|
Winter, 2004
|
||
|
|
2004 – AN AUSPICIOUS YEAR TO PROMOTE JUDICIAL REFORM IN OHIO2004 is an auspicious year to promote judicial reform in Ohio. Four justices of the Ohio Supreme Court will be elected in November, and these races will undoubtedly replicate the high spending, interest group driven judicial elections that received so much negative national attention in 2000 and 2002. On a more positive note, “Judicial Impartiality – The Next Steps,” the initiative started last March by the Ohio Bar Association, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and the Ohio Supreme Court, will continue its work in developing proposals to reform Ohio’s judiciary. Provided with this serendipitous setting, an informal coalition of state-wide groups has launched a public education campaign designed to involve citizens in the process of reforming the judicial system in Ohio. The groups are the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Ohio Citizen Action, the Ohio Bar Association, and Common Cause/Ohio and its Education Fund. Coalition representatives will speak to community groups, conduct forums and workshops, and meet one on one with organizations and citizens. Although the coalition will be seeking the views and ideas of citizens throughout the state, its grassroots presentations will also showcase a series of reform proposals favored by the coalition groups. These reforms include public financing for the election campaigns of candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court; support for Ohio’s current law that prohibits direct corporate contributions to election campaigns; increased continuing education and qualification requirements for judicial candidates and judges; a non-partisan appointment process for filling judicial vacancies by the governor; and the wide distribution of special judicial voter guides prior to the 2004 election. The Voter Guide recommendation will be implemented by the Secretary of State’s Office this year, and the Coalition plans to promote this project and to enlist organizations to circulate the Voter Guides in their communities. As part of its work for the Common Cause Education Fund, AIR, Inc. is an integral part of the judicial reform coalition. In fact, two public forums sponsored by the University of Cincinnati College of Law and the Common Cause Education Fund have already occurred. Last November 6th, a forum featuring Professor Charles Gardner Geyh of the Indiana University School of Law took place at the U.C. College of Law. Geyh, the reporter for “Justice In Jeopardy” ( a recent report of the American Bar Association), focused his remarks on the ABA’s reform recommendations dealing with judicial selection in the states. A second forum on January 22nd featured a panel discussion on reform potentials in Ohio. Catherine Turcer of Ohio Citizen Action, Scott Britton of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Cliff Arnebeck of Common Cause/Ohio, and Bill Woods of the Common Cause Education Fund comprised this panel at Christ Church Cathedral. More forums are in the planning stage. Bill Woods, who serves as the Common Cause Education Fund’s Issue Coordinator in Ohio, thinks that the state may be ready for reforming the judicial selection process. “Although judicial reform is certainly not a sexy public issue,” acknowledged Woods, “the current evidence should convince citizens that if action isn’t taken soon, even the semblance of an impartial judiciary will disappear.”
Ten Myths of Homelessness
Myth: Most of the homeless people do not have jobs. Fact: According to Pat Clifford, Director of the Drop Inn Center, nearly 50% of those housed at the Drop Inn Center have jobs. However, earning the minimum wage still makes it difficult to afford housing there is a waiting list for subsidized housing.Myth: The major reason for homelessness is drug addiction.Fact: The leading cause of homelessness is the lack of affordable housing. The next leading cause of homelessness is mental illness, and then addiction comes in third. Myth: More services in Cincinnati will attract more homeless. Fact: This is part of the "magnet theory." In reality, however, people come to Cincinnati for the same reasons others do - economic opportunity. Usually the prospect of a of a job is the primary reason for leaving a familiar environment and traveling to a new city. To the extent that people do move to new areas, it is because they are searching for work, have family in the area, or other reasons not related to services.Myth: It’s a person’s own choosing to be homeless. Fact: The overwhelming majority of homeless persons want to get off the street, and into a residence. Many people make bad choices at some time in their lives. Among those on the economic margin, a bad choice can result in homelessness. The alienation and deprivations accompanying homelessness do not help people learn new and better choices. Sometimes, the effect is just the opposite.Myth: Most homeless break the law. Fact: Homeless people actually commit less violent crimes than housed people. Dr. Pamela Fischer, of Johns Hopkins University, studied the 1983 arrest records in Baltimore and found that although homeless people were more likely to commit non-violent and non-destructive crimes, they were actually less likely to commit crimes against person or property. Serious crime is not attributed to the homeless population at any higher rate than is found in the general population. Those who have been on the streets for any length of time have usually received citations -- typically for illegal lodging, trespassing, jaywalking, drinking, and failure to appear. Homeless people are more likely to be victims of crime.Myth: Homeless people are mostly single men. Fact: Families constitute a large and growing percentage of the homeless population. A recent study found that families comprise 41% of the urban homeless population. Single men comprise 41%, and then women at 13% percent and unaccompanied minors five percent. Other research finds that homeless families comprise the majority of homes people in rural areas.Myth: The police could do something. Fact: People who are homeless have lostheir homes, not their civil rights. Being homeless is not a crime. The role of police can be one of referring homeless persons to sources of help.Myth: Homeless people with drug and alcohol abuse problems don’t want to change. Fact: Recovery from substance abuse is a long and difficult process for most people. People who are attempting to recover, however, face particularly formidable challenges if they are homeless. Outpatient and residential treatment programs are difficult to find without resources.Myth: Their families should take care of them. Fact: Families are often no longer available. In many cases, the breakup of the family or the need to flee from abuse is what led to homelessness. In other cases, families themselves are destitute.Myth: We see who the homeless are. Fact: An estimated 10 - 15 percent of the population is observed on the street. These are most often chronically homeless, and involved in substance abuse or mental illness. Many other homeless people, particularly women with children, go out of their way not to be noticed.Sources-National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities, 2002.
Is English Woods Worth Saving?The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) is actively seeking legal approval for its proposal to demolish all of the English Woods units (82 structures, or 702 rental units) except the new addition and Marquette Manor. Opposition to this proposal exists in the form of a lawsuit to prevent demolition initiated by the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati on behalf of English Woods residents. Meanwhile, HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) recently turned down CHMA’s English Woods’ demolition request. These obstacles, however, have not dampened CHMA’s determination to move forward with its plan to level most of the structures of this Public Housing Project .Do the English Woods structures need replacing? CMHA contends that its buildings and systems are obsolete. According to CHMA, it would cost more to repair the structures with the addition of new wiring and other necessities than to simply replace them. A physical assessment of the Project by a Legal Aid consultant rejects CHMA’s high rehabilitation price tag while reporting that the buildings are basically sound. Is English Woods worth preserving in its present form through rehabilitation? Legal Aid, with some research assistance from AIR and the Community Design and Development Center, contends that English Woods could, with rehab and program investment, continue as a viable family oriented residential community. The initial construction quality of the buildings was excellent, and the design of the community still works well. In fact, English Woods most resembles Mariemot and Green Hills, two other Greater Cincinnati planned communities that were constructed prior to the building of English Woods. In all three of these communities, a design balance was struck between various apartment sizes, and this factor has encouraged a progression for families from one bedroom to three or more bedroom units as families grew. All three communities have an emphasis upon common green space, playgrounds, recreation areas, and community centers. There is no apparent reason why this configuration that works so well in Mariemont and Greenhills could not once again support a thriving community in English Woods. A second concern is the distressing outcome which awaits English Woods residents should the entire complex be demolished. As a replacement for their current apartments, residents would receive federal Housing Choice Vouchers, which they could use to find other units in the Greater Cincinnati area. Research on a national level and locally reveals that “housing choice” is in large part an illusion because the choices are usually so limited. Recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers are most likely to end up in predominantly poor and predominantly African-American neighborhoods within five miles of English Woods. Residents also express concern that even if they find suitable replacement housing, additional living costs besides rent will create new economic hardships for them. From a planning perspective there are better alternatives than CHMA’s demolition proposal. A program of limited and selective demolition, some new construction, and unit rehabilitation that includes additional bedrooms and kitchen and plumbing modernization would go a long way toward establishing a sound physical infrastructure for English Woods. Add some services that enhance the social life and safety of the residents and you have the recipe for the renewal of English Woods into a stable, secure community. Meanwhile, the legal struggle over who will control the future of English Woods continues. |
