Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 16
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Guest column: Long-term plan is reducing homelessness in Dayton
This commentary was provided by Walt Hibner, executive director of the Home Builders Association of Dayton; and Charles Meadows, retired City of Dayton employee. They are co-chairs of the Homeless Solutions Policy Board.
Contrary to a headline in the Dayton Daily News (“Neighbors’ complaints derail homeless plan,” Jan. 26), the community’s Homeless Solutions Plan has not been derailed.
In fact, it is making substantial progress.
In June 2006, Dayton, Montgomery County and the United Way of the Greater Dayton Area adopted an ambitious Homeless Solutions Community 10-Year Plan. It is a blueprint for ending chronic homelessness and reducing overall homelessness.
In the three years since then, the number of people who are chronically homeless has declined substantially; a major new homelessness prevention program has begun; the gateway shelter system has been transformed with the recent opening of the Gettysburg Gateway for Men; and significant progress has been made in connecting the homeless system to other resources and systems in the community.
In addition, hundreds of units of permanent supportive housing have been created in seven communities across the county.
Throughout the process of developing and implementing the Homeless Solutions Plan, there has been an understanding of the need to balance the concerns residents have about new projects to serve the homeless coming into their community and the needs of homeless citizens for housing opportunities all over the county.
Stable permanent housing is the solution for homelessness. The gateway shelters and other programs in the homeless system provide case management and programming to families and single adults to help them develop a plan to move to housing, either in the private market or in one of the transitional or permanent housing programs in the homeless system.
For people with significant barriers to housing — such as an addiction or mental illness — research has shown that providing a rental subsidy and case management is an effective solution.
The people referenced in the DDN article had been living in tents in Veterans Park with little hope of finding housing or employment. One man had been homeless for five years. Last summer, an initiative was developed to house homeless families and individuals who were either in shelters or living in Veterans Park.
A landlord in Grafton Hill had several units available in one building. With rental assistance and case management, the homeless individuals each signed a lease and moved into their new homes in July.
Since that time, many of the tenants have found jobs, qualified for benefits and been connected to health services. All but one of the tenants have since moved into permanent housing.
Our community has committed to reduce homelessness. To do that, we must provide permanent, affordable housing options and necessary supportive services for our most vulnerable citizens.
The Homeless Solutions Plan is on track to prevent and end homelessness.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Obama-Brown exchange
President Barack Obama’s high-profile meeting with House Republicans wasn’t the only recent event like that. He had one with Senate Democrats. Here’s one exhange:
SENATOR REID: The (next) question is going to come from the only person that’s a member of the United States Senate who has a spouse that’s won a Pulitzer Prize - Sherrod Brown from Ohio. (Laughter.)
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you for joining us. Thank you for your visit to Lorain County, Ohio, a week and a half ago; first presidential visit to that county of 300,000 since Harry Truman in 1948.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a great visit. We had a great time.
SENATOR BROWN: It was terrific. Ten miles from there, Oberlin College, one of the great private institutions of higher learning in this country - at Oberlin College, there was a building built there seven or eight years ago, fully powered by solar panels. It’s the only - it’s the largest building on any college campus in America like that. Those solar panels were bought in Germany and Japan, not surprisingly - Germany, a country that has both an energy policy and a manufacturing policy. Seventy-five miles west of there is Toledo, Ohio, where you’ve been several times, and Toledo has more solar energy manufacturing - solar manufacturing jobs than any city in America.
It begs the question of two things in terms of manufacturing policy and energy policy. We have all kinds of things in so many of our states - manufacturing wind turbine components and solar panel components - but we’re the only major industrial country in the world without a manufacturing policy. And every rich country in the world has one. We don’t.
I know what you’re doing with Ron Bloom in the White House and other things, but how do we get there? How do we - when we read these articles in the paper that China is just exploding in terms of wind turbine manufacturing and solar panel manufacturing - how do we rebuild our manufacturing sector with a manufacturing policy, combined with an energy policy that gets us there?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope people had a chance to read that article that was in The New York Times I guess last Sunday, talking about how China is not waiting, it is moving. And already the anticipation is, is that they will lap us when it comes to clean energy.
Now, they’re not a democracy and so they don’t debate. (Laughter.) And there are no filibuster rules. And so obviously over the long term a system that allows for robust debate and exchange of ideas is going to produce a better result. I believe that. But we have to understand that when it comes to some key issues like energy, we are at risk of falling behind.
We’ve already fallen behind, but it’s not irrevocable because we still have the best research, we still have potentially the best technology, we’ve got the best universities, the best scientists, and as I said, we’ve got the most productive workers in the world. But we’ve got to bring all those things together into a coherent whole.
Now, I think there are a couple of elements to this. One, in terms of manufacturing generally - you just mentioned Ron Bloom, who we put in charge of a manufacturing task force, is just issuing now a report to me about the direction we need to go to have some coordination when it comes to manufacturing.
Now, this is not some big bureaucratic top-down industrial policy; it is figuring out how do we coordinate businesses, universities, government, to start looking at where are our strategic opportunities, and then making those investments, filling holes that exist so that we can be competitive with what China is doing or what Germany is doing or what Spain is doing.
And my hope is, is that during the course of this year we’re going to be able to work with all 50 senators, because all of you have a stake in this, to just see where are our manufacturing opportunities and where can we fill - plug some holes in order to make sure that we’re competitive internationally.
Specifically on clean energy, we know that’s an opportunity. I continue to believe, and I’m not alone in this, that the country that figures out most rapidly new forms of energy and can commercialize new ideas is going to lead the 21st century economy. I think that is our growth model. (Applause.)
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: Blog entry only, Energy, Locals in national affairs, National Politics, National government
Editorial: Ohio needs new disclosure law on election money
Corporations cannot spend money directly on state elections, under Ohio law. Nevertheless, a bill may soon be pending in the legislature that regulates how they do that. Moreover, the bill is a good idea.
Long story.
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the practice of not allowing direct corporate spending on elections. In future federal elections (that is, for Congress and the presidency), corporations — and unions — may spend as much as they want, so long as they don’t contribute directly to candidates.
The decision does not strike down an Ohio law — applying to state and local offices and issues — that is much like the stricken federal law.
But a good bet is that if the Ohio law is challenged in court, it will fall, because the high court was interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
State Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, is a candidate for secretary of state, the office that administers campaign finance laws. He wants to require that any corporation or union funding, say, an ad disclose its identity clearly in the ad. And he wants quick filing of an expenditure report, perhaps even before the expenditure. (Some say one problem with Ohio disclosure laws about contributions to candidates is that the disclosures are not immediate.)
Similar proposals — relating to federal elections — are pending in Congress. Some would go further than the Husted plan, requiring the CEO (or, presumably, union leader) to personally appear in the ad. Some would require that stockholders be notified ahead of time.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has advocated banning corporate election spending if a majority of a company’s directors are foreigners, or if the U.S. operations fall under the direction of a foreign entity. (Foreign entities are already banned from such spending.)
One theory of campaign finance regulation holds that anything should be allowed so long as it is disclosed. That is, let anybody — company, union, person, whatever — give any amount of money to any candidate or cause, but require the donations be reported to the government and be public.
That way, the theory goes, any voter who is offended by any connection between, say, a candidate and an interest group can vote accordingly.
As a result of bipartisan agreement, the nation and state do have some disclosure rules.
Skeptics point out that so much money is contributed to politicians even now — despite disclosure rules — that voters become cynical. They despair of figuring out which candidates are most beholden to special interests.
Whatever the effectiveness of disclosure, sometimes it is the only tool at hand. In the wake of the court decision, new attention to disclosure is clearly needed.
Nobody knows how much impact the Supreme Court decision will have. Sen. Husted (an experienced fundraiser) and Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern (likewise) both say that corporations have always been able to find a way to get their money into politics if they are so motivated. The court decision allows them to be involved more directly in specific elections, as opposed, say, to funneling money to committees they don’t completely control.
Whatever one’s expectations, disclosure is desirable. It will cause executives to think harder before jumping into issues that might divide their stockholders or customers. And the public simply has a right to know — whether it has a taste to know or not — where political money is coming from.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
