Miami Taking Property vs. Cleveland Asking for Property
As part of this strategic planning process, we have found that many think that I am too aggressive with my advocacy. I have never understood this, but it is an impression among many social service providers. I have visited cities in which the homeless advocacy group constantly antagonize the local administration. The advocates in Cincy created their shelters by squatting on warehouses. Many homeless groups are at war with their cities, and regularly disrupt city business. In Portland, the activists spent the winter in tents on the steps of City Hall. Yes, we have sued the City six times, and I regularly criticize the County for their failure to lead. Unlike others in this struggle, I do not resort to personal attacks against Mayors, bureaucrats or shelter staff. I believe most people working on this problem are fundamentally good -hearted people who want to do right, but may not have the skills to do their jobs. Those who are in it for themselves and have bad motives for working on homeless issues I ignore. My biggest concern is not effectively serving my main constituent: homeless people. For those who do not work with homeless people, there is a ton of anger among people kicked out of their houses. If we do not reflect a little bit of that anger, I believe we are not doing our jobs. How can a person maintain their humanity and not have their blood boil to see Mom's separated from their children and veterans with silver stars sleeping under bridges?
Another example of the style differences in my approach and those activists in other communities appeared in the USA Today on Thursday. In Miami, the homeless activists are fed up and seizing property that are currently in foreclosure. A number of our younger members have for years urged a similar approach in Cleveland. They grew frustrated with our unwillingness to help with these quasi-legal approaches. I have not resorted to leading a charge to take over houses in Cleveland. First of all, it could jeopardize a group's non-profit status. Second, what purpose would it serve? The City does not like the vacant buildings anymore than homeless people do. At this point, the banks are more powerful than the cities. Remember, Cleveland tried unsuccessfully to limit predatory lending only to be shot down by the courts. So, we would put a family in a building. The banks would charge the family with trespassing, and even if the courts or police would not take action, the banks would figure out a way that the family would never ever gain ownership of the house. In Ohio, it takes 21 years to gain ownership of a building through squatting. So, where would we be at the end of the day? The person who helps these families would gain some notoriety for standing up to the city, and banks but they would not be harmed when the banks and holding companies retaliated against the family.
I personally would support families not leaving their houses when the lending company tricked or acted irresponsibility or illegally in drafting the loan, as long as the family was prepared for the hardship they would have to endure in court. In reality, it is more of a short term solution, since it is unlikely to result in a home for these families. NEOCH did defend the squatters at Camelot in the late 1990s, but while we were in court the Mayor sent a wrecking ball to destroy the building. (That guy was a dictator.) I think that the approach that we are taking with asking for support from the City is a better solution. As an update, we still have not had any movement from the City or County, but Councilman Cimperman sent us a nice letter of support for the concept. We are still going to push this issue, and try to get a demonstration project funded that would act in partnership with the City or County.
Brian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
No comments:
Post a Comment