this initiative locally, placing 150 LFLs. Angela stewards two LFLs and supports six more. In addition, CDF donated two LFLs in Lower Price Hill and Bond Hill. Angela and Mark innately understand the fundamental power of reading and work in tandem to create a stronger, more viable Cincinnati. United Parcel Service (UPS) was also recognized for their generous volunteerism and support of the Literacy Network. Forest Russman, Kevin Wagner, Eric Merz and dozens of UPS employees used their expertise to load, transport, unload and sort over 3,400 books. UPS did not stop there. When a new shipment of 100 LFLs was delivered in the fall, UPS team members moved 22 pallets in under 30 minutes! The Literacy Network is grateful to UPS for their outstanding commitment to our community. The most memorable part of the evening occurred when Big Dave and Ashley from the B-105 morning team awarded the 2020 Hope Award to Nick “DaBarber” Baynes. Nick has harnessed his challenging life experiences, talents and genuine concern for his neighbors to make a real difference in our community. In 2013, Nick founded the “Against The Grain Foundation” to meet the needs of those who struggle like he did as a child and teen. Through his foundation, Nick developed the “Barbers for Reading Program” to foster a love of reading. At his West End barbershop, “It’s More Than Just a Cut”, Nick not only helps his clients look good, he has created a safe haven for children to learn and be inspired. The crowd was so moved by Nick’s story they gave him a standing ovation! President of the Literacy Network Michelle Otten Guenther shared, “This is by far my favorite night each year because we get to see and celebrate many of people who make what we do possible! All of our honorees demonstrate that we all have the power to be an agent of change by contributing our unique insight, expertise and connections. I am immensely grateful to Nick, the Gintys, the UPS team, as well as all those who support our mission, for contributing their piece and modeling the example that has created positive change throughout our community.” The Literacy Network thanks event sponsors, guests and volunteers who made the evening such a success. Special thanks to the presenting sponsor, Hengehold Capital Management. Event sponsors include: Abby Girl Sweets Cupcakery, Dr. Rob & Ashley Altenau, B-105, The Bearded Artist, Big Pig Little Free Library, Busam Nissan, Busam Subaru, Linda & Don Capannari, Harry & Nikki Cappel, Cincinnati Development Fund, The Cobb Group, Dr. Robert & Debbie Cranley, DSW Diamonds, Empower, Ken & Cathy Feldmann, First Financial Bank, Fox19, The Gerth Family, Shelly & Joe Gillis, Tim & Shauna Goldrainer, Rob & Carrie Gould, The Guenther Family, Nick Hahn, The Holy Grail, Joseph-Beth Booksellers, J.T.M. Food Group, Ed & Lin Jung, KMK Law, Little Free Libraries, M. Hopple & Co., Andrew & Kim McDermott, Mary & Katy Meinhardt, Merrill Lynch- Hambleton/Fieler Wealth Management Group, Kevin & Christy Meyer, N2G Consulting, LLC, The Otten Family, Platinum Marketing Group, Liz & Evan Priestle, Q-102, Dr. John & Mrs. CeAnn Raterman, Saks Fifth Avenue, Scripps Howard Foundation, Kathy Ciarla - Seton High School, Seven Hills Women’s Health Center, Newport Syndicate, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Unistrut, Kathy & Jay Wertz, Wycoff Lucas - Raymond James and the Zaring Family Foundation. Save the date for next year’s Handbags for Hope on Thursday, February 11th, 2021! For more information on how you can give the gift of literacy to struggling adults and children in the Greater Cincinnati area, call (513) 621-READ or visit www.LNGC.org.

By Micaela Adams Poverty has always been linked with increased risk for psychological disorders in children and adults, due to poor housing, limited resources, inadequate schools, and high rates of crime and violence. Statistics show that despite this correlation, mental health specialists disproportionately see low-income families. It is estimated that among children experiencing poverty who have parent-reported mental health problems, less than 15% receive services. There are a number of barriers to access, including lack of insurance, lack of transportation, conflicting schedules with work hours and business hours, and stigma, or negative associations with mental health treatment. Children and families experiencing poverty encounter both the stigma of mental health treatment and the stigma of living in poverty. Many mothers in particular report fear of being labeled “crazy” if they or their children are diagnosed with a psychological disorder, which could result in their children being taken from them. Despite this, it has been proven that benefits of intervention are most significant if applied during the early childhood period. To combat early childhood development of poor mental health among children experiencing poverty, a number of evidence-based treatments have been developed and implemented. Primary care providers are usually the first, if not only, resource low- income families have for mental health services, but these providers often report that they are not formally trained in these services and do not have the time or resources to provide this care. Furthermore, they do not have the skills or training for mental health practice within the context of poverty, which introduces nuances in the traditional diagnostic framework. Evidence suggests “programs that are family-driven, target children in their natural contexts, incorporate evidence-based interventions, and take a comprehensive approach to treatment that addresses relevant social determinants (eg, housing or food insecurity), may be associated with greater therapeutic changes” (ncbi.nlm. nih.gov). These services, however, are limited, and so the focus is more on strategies that can be implemented in pediatric primary care settings. This behavioral health care is being integrated within the patient- centered medical home, which decreases the barrier of accessibility to services among families experiencing poverty. This could involve routine mental health screening as part of well childcare, to having mental health providers within a primary care practice. However, this is not being widely implemented, due to lack of time, lack of reimbursement, lack of available mental health resources, and potential liability issues. Still, families who discuss their children’s psychological problems with their pediatrician are more likely to eventually obtain more intensive mental health services. Therefore, referral to external resources by pediatricians is crucial, as is the primary care provider’s awareness of the barriers to care and cultural sensitivity, in order to encourage families to engage in their child’s mental health care. Ideally, primary care providers would integrate mental health professionals into their practice, which studies have shown is associated with higher rates of treatment initiation. However, if a mental health ‘team’ of psychiatrists and psychologists were to provide consultation to pediatricians, this would offer a cost-effective method to allow pediatricians to implement mental health intervention. The focus of health care providers needs to be in building integrated care models, in order to affect the number of children experiencing poverty with poor mental health.

By Bill Woods How did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 become the law of the land? A play performed by the Cincinnati Shakespeare Company (January 24th to February 15th) vividly tells the story of how this law got enacted during this turbulent year. "All The Way" by Robert Schenkkan takes playgoers back to 1964, and it portrays the actions and words of the major people involved in bringing about this important piece of legislation. The play begins with the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, an event that suddenly elevated Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson to the Presidency. It then follows Johnson and others around him as political and public policy decisions are made leading up to the Civil Rights Act and the Presidential election. Although Schenkkan focuses primarily on President Johnson and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Hubert Humphrey, FBI Director Herbert Hoover, Governor George Wallace, and other Civil Rights leaders and elected officials are also portrayed. The play manages to capture the turbulence of 1964. The Civil Rights movement had reached a point where certain young African-Americans were challenging Martin Luther King and other older leaders for not acting forcefully enough. Politically the country was still reeling after Kennedy's assassination, and certain Southern politicians such as Governor George Wallace of Alabama were emerging as would-be saviors of segregation. Enter the new President, Lyndon Johnson. Picked as the Vice Presidential candidate in 1960 to balance the ticket, Johnson was largely ignored by Kennedy's inner circle. However, he had previously served as the Majority Leader of the Senate, and his skills as an insider who knew how to pass laws were of immediate and immense value when he became President. Much of the play focuses on Johnson's effective behind the scenes negotiations and maneuvers to get the Civil Rights Act through both Houses of Congress. Jim Hopkins ,who played the role of Johnson in the play, ably captured the complexity of this man. A bigger than life personality, the President possessed a large ego and also some insecurities. Although he could be both manipulative and crude, his values led him to work for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and legislation that became known as "the War on Poverty." Schenkkan's dialogue and Hopkins' skillful acting managed to capture all these factors at work in the President's day-to-day activities. The facet captured in this play that often gets overlooked is that Johnson, a Texan, was considered the first Southern President since the Civil War. As a former Majority Leader of the Senate, he had many Senator colleagues representing southern states, and this fact proved to be helpful in steering the Civil Rights Act through this body. He was able to successfully negotiate with them, and he gave them a few wins like removing the voting rights portion of the proposed bill (passed a year later as the Voting Rights Act). His wheeling and dealing managed to prevent the usual Senate filibuster against Civil Rights legislation. By the end of the process, many Southerners felt betrayed by the President, and he correctly predicted that the passage of this Act would launch the beginning of the end for the solid Democratic South. The Cincinnati Shakespeare Company is blessed with a strong troupe of actors. Besides the sterling performance of Jim Hopkins as Johnson, many CSC-actors skillfully portrayed the diverse public figures involved in the events of this play. In fact, fifteen of them played multiple roles. 'All The Way' was written and first performed for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 2012 as part of its series entitled "American Revolutions: The United States History Cycle." The winner of numerous awards, the play had a run on Broadway in 2014. Its success can be attributed to the way it brings to life warts and all an important time in our history. It gives us hope during this rather bleak moment that it is possible for politicians to overcome their weaknesses and do the right thing.

By Gabriela Godinez Right now it seems as though there is almost nothing we can control. We engage in with the news and we are hit with new viruses, broken political systems, some half-truths, some lies. It can make us want to disconnect or ignore what’s happening around us all together. However, we still exist as members of our society, and can’t escape that we are surrounded by history in the making all the time. The mainstream media doesn’t always care to record the point of view of the people, and would rather report statistics. While having facts and figures is vital to our understanding of what is occurring around us, our personal stories are still important as well. Are the stories reported in the news the stories that are worthy? Do they become worthy of our attention just because they are being recorded and reported? Recently, I was reminded of Seneca Village in New York City. Seneca Village was a wealthy neighborhood that was demolished to make way for what is now Central Park. It was a predominantly black neighborhood that was, in it’s later years, home to some Irish and German immigrants who integrated into the community. This was all in the late 1800s, not an era known for interracial marriages and integrated baptisms. Yet, there it stood. A wealthy neighborhood founded by Black Americans that was set to be progressive examples of wealth and integration. But then rich white people wanted a park. Newspapers started reporting that this neighborhood was run down, poor, filled with feral dogs. It would still be cruel if rich white people were trying to kick out people in poverty from their homes, but this wasn’t even the case. Newspapers were telling lies, painting a picture that was incorrect and providing the permission rich white people needed to rid themselves of any guilt they might have. The media of the time was reporting that it was ok to disregard the lives of this community because in their eyes they were inferior, or non-existent. The media had the opportunity to lie by omission or lie blatantly. This should be a story that doesn’t sound familiar, but it still echoes into today’s culture. With the increasing gentrification of different neighborhoods in Cincinnati, there is a severe under-reporting of first-hand accounts of the people experiencing displacement. The director of the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, Josh Spring, tries to do what he can to get community stories out into the public consciousness through press conferences and public speaking in protests. However, the mainstream media still seems to conveniently forget these stories when reporting about a fancy new bar or restaurant popping up or when discussing new luxury apartments. We can’t control all the media, but we can add to the narrative. Recording and writing our own stories, from our own account, from what we saw, is incredibly important. We wouldn’t know today what happened in Seneca Village, New York if it weren’t for archives like church records. That was then, the people of Seneca Village were robbed of their story until over a century later, but today we have the power to control our own narratives. We have the power to record and remember our communities as we know them to be true. I urge everyone to submit their writing to us, Streetvibes, at streetvibes@cincihomeless.org. We are looking for any creative writing, essay, or journalistic article about social justice- both local or broader commentary. We all have a voice that we can use to change the narrative and to keep the story of Cincinnati well rounded. There are far more than two sides of a story, what’s yours?

By Katelyn Lusher On Saturday, January 18th, I participated in the 3rd annual Women’s March in downtown Cincinnati. The Women’s March started as a worldwide event on January 21st, 2017, immediately following Donald Trump’s inauguration and since then has gathered thousands of people each year since. Even though it was raining, windy, and cold, there was still an impressive crowd gathered at Sawyer Point for a city the size of Cincinnati. Before the march started, there were several speakers who reminded us of important issues we still need to tackle in the city and nationwide. Judge Tracie Hunter, for example, stood out as one of the most compelling speakers as she described her harrowing and horrifying experience during her 4 month sentence in a Hamilton County jail. Kelly Helton from the Tri-State Freethinkers and Sandra Ramirez, an immigration activist and IJPC staff member, represented the power of young activists today. Helton, who is still in high school, spoke about the importance of the march while Ramirez’s chilling speech named children who have died in detainment camps on the border and showed posters with their names and pictures. Other speakers included Kristen Shrimplin, President and CEO of Women Helping Women, Cincinnati City councilwoman Tamaya Dennard, and Elizabeth Hopkins, Regional Field Manager of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio. However, while the Women’s March was certainly a positive and empowering experience for me, the march does not have a history of being inclusive to everyone. It was encouraging to hear a range of voices during the speeches before the march, but the invited speakers do not always reflect the attitudes of the people marching. Since the Women’s March began three years ago, women of color and trans women have voiced their disappointments in the lack of inclusivity in the march, stating that it is often targeted to white, middle class women. Unfortunately, this is not without cause. The pink knit “vagina hats” that some women wear during the Women’s March, for example, unintentionally exclude women who don’t have vaginas (trans women) and women whose skin tone isn’t “pink” (women of color). Furthermore, many signs that people carry during the march reference uteruses, ovaries, vaginas, etc., as empowering symbols of female identity. Once again, however, this excludes trans women. Also, what about women who have had a hysterectomy or a mastectomy due to breast cancer? Does this mean they are no longer women also? Even some of the chants shouted during the march reflected lack of inclusivity, such as “No uterus, no choice” (to which I shouted back “What about trans women?!” every single time—and other women around me agreed). The fact of the matter is that not all women have the same bodies or experience the same kind of oppression. Intersectionality—a term that stems from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of “interlocking feminisms”— recognizes that people experience marginalization in multiple different ways simultaneously. In other words, different kinds of oppression overlap each other. To ignore one type of oppression is to ignore a whole host of issues that someone may face on a day to day basis. A white woman, for example, may face roadblocks in some areas of her life because she is a woman, but will easily navigate through others because of her race (and if she was assigned female at birth and identifies as such, that also makes her life easier). A black trans woman, on the other hand, has to deal with sexism, racism, and transphobia all at once. A huge demonstration of feminism like the Women’s March means absolutely nothing if it does not acknowledge the importance of intersectional feminism. During the march, I carried a sign that said “Intersectional feminism or BUST” and included a quote from the late Black activist and writer Audre Lorde that states: “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even if her shackles are very different from my own.” While I do not define myself as a perfect feminist or a perfect person, I believe that a feminist movement that recognizes all types of people will set an important precedent for future generations.

By Miranda Woods Imagine the following people and scenarios, playing out in normal, everyday life here in Over-The-Rhine: It’s Thursday evening and Alex has just finished a long day at his job. As he does every Thursday afternoon, he decides to unwind with an ice-cold beer outside enjoying the still warm fall weather, so he takes his drink out to the sidewalk and has a seat to people watch. How did you envision Alex? A young, white, gentrifying millennial relaxing with his beer in a sidewalk beer garden at a bar on Vine Street? Or as an older, Black man who’s lived his whole adult life in his Race Street house with no front porch? It’s Friday evening and there’s suddenly a loud commotion outside. A boisterous group of people is moving through the neighborhood and while the unwanted noise is soon gone as quickly as it arrived, there is bound to be more annoying, disturbing disruptions throughout the evening from others like them. Did you imagine Black youth riding past on speeding motorcycles, revving their engines and accelerate through stop lights? Or rather the loud speakers blasting music from beer pedal carts with their unruly dunk white passengers singing off-key to songs often containing words they’re not supposed to utter? It’s Sunday morning and you awake to rumbling floor vibrations and the sound of loud music and lots of people. Did you think it was the morning service at the Church of God, a Black church on Elm Street? Or another weekend festival happening in Washington Park, mostly patronized by white people? Far too often in this neighborhood we see a tale of two neighbors living lives with similar scenarios, but with vastly different consequences and outcomes. And more often than not, for Black Over-The-Rhine residence who have lived here for a long time, those consequences are negative and come in the forms of criminalizing, over-policing, and sanctioning everyday life. This is not to say that these pertain to new laws that are being enacted currently to over-police Black people - although such laws do exist and that’s another story all in its own – but rather that the trend we are seeing in OTR is to only enforce these laws towards Black people. The general tide of this changing neighborhood is to be against the original Black inhabitants and culture of Over-The-Rhine and find ways to bend and ignore rules, as well as create double standards when it comes to the new white colonizers. Let’s consider my beginning example of Alex wanting a beer. If Alex is the older Black man with no porch on his property, and he goes to sit in a plastic lawn chair on the sidewalk – as many do – to enjoy his beer, he can be arrested for having an open container or for public intoxication. But if Alex is a young millennial gentrifier, he has a variety of ways to consume his after-work beer in public in OTR. Not only can he sit shielded behind the fences of the many beer gardens on the sidewalks of Vine and Main Streets, but he can also choose to go to Washington Park and buy a beer from The Porch, which will allow him to drink the beer wherever he’d like in the park. Of course, being that it is 2019 and Jim Crow-enforced 1959, there is no written law that overtly says buying a beer at any of the Vine Street bars or in Washington Park is only for white people, but when one beer starts at $8 you can decipher who the beer is really for. The issue of noise in Over-The-Rhine highlights the hypocritical racial biases shown to Black people here. There have been white gentrifiers who have suggested at OTR Community Council meetings that Black churches need to be mindful of how loud and a nuisance their choirs can be to them on a Sunday morning. However, these same people think it is acceptable for 3CDC to throw festivals – complete with crowds, live music, and loud activities - nearly every Saturday and Sunday during warm weather months, from early morning and throughout the day into the evening. Another colonizer at an OTR Community Council meeting recently suggested that the police should pursue high-speed chases of rowdy motorcycle groups of Black youth that ride through in the evening sometimes on their way downtown from Clifton. Never mind the fact that this type of police chase is a danger to public safety and illegal, any noise that disrupts the lovely, family-friendly neighborhood that redevelopment has created must be stopped! That is, unless its noise made by those who came with the redevelopment on pedal carts. Or in walking tours filled with middle-age white men looking to invest in the neighborhood – can you imagine a group of 20-odd Black men walking together through OTR and how quickly they would be stopped and harassed by police for intimidating the good neighbors and making the neighborhood feel unsafe? All these scenarios really show is that with a little money and some corporate capitalist friends downtown, any law can be bent, and any exception to social norms can be made - as long as it benefits the white gentrifiers and further alienates and criminalizes Black people who have lived in the forgotten shadows in Over-The-Rhine for decades. These double standards are inherently racist and classist, and help to further stigmatize unfounded stereotypes about Black people such as that we are loud, ghetto, menaces to society, or always drunk. It’s time we bring these instances and others like them to the forefront and talk about their lasting effects on us as a community.

By Bill Woods So begins a major political year. As this piece is being written, the House of Representatives prepares to send the two Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate. After taking a final vote, the House will adhere to a tradition that calls for enclosing the Articles in a box and officially walking them over to the Senate. The Senate trial comes next presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. What are the prospects for the trial in the Senate? Back in December, it appeared that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel planned to rush the process to a speedy conclusion with the Republican majority voting to dismiss the two Articles; thus acquitting the President of any wrongdoing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to put a hold on sending over the Articles has kept impeachment in the public eye, and several Republican Senators are now balking at McConnel's dismissive approach. Further, new evidence about Trump's skullduggery in Ukraine keeps emerging. Even so, the chances of throwing the President out of office seem very slim. Meanwhile, the cast of candidates running for the Democratic Presidential nomination begins to shrink. Senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris recently left the race, and only six candidates took part in the last debate in Iowa. At the moment, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders appear to be dividing up the liberal wing of the Party, while Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Amy Klobuchar battle for the moderates. Finding a candidate that can unite progressive young voters, suburban moderates, African-Americans, and blue-collar whites are the Party's difficult priority. Many of these candidates will find their way to Ohio by mid-February to woo Democratic voters before the State's March 17th primary. Locally, some interesting primary races are also taking shape. Two Democrats, Nikki Foster and Kate Schroeder compete to take on Congressman Steve Chabot in November. In the same primary, three Democratic hopefuls vie for Todd Portune's seat on the Hamilton County Commission. Former City Council member and State Representative Alicia Reece, Kelli Prather, and former State Representative Connie Pillich all seek this position. The race for Hamilton County Sheriff is also drawing local interest. The current Sheriff, Jim Neil, a Democrat, is being challenged in the primary by Charmaine McGuffey. Neil has taken a lot of criticism for the number of immigrants who have been deported after they have been sent to the County Jail. Critics have called for an end to his Department's informal cooperation with ICE. While all this political campaigning takes place, life goes on for Cincinnati City and Hamilton County Governments. At the first Community Issues Forum of 2020, County Commissioner Denise Driehaus and Councilman David Mann informally talked with attendees about what to expect this year. Driehaus, who is currently chairing the Commission, stressed that the passage of the 2019 Sales Tax increase has really stabilized the County budget. Mann emphasized that Council will confront another tough process balancing the City budget, and voiced regret about how recent Council's have continually cut the City's percentage of the property tax. Although they primarily dealt with basic nuts and bolts issues in their Forum discussion, Driehaus brought up some new concerns. She wants to see the County do more to address growing poverty in the region, and she specifically talked about the need to fund projects such as the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that address the affordable housing crisis. She also noted the County's efforts to deal with growing drug addiction. She touted the County's new 98-bed dormitory at the jail designed to assist inmates to begin the process of drug rehabilitation. Mann noted his involvement in the City's establishment of the Housing Trust Fund last year, but he didn't discuss the need to adequately fund it. In response to a question on tax abatements, he did talk about the current review of the whole abatement process and some potential reforms. Neither Mann or Driehaus brought up any major, new initiatives that would require raising new revenues. January then starts what will be a big political year in this country. Furthermore, Ohio and Greater Cincinnati will be places of importance for both national and local campaign activities. It behooves us as citizens to be active participants in these political events that will have an impact on our future.

In September, 2019, one chairperson, three notable economists, and two other accomplished researchers who comprise the Trump Administration Council of Economic Advisors gathered to write the official White House statement on homelessness in the United States. The Council of Economic Advisors was established under the Truman Administration in 1946, and serves as a resource for economic issues. Kevin Hasset is the current Chairman, appointed in 2017. Prior to his appointment, Hasset was the Chair in American Politics and Culture, and Director of Research in Domestic Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. He is a fiscal conservative with a history of research on tax policy, and has served as a Treasury Department advisor under the George H. W. Bush and the Bill Clinton administrations. The finished White House statement is called “The State of Homelessness in America,” and is a rather dangerous document full of invalid assumptions and unanswered questions. It describes unexplored theoretical economic models to solve homelessness, and asserts ridiculous assumptions about why the cycles of poverty and homelessness persist. Clearly, the members of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) failed to conduct community-based research methodology while compiling this report, or someone would probably have pointed out a few of the fallacies. Throughout the report, homeless is defined using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development parameter. People experience homelessness if they “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” The CEA identifies four factors that cause homelessness. First, the housing market is over-regulated which drives up the cost to rent or buy a place to live. Second, some cities in warmer states make it really easy for unsheltered people to experience homelessness in public. Third, some cities offer far too many comfortable shelter options. Fourth, sometimes individuals face factors that increase their chances of experiencing homelessness. The CEA lists over-regulation as the first cause of homelessness. In June, 2019, Trump signed an Executive Order Establishing a White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, citing a laundry list of regulations that are supposedly the cause of expensive housing. Examples of these over-regulations include, “rent controls,” “excessive energy and water efficiency mandates,” overly burdensome wetlands and environmental regulations,” and “inordinate impact or developer fees,” to name a few. According to the statement, over-regulation of housing increases the cost of owning a house. The CEA report identifies that, “when housing prices rise, economic theory predicts that more people will have difficulty paying rent,” which results in more homelessness. It estimates that if eleven metropolitan area housing markets were deregulated, homelessness nationwide would decrease thirteen percent. They additionally claim that deregulation would decrease homelessness by 54% in San Francisco, 40% in Los Angeles, and 23% in New York City. However, is it really over-regulation that’s causing the problem? Affordable housing specifically for occupancy of low, lower, and extremely-low income people must be built at a rate that matches or exceeds the social need; otherwise, certain populations will always experience a barrier, regardless of how many necessary regulations are erased. The second cause is the tolerability of sleeping on the street. The unsheltered people who experience homelessness in some cities are just too darn comfortable to want to pay for a house or a stable apartment. Why live in your own place with access to a kitchen, a bathroom, and a roof, when you can cuddle up on the sidewalk or in a camp in states like California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii? Some warm states are more active in their policing like Florida and Arizona, and their population of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness is lower than expected given the temperature, home prices, and poverty rates. According to this CEA report, the warmer the climate, the more policing is necessary to reduce the rates of homelessness. On page 19, the report states that “one potential factor is differences in city ordinances and policing strategies, as these policies would directly affect the tolerability of living on the street.” However, they continue later on page 20 to state that, “policies intended to arrest or jail homeless people simply because they are homeless are inhumane and wrong,” and they cite nonpunitive measures of policing that connect people experiencing homelessness with necessary services. This point creates a dangerous assumption that people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness in a warm climate such as California require police intervention to connect them to social services. It removes their sovereignty as individuals, and places the blame for their situation on them. According to a 2018 California Public Radio program, 27% of unsheltered homeless adults with children in Los Angeles County were working either full-time, part-time, or seasonally. The problem, in either a warm state or a cold state, is a shortage of affordable housing. Without access to affordable housing, policing will not reduce the number of people who experience homelessness. It will only increase the number of people who are on a waitlist for social services, or who obtain a criminal record due to their experience with homelessness. The third cause of homelessness is the right-to-shelter policies. Boston, New York, and Washington DC are subject to right-to-shelter, which guarantees a baseline standard of quality shelter availability for people experiencing homelessness. These three cities have sheltered homeless rates 2.7 times higher than any other city. According to the CEA, they must be spending too much money on their shelter accommodations, because right-to-shelter policies are not a “cost-effective approach to ensuring people are housed.” They reference a book from 1996 called “Making Room: The Economics of Homelessness,” written by Brendan O’Flaherty, citing that, “free shelters that are hygienic, safe, and dignified enough to accomplish some of the goals they should accomplish are also attractive enough to bring in many people who would not otherwise be on the street.” Is the right-to-shelter policy really why these three cities in particular have higher populations of sheltered people experiencing homelessness? Many other socio-economic factors contribute, such as very small apartments which reduce the capacity for families to double-up; high population density and lack of parking areas, which reduce the ability for families to live in vehicles like across the West Coast; significant disparity in income levels; and of course, at least five months each year of inhospitable climate. Changing right-to-shelter policies will not reduce the number of sheltered people experiencing homelessness; it will only increase the number of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness in these cities. Finally, the fourth CEA-cited cause of homelessness are conditions that some individuals face that increase their risk. These conditions include severe mental illness, untreated substance abuse, a criminal record and a history of incarceration, low income, and weak social connections. The report glossed over this discussion a bit, providing very little data for these variables, but referenced the need for “housing assistance programs” to support individuals in these conditions. Of particular interest is how being low-income is listed as a risk factor, yet the report provides no discussion of the American capitalist economic model of accepted wealth disparity. The richest 10% of the population controls 70% of the wealth, while the poorest 50% of the population controls only one percent. Low income is a systemic issue, not an “individual risk factor.” When federal government committees such as the Council of Economic Advisors produce documents like this one, it obscures the issue. People experience homelessness because there is not enough affordable housing. Hamilton County faces a 40,000 unit affordable housing shortage, and we are not alone in our housing crisis. Erasing regulations and right-to-shelter policies while introducing increased policing practices won’t help. The solution is something we can accomplish in the City of Cincinnati: affordable housing.

By Bill Woods As 2020 begins, we realize that almost an entire year of political campaigning lies ahead. It's a Presidential year, and months of primaries, millions of misleading TV ads, and endless fundraising and campaign spending loom before us. Beyond the hoopla and glitz, however, it remains an extremely critical election in terms of the future of this country. Another factor has become apparent. The central theme of President Trump's reelection campaign is going to be the success of the economy under his watch. His political strategists believe that no matter how many laws he has broken or lies he has told, voters won't reject him because the economy is booming and the Stock Market is at an all-time high. Ads will emphasize the low unemployment rate and statistics that show wages rising. It is true that the numbers people receive every day on radio, TV, or in their newspapers reveal a rosy picture of the economy. Corporations are raking in profits, the Stock Market is high, and the national unemployment rate is low. Nevertheless, when one examines economic data beyond those general stats, some disturbing facts emerge that show this economy is not performing well in supporting the day to day lives of average Americans. It is those facts that the Democratic presidential contenders must spotlight and offer solutions to. Income inequality continued to grow despite the economic upturn that has occurred since 2009. The income disparity between the wealthiest ten percent of the population and the other ninety-percent is the highest it has been since the 1920s. Thus, even though the unemployment rate is low, most of new wealth has not trickled down to average workers. In fact, while the upper ten percent are doing very, very well, millions of workers and their families are just getting by and remain fearful about medical expenses or other unexpected costs that would put them in a financial crisis. The federal safety net that includes Food Stamps and housing assistance has been slashed over the years, and expenses such as rents, medicine, and other basics have risen much faster than salaries. Housing in many cities is unaffordable further increasing homelessness. Visible economic decline can also be seen when driving through rural communities in Michigan, Ohio, and many other states. In recent times, more and more unhappy people living on the edge have become disillusioned with the political and economic system. They voted in 2016 for Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, and Trump, a loud outsider who promised the return of high paying jobs. While polls show Trump still doing well among rural, white voters, Democrats should be able to show that despite his populist rhetoric, his policies have continued to help the rich at the expense of middle to low-income families. His most significant legislation, the tax cut of 2018, gave huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, while doing nothing for poor families and very little for even the upper-middle-class. It certainly increased income inequality in this country. No efforts by his Administration or Republicans in Congress have been taken to raise the minimum wage, and the Administration has made it difficult for thousands of families and individuals to qualify for Food Stamps. The assault on the Safety Net continues, and his Tariff Wars have increased costs for goods while jeopardizing agricultural sales for many Midwestern farmers. Nevertheless, Trump still continues his crusade to make immigrants the scapegoats for America's problems. Recent news indicates that the Democratic candidates are already articulating an economic message in places like Iowa. Besides Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, others like Pete Buttigeig and Joe Biden have taken up the cause of fairer economic policies. At a recent meeting in Fairfield, Iowa, Biden noted: "An awful lot of people - middle-class folks - are in real trouble, and they're not at all certain about their future." Buttigeig warmed to the same theme at a rally in Knoxville, Iowa. "It's nice to see that the Dow Jones is doing well, but more and more Americans find that we're fighting like hell to hold on to what we've got." The Democrats need to keep hammering away at the message that economic prosperity is insufficient unless it includes economic security for all Americans. In terms of policies, they must talk about a livable wage, improvements to the Affordable Care Act, and a tax increase for the very wealthy that would be earmarked to strengthen affordable housing programs, Food Stamps, and other Safety Net services for people in need of assistance. Democrats with credibility in rural America such as Senator Sherod Brown must continually campaign in these areas, and a fair economics message must be attached to every "get out the vote campaign" in urban and poor rural communities. Although the President can't be let off the hook for his lawless and impeachable actions, the Democrats have to be loud and clear that they represent the Party that is serious about bringing some fairness to the current economic system.

As the dust and glitter settle on the excitement of a new year, we are faced with the reality that most of our situations are the same. Australia is on fire, Flint in Michigan still has lead in their tap water, President Trump threatened to bomb cultural sites in Iran- the list goes on. It seems that no matter what day it is or where in the world you land, there is always something to panic about. Activism fatigue is inevitable if we are constantly trying to care about everything all the time. While apathy is not the answer, focus might be. We need to allow ourselves to choose a few issues we are passionate about, and truly work on them. Setting boundaries around news media consumption is helpful in this. Even if you don’t follow news outlets on social media, setting up our own rules around these sites can be helpful. Reading comments from family members that we know we don’t agree with won’t solve world hunger, but it will drain energy from you that is needed to do valuable social justice work in other areas. When we are calmer, our message and work is more accessible. If we are constantly frustrated and overwhelmed, it will come through in our activism whether we notice it or not. Per Espen Stoknes, a psychologist and economist, told Vox that rhetoric which causes fear or guilt “we know from psychology is not conducive to engagement. It does quite the opposite. It makes people passive.” Fear or guilt will cause a person to “withdraw from the issue and try to think of something else that makes them feel better.” In 2020, we need to ignore the internet trolls and ignore sensationalized headlines. When we engage with news media we trust, we need to have a self-care routine ready to be able to process everything. The world is not going to stop burning, but we can figure out how to deal with it so we can fight the fire. Engaging with other activists and creating community is a great way to fight the good fight while also creating a support system when the going gets tough. History shows us that there will always be another fight, another issue, and another hurdle to jump. History also shows us that we cannot do it alone. Changing our mindset from “here’s another issue” to “here’s another challenge” might help us feel like there is something we can do to change our circumstances. We often forget how much power we have as a collective. If we sign petitions, push legislation forward, show up to rallies, vote, etc. then we will make change. We cannot let ourselves burn out when we have the power to do so many great things. When we choose a few issues to be passionate about, we can trust that other activists will tell us what we need to do for them, and vice versa. Perhaps they’ll ask you to sign a petition to push forward a policy. That takes very little emotional energy and can make a great difference. If we are asked to join a rally that we simply do not have the energy for, sharing the call to action and spreading the word is still helpful. We can still be helpful while not compromising our health. By understanding our own personal boundaries, we’ll understand where we need to push ourselves out of our comfort zones and when we need to tap out. 2020 isn’t going to be a sprinting race; it’s going to be a marathon, but either way, we are on the track whether we like it or not. One we need to be prepared for is that we don’t overload our brains and souls to the point where we break. If we feel guilty about our privileges or fearful about our lack of privilege, it is natural for us to want to hide away from the harsh truths of today. It is unlikely that these emotions will stop coming up within us in 2020, but we can learn to identify them as normal reactions to our circumstances and figure out how to overcome them. If you feel guilty, engage more with your chosen causes. If you feel afraid, engage with your community in ways that will create a sense of solidarity. Writing about your experiences with social justice (and submitting them to Streetvibes for possible publication) can be both cathartic and a form of activism. Gathering with your community and sharing concerns about policy or celebrating victories is a healthy way to still engage in your causes while taking a moment to appreciate the work you do and the work of those around you. It isn’t about being perfect. It isn’t possible to be calm at all times, but it is possible to progressively make changes so that we can be healthier people at a time where it feels like there’s too much going on. Like the saying goes: put your oxygen mask on before assisting others with theirs.

By Kylie Blovits On Wednesday, October 2, hundreds of people marched from Laurel Park to City Hall to demand for Housing Now! — or more specifically, the long-awaited funding for the 40,000 units of affordable housing that is needed in Hamilton County, 28,000 of which is for Cincinnati alone (Community Building Institute). Seeing this shortage and consequences of it worsening everyday, the community decided enough was enough. If city government wouldn’t address the issue on their own, the people, organized by the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, would bring it to the discussion and hold the people in power accountable. And that was exactly the plan. The day and time of the march was set to align with the City Council meeting, a part of which is supposed to be dedicated for ‘public comment’, so that the community could air their concerns to their representatives and advocate for the basic human right of shelter. However, upon arrival, it was discovered that City Council had conveniently moved their meeting up four hours (2pm instead of 6pm as planned). The doors were closed and no one was home. Apparently the community’s voices weren’t worth being heard. Though one of the more recent examples, this was not the first time that the Mayor and the rest of City Council has turned their back on their ‘constituents’ in regards to the affordable housing crisis, specifically the people of Over-the-Rhine. In June of 2002, the Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan: A Consensus-based Plan by People who Care was published. This document, a product of a 5-year collaboration between the City Planning Department, City Council, and Community Members called for things like a more balanced housing stock, significant increases in affordable housing units, more homeownership, etc. In her book, Econocide, long-time resident and social worker in the Over-the-Rhine area Alice Skirtz recalls that “it became part of the larger City of Cincinnati Comprehensive Plan, intended to guide the city’s decision making, neighborhood by neighborhood.” Like the larger, encompassing City of Cincinnati Comprehensive Plan, the more focused Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan was set to be managed by the Planning Department. Everything was put in its place, teed up for a home run. But what happened? That was 17 years ago. Clearly, as evidenced by the Housing Now! March, the city of Cincinnati is experiencing an incredible shortage of shelter for its low-income residents. In fact, according to The Enquirer, there has been both a net loss of occupiable housing units (market rate or otherwise), as well as a dramatic reduction in the amount of affordable housing units (0-30% AMI) — from 3,235 units at the time that the Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan was published in 2002, to 869 at the time of the last Housing Inventory. What happened was then-Mayor Charlie Luken. Barely six months after the Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the 80-year-old Planning Department was dissolved. Suddenly, Skirtz writes, the Plan “lost its administrative champion…[and] only resource for ensuring compliance with the Plan.” Shortly before that, Mayor Luken had also abolished the Economic Development Department. In place of both of these governmental, regulating bodies, Luken created two private corporations, so-named The Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC) and the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, respectively. Both private entities have a Board of Directors composed of CEOs and other high-level executives which double-dip from many of the same Fortune 500 companies, such as: GE, Proctor and Gamble, North American Properties, Cincinnati Bell, Kroger, and more. While the latter, now interestingly enough run by the same Charlie Luken, works on development predominantly on the outskirts of Cincinnati, the industrial sector, and foreclosures, the former — 3CDC — was created to attack the heart of the city, or as they put it — “Build life in our City’s center”. In contrast to 3CDC, though the Port Authority does feature corporate actors, there are also two community members and advocates on their Board, and furthermore — the organization is required to have open hearings and receive community input. 3CDC, however, has no community members on its Board and has no obligation to engage with the community or cater to them. And it shows. To date, only two projects on 3CDC’s website advertise units of affordable housing. The first, City Home - Pleasant Street, is for residents who can afford 50-60% AMI as noted on the 3CDC website. The second, Columbia Flats, has 8 (of 36) units for those at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Moreover, according to Bonnie Neumeier, long-time resident and founder of Over-the- Rhine Community Housing (OTRCH): “Often times, 3CDC will claim the work OTRCH has done in affordable housing because they have control of resources that we’ve needed on various projects. When they have done affordable housing, it’s never 0-30% of AMI, it’s more close to 80% of AMI which is beyond the reach for those we serve.” But no matter, affordable housing and the good of the original community was never the goal. As said on 3CDC’s website, Luken and the aforementioned members of the Cincinnati corporate community agreed that “the economic future of Cincinnati depended first and foremost on a strong and vibrant downtown business and entertainment district,” which required a “strategic focus” in the revitalization of Over-the-Rhine. And boy, was there strategy. The first element of strategy was creating an entity that has essentially as much power in and over the city as a governmental body, but without any of the responsibility that a governmental body would have in upholding promises, policy, or morals as said entity is a private corporation. Not only does this immensely benefit the corporation, 3CDC, who can further their own economic endeavors using millions of dollars of the city’s money, assets, and tax abatements, but it also allows city officials (like then- Mayor Charlie Luken, now-mayor, John Cranley, and Council members) to yield results in questionable ways, all the while remaining politically correct by relinquishing responsibility —throwing their hands up, as if to say: “We can’t control what 3CDC does; they are a private organization and therefore independent from the city.” But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The city of Cincinnati and 3CDC have been cut from the same cloth, inexorably linked, at times even synonymous. 3CDC was literally founded by the Mayor, and since then— has been considered the city’s exclusive and ‘preferred developer', as reported by Bizjournals. The transformation of the community of Over-the-Rhine is said to have “happened in a blink of an eye,” something only made possible by the ever-growing list of powers awarded to them by the city. Thanks to Cincinnati’s leaders, 3CDC, a supposedly non-governmental group, has “the ability to initiate regulatory reform, issue bonds, and use eminent domain [to acquire land],” says Skirtz. Soon, public assets were surrendered to 3CDC, as well. For example, by 2005, 3CDC had a contract with the city for full planning, development, and management authority of Fountain Square Park for 50 years. Not long after that, 3CDC was given Washington Park for 95 years, no questions asked. Ziegler Park followed. It wasn’t until a couple years after the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation obtained Fountain Square Park that public awareness was raised about 3CDC’s power to grant or deny permits for public use of the park. In the spring of 2007, two groups, the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center (IJPC) and the Homeless Youth Empowerment Council, were banned from organizing demonstrations and discovered that there was no real appeal process for contesting or negotiating these decisions made by the authority of 3CDC. It seems that in addition to control over the use of the public by public land, 3CDC also has power over human rights. In not one, not two, but three of the area’s largest public space. And, therein lies the twisted beauty of the aforementioned mutually-beneficial relationship between the city and 3CDC. By privatizing public property like Fountain Square, Washington, and Ziegler Park, 3CDC, the managing entity has the jurisdiction to forbid behaviors or persons. If management resided with the city, as it was, they could not justly discriminate. In this arrangement, 3CDC and the city of Cincinnati can stick to the city of Cincinnati can stick to the ‘mixed model’ described in Econocide, “which was undertaken for purposes of promoting business and preventing use by certain so-called undesirable people and events.” The people can’t challenge them, and apparently neither can other developers. As of this January, Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI), a non-profit organization founded in 1994 to improve metropolitan Cincinnati, merged to become a subsidiary of 3CDC. WVXU reported Joe Rudemiller (VP of Marketing and Communications at 3CDC) chalking it up to a decision to increase efficiency: “The city just saw there were two organizations performing very similar functions.” Now there’s one less organization to stand in their way. That is indeed more efficient. Furthermore, according to the Cincinnati Business Courier, in 2014 3CDC managed to find themselves in the position to “serve as a reviewer of proposals from third-party prospective developers and provide recommendations to the city.” Moreover, of the approved projects, “if redevelopment does not take place as planned, the property would revert back to city ownership.” So, essentially 3CDC gets to control all other development in the city, either vetoing or passing on whatever they like- which is both a gross conflict of interest and a very powerful, monopolizing role. And, if a third party project gets through, they can be taken over by the city, and by extension 3CDC if they don’t uphold the terms of the agreement. Whether or not other developers are given the nod of approval, whether or not they succeed, 3CDC is in control. It’s a win-win-win-win! In addition to being the filter and deciding vote for any potential development project, 3CDC was also granted custodianship of two private investment funds — the Cincinnati New Markets Fund (CNMF) and the Cincinnati Equity Fund (CEF). In 2004, when they graciously accepted this responsibility, the combined total amounted to nearly $100 million dollars. Since then, 3CDC has created two more funds -- the CEF II and CNMFII funds, from which they can play with a $36 million line of credit, according to a Drexel University study. Besides the $100+ million of development funds, 3CDC receives incredible amounts of tax incentives from the Community Reinvestment Area Commercial Tax Abatement Program (Commercial CRA), Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program. According to Mayor Cranley, 3CDC has received nearly $50 million from TIFs alone. Almost all projects are given full financial backing and forgo having to pay taxes for up to 15 years. And then some properties the city just basically donates to 3CDC. For example, as seen in the image below, 1409 Race Street was sold to OTR Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of 3CDC, from the City of Cincinnati for $0. With all this power, preferential treatment, and public funding being funneled into a private organization running parallel to the city government it’s no wonder why a citizen member of the Planning Commission thinks “the mayor’s development task force [is] a ‘stacked deck’ that is very heavily weighted toward developer interests.” It’s even less of a wonder since the former City Manager, Harry Black, had similar things to say. Less than a year ago, in April of 2018, Fox reported allegations about corruption in City Hall began circulating the media. Two days before his resignation, Black publicly accused now-Mayor John Cranley (political-mentee of then-mayor Charlie Luken) of “mixing his campaign fundraising with the city’s economic development deals.” According to WCPO, the firestorm surrounding the scandal included a threat to sue the city, persisting several months until finally the flames were suppressed- by money. Lots of money.

By Dr. Mark Mussman Recently, the Council of Economic Advisers, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, released a document entitled The State of Homelessness in America. The document attempts to provide information about the problem of homelessness, as well as, the solutions to reducing homelessness. We have seen many reports on homelessness and poverty throughout the years, but I felt compelled to address this one because it has the potential to cause severe harm throughout the country. The document begins by stating the causes of homelessness in America. We know that the lack of affordable housing, the lack of livable wages, and the lack of housing protections all contribute greatly to homelessness. Each of these aspects are connected, as if someone has a larger income, they would be able to afford more for housing. The document does say, in the Executive Summary, that incomes do contribute to the inability to afford housing; however, none of the remedies address this cause, and it is not explored in detail in the study. The causes that are given are largely based on stereotypes and aren’t consistent with a nuanced understanding of the issues surrounding poverty. In this document, good weather becomes a catalyst for homelessness. The idea that people are choosing to live outside is a dangerous fallacy. People do not wish to live outside where they are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes, harassment, and violent crime. To blame the weather on homelessness is like blaming the moon for nighttime. It is far-fetched and disconnected from reality. There was no discussion on how to address the good weather aspect of homelessness either, although we do know that climate change will continue to increase homelessness, and as the earth warms, inhabitable areas of the planet will continue to increase. The study also blames high quality, hygienic, shelters for homelessness. The belief that people are leaving their safe and affordable homes to live in shelters is faulty at best, dangerous at worst. Some areas have a Right to Shelter law, which means that people who show up, shelter must be provided in a reasonable manner. The document says that these laws raise the quality of the shelters which makes them more desirable; thus, attracting people from their homes into shelters. On top of good weather and high quality shelters, according to the document, people are experiencing homelessness because it is too desirable to live on the street. The document says that people are leaving their safe and affordable homes to live in the street because municipalities have become too soft on people seeking shelter on the street. In cities, like Cincinnati, we have criminalized homelessness through our anti-solicitation laws, our encampment laws, and now Hamilton County’s anti-homelessness laws. The last law, the countywide law, allows the police to arrest anyone, on private or public land, who they suspect is experiencing homelessness. This law has not decreased homelessness, but it has made it more dangerous for people who are experiencing homelessness, especially for Black people who are more likely to be brutalized by the police, jailed unlawfully, and suffer long-term economic issues related to the criminalization of homelessness. The document goes to further stigmatize homelessness by relying on an out-of-date stereotype that mental illness causes homelessness. While some people may experience homelessness due to mental illness, it is because they aren’t able to access the proper support to remain housed. We also know that the trauma related to the experience of homelessness stays with an individual for their entire life. The trauma of not knowing where you’ll sleep, and what you may have to give up of yourself to rest, can begin to affect your brain functioning within hours of experiencing homelessness. Other typical tasks, such as eating and bathing, become an emotional and physical challenge, further increasing trauma. Not to mention interactions with institutions who are meant to help, but instead deny you aid, that exacerbate suffering. Scapegoating drug users as the cause of homelessness, as this document does, is also a fallacy. The causes of drug addiction are depression, isolation, and loneliness. A person who experiences homelessness will experience each of those risk factors, which may contribute to drug use. Drug use itself, however, is rarely a cause of homelessness. Blaming drug abuse and mental illness is a way to detract from the actual causes of homelessness by making it seem like a person has made the wrong choices, or they themselves are immoral. Addressing these issues is practical, but it is only addressing a symptom of a larger issue. The document goes on to obfuscate the issue by presenting economic models that may have been ripped out of an introductory economics textbook. The discussion on the graphs amounted to the idea that housing costs too much to produce, so therefore, if we reduce the cost of production, then the rents will drop. This became the tactic to end homelessness: deregulation. The document presents deregulation as the main solution to ending homelessness. They believe that removing building codes, permits, environmental, housing, and wetland protections, combined with reducing energy efficiency and labor requirements, that the cost of housing would decrease so much, that in a city like San Francisco, rent would drop 55%, leading to a drop in homelessness by 54%. The quality of housing is not considered in this model. Safety is not considered in a model that removes building codes and other protections. In fact, this plan may actually increase homelessness by permitting building in floodplains, reducing labor standards, and reducing the need for inspections and building trades, among other issues. While it’s hard to stomach the narrative that is created in this document, it is worth taking some time to digest. The final parts of the document make the claim that homelessness is increasing, and any count is not going to be accurate. This was, in my opinion, the only accurate part of the document, but it was only done to say that the Obama Administration failed when it comes to homelessness — it was a jab at President Obama. Overall, the document relies heavily on stereotypes, in terms of the causes of homelessness, and it only relies on boot-strap approaches to ending homelessness. The major solutions that they propose are dangerous and will increase homelessness. The document says that the police should be supported in their brutality against people experiencing homelessness. The document says that building codes and other community safety considerations (environmental, for instance) are too costly and should be removed. It says that rent control also increases homelessness, but does not address or illustrate how it is a cause of homelessness. Like much of the document, it is based upon beliefs, so that it can put the solution on the individual (who needs drug rehab and mental services) rather than on an economic system that ensures income and wealth inequality.