Inside one community’s battle against environmental racism
St. James Parish in Louisiana — also known as “cancer alley” — is a textbook case of environmental racism, where toxic industry ends up near communities of color.
Research details the ‘rapid increase in homelessness’ in certain U.S. cities.
Adriana Belmonte January 14, 2019
Across some of the biggest U.S. cities, rent prices are continuing to rise for lower-income Americans. Meanwhile, an estimated 553,000 people experienced homelessness in 2018, according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data.
And a recent Zillow study — which estimated the number of homeless people in America to be closer to 661,000 — found a specific correlation between rent affordability and the rate of homelessness at a certain threshold: “Communities where people spend more than 32 percent of their income on rent can expect a more rapid increase in homelessness.”
Alexander Casey, a policy advisor on Zillow’s Economic Research team, explained to Yahoo Finance that “15% of the U.S. population lives in areas where a staggering 47% of the homeless population lives. And these are areas where rents are 29% higher on average than the rest of the U.S. And most of these communities are already past this 32% tipping point.”
High rent in America can contribute to a homelessness crisis. (Photo: Courtesy of Zillow)
New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle stand apart
Zillow researchers clustered different communities together based on “how they’re experiencing rising poverty rates, existing homelessness, homelessness rates, and declining affordability.” The places where people are most at risk of homelessness, according to the study, included New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Boston, “which all have crossed the 32 percent affordability threshold.”
The three U.S. cities with the most homeless people in 2018 were New York (78,676), Los Angeles (49,955), and Seattle (12,112), according to the most recent HUD data. A 2016 Wall Street Journal report highlighted that while overall homelessness in America was declining, the homeless population in these cities and others had risen rapidly since 2010.
Fashionistas pose for photographs in front of a homeless man outside Moynihan Station following a showing of the Rag & Bone Spring/Summer 2013 collection during New York Fashion Week September 7, 2012. (Photo: REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)
“We attribute a great majority of homelessness to rent affordability,” Megan Hustings, interim director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, told Yahoo Finance. She added that gentrification plays a big role in it, along with public housing developments in urban areas being torn down and the overall “continuous decline of affordable housing units.”
In June 2018, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received widespread criticism after an Associated Press analysis found that a proposed HUD plan would raise the rent of low-income tenants by about 20%. (Due to the ongoing government shutdown, HUD could not be reached for comment about public housing developments.)
An AP analysis that a 2018 proposal from HUD would have made the issue of high rent in America even worse, especially for children. (Graphic: AP)
High rent in America is a fact of life these days
“We’ve seen rent rising,” Casey said. “Why is that? Can we disentangle that? You start to realize the story of rent affordability and homelessness doesn’t read the same in every single community.”
Over the last five years, the U.S. median rent has risen 11%. As a result, renters earning the national median income have spent 28.2% of their earnings on a rental. According to Zillow, that is significantly “above the 17.7% that median-income households buying a typical home today spend on their monthly mortgage payment.”
When rent affordability exceeds 22%, according to the study, that leads to more people in that community experiencing homelessness. And any increase in rent affordability beyond 32% “leads to a faster-rising rate of homelessness — which could mean a homelessness crisis, unless there are mitigating factors within a community,” Zillow reported.
A good example, according to Casey, is in Houston, Texas. The researchers looked at trends in the city’s rising rent prices and chronic high poverty rates.
High rent in America can be relative to individual cities. (Photo: Courtesy of Zillow)
“You see that homelessness rates are significantly lower to similar peer communities in Houston,” Casey said. “The model helps identify Houston as an example as a place of: ‘Here’s other peer communities where national policy folks might want to start to look to see what lessons can be learned. What kind of policies are they implementing?’”
According to National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)’s Out of Reach 2018 report, a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 “needs to work approximately 122 hours per week for all 52 weeks of the year, or approximately three full-time jobs, to afford a two-bedroom rental home at the national average fair market rent.”
And, the report stated, in no state “can a worker earning the federal minimum wage or prevailing state minimum wage afford a two-bedroom rental home at fair market rent by working a standard 40-hour week.”
A group of homeless people sleep in the courtyard of the Midnight Mission in Los Angeles. Experts say high rent in America impacts certain cities differently. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
‘The problem is that there’s just so much poverty’
Although it may seem that raising the minimum wage is the solution to fixing this rent affordability issue, Casey argues that may not be the case.
“Los Angeles is a fascinating example,” Casey said. “In L.A., the rent affordability there is really off the charts, no matter how you measure it. Even if you’re a person in L.A. who’s earning the typical income, it’s going to be pretty stretched to afford even a modest-priced rental in that area.
Casey continued: “So what I think L.A. really speaks to is that even if you raised incomes for people that are the most vulnerable to becoming homeless to a significant degree, there just isn’t the availability of housing for them, where you might think in a different city, there are some cheaper rental options available. The problem is that there’s just so much poverty, so few resources, that even if there’s a place that wouldn’t require that much money’s rent every month, that money isn’t there.”
High rent in America can be relative. (Photo: Courtesy of Zillow)
‘The interconnected web of the housing market’
Casey, like Hustings, said that gentrification is a significant factor.
“When we think about gentrification, we think about displacement spillover from one area to the other,” Casey said. “As rent increases that outpaces someone’s income, they’re probably not the people that are going to be experiencing homelessness. They’re just going to rent at a cheaper price.
“But, the fact that data is available at the median and changes for the median income renter are predictive to homelessness rates is just a really powerful illustration of something I think a lot of people fail to recognize,” Casey said, “which is the interconnected web of the housing market. If changes to affordability is affecting someone at the median income level, they might restitute, replace, and bump people down further and further.”
Casey added: “Gentrification is a topic that illustrates how interconnected the rental market is, and that changes to rental prices to one person is kind of a trickle-down effect.”
‘Illustrative for policymakers to bring to Washington’
On an unseasonably cold day, a homeless person tries to stay warm at the entrance of a subway station near the White House in Washington January 20, 2016. High rent in America ultimately goes back to D.C. (Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
Casey concluded that there were several key takeaways from the report.
“This research has helped identify that it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and that each of these markets are dealing with very different types of problems,” he said. “In one market, there are things that need to be done in terms of increasing the supply of affordable housing because even with income-based subsidies, and even with vouchers or tenant support, there haven’t been the number of units to help house people.”
He continued: “In other places, there might be units available but they’re sub-standard and there needs to be substantial resources put to the rehabilitation of affordable housing stock. In other places, housing might be decently affordable relatively, and it’s a matter of providing vouchers or income subsidies to families. And still, in other places, there are a wide variety of these types of approaches. Flexibility can be implemented in more local solutions.”
As for the future, Casey hoped policymakers used this kind of research to tackle the nuance of the issue.
“This has helped be illustrative for policymakers to bring to Washington to show we might have different problems here than folks over here,” he said, “and we can shape responses accordingly.”
Did Trump keep his promise to revive the coal industry?
January 7, 2019
More coal-fired power plants have closed under President Trump than in Barack Obama‘s first term. Bill Weir travels to Pennsylvania for a #RealityCheck on the coal industry.
More coal-fired power plants have closed under President Trump than in Barack Obama's first term. Bill Weir travels to Pennsylvania for a #RealityCheck on the coal industry.cnn.it/2SBuxnU
As Trump crows about immigration in prime time, here are 7 facts about immigration in under 70 seconds. Help spread this video to combat Trump's barrage of lies.
Posted by Robert Reich on Tuesday, January 8, 2019
It was also a decent evening for The Fact-Check Industry. The Washington Post published a fact-check “cheat sheet” before the speech, which was useful and effective because it operated on the premise—based on a huge body of evidence—that the president would repeat his standard false claims about the situation at the border, and offered viewers a way to cope. Across the board, networks sought to assess the truth of the president’s claims right after he finished. CNN hosted the Toronto Star‘s Daniel Dale, the LeBron of the genre, in the immediate postgame to point out the reheated falsehoods he’d served up. This was better than trotting out Rick Santorum, whom CNN pays to defend the president no matter what he says or does. That came later.
But alas, the night was not immune to some of the structural issues afflicting The Media and its coverage of Our National Discourse.
AP Fact Check: Democrats put the blame for the shutdown on Trump. But it takes two to tango. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The Democrats refusal to approve the money is another.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump and the disputed border crisis
WASHINGTON (AP) — In his prime-time speech to the nation, President Donald Trump declared a border crisis that’s in sharp dispute, wrongly accused Democrats of refusing to pay for border security and… apnews.com
The impulse to grant Both Sides legitimacy in every single argument, regardless of whether their claims are tethered to reality, dies very hard indeed. Perhaps more accurately, the drive to avoid accusations of bias from the right is immortal. It is a simple fact that Donald Trump, American president, shut down the government. He said he was going to shut down the government:
David Mack: Trump gives the Democrats the best soundbite they could possibly hope for: “Yes, if we don’t get what we want…I will shut down the government. … I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.”
Never mind that a majority of Americans reject The Wall, and Trump campaigned on building it to combat a supposed “invasion” at the southern border in the 2018 midterms only to see his party to get trounced. He has no mandate to Build The Wall, yet he took the government hostage and demanded $5.7 billion to release it. In the AP’s assessment, the other side is equally responsible for refusing to pay the ransom.
Schumer and Pelosi deliver The Response. Getty Images/Nicholas Kamm
This intriguing logic was evident elsewhere. When Democrats took control of the House last week, they passed a funding bill very similar to the Senate Republican bill from December, though it split Homeland Security funding into a separate, stopgap bill. This would allow Senate Republicans to vote to reopen the government with assurance the border-security debate would be revisited in the shorter term. Some House Republicans voted with Democrats to pass it. In other words, this would have reopened the government largely on the terms initially agreed to by both sides before Trump threw a hissy-fit.
For the fact-checkers at NBC News, however, this was a “provocation:”
The facts: House Democrats did pass spending bills to re-open government as their first act upon taking control of the chamber. But the bills were more of a provocation than real legislation; Democrats knew they would not be taken up by the Senate or signed by Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms that any bill that didn’t have obvious support from the White House and Senate majority would not come to his floor for a vote.
“The Senate will not waste its time considering a Democratic bill which cannot pass this chamber and which the president will not sign,” McConnell said.
Notice how this entire thing is framed around the premise of Mitch McConnell’s statement, which might even not be true on the bare facts. If McConnell put the House bill up for a vote, is he positive that four Republicans wouldn’t vote with Democrats to pass it? Or is the risk that could happen the reason he refuses to put it up for a vote? NBC doesn’t ask this question—they accept his claim at face value, even though two Senate Republicans broke the line last week. As the president’s ally, McConnell does not want a bill to pass both houses of Congress without Wall funding, because then Trump will be forced to veto it and very clearly illustrate the reality of the situation: that the president is the one keeping the government shut down.
Getty ImagesPool
NBC is right that Democrats knew the bill they passed wouldn’t pass the Senate, but they were only sure of that because McConnell said he wouldn’t allow a vote on it. That doesn’t preclude the House bill from being “real legislation”: they passed a bill similar to one the Republican Senate had previously passed, and which Trump was ready to sign until the right-wing pundits came knocking on his TV screen with pitchforks.
Notice that this Fact-Check by a Neutral, Unbiased Media Referee is making value judgments on what’s “real legislation” and what’s a “provocation,” and framing the discussion based on the prerogatives of the Senate Majority Leader. It’s enough to make you wonder whether people who very closely follow current events form opinions about what’s happening, and those opinions at least subliminally impact how they discuss those events. To the extent being neutral and unbiased is possible, it is not always the same as being honest and fair.
Checking whether what any politician of any party says is true is a vitally important function of journalism, but it is not necessary to always find that Both Sides Are Fudging. In this case, it’s something of a performance, to show the Democratic response to Trump’s predictable parade of nonsense has also been Subjected to Scrutiny. It feels like an attempt to even the scales. After all, NBC fact-checked three more claims from The Response in that article. It found two to pretty much be accurate. In the fourth instance, NBC suggested Schumer’s characterization of The Wall as 30-feet high did not do justice to Candidate Trump’s inane ramblings, which sometimes put it as high as 65 feet. Is this serious? It’s hard to tell.
Elsewhere, The New York Timesdinged Schumer for suggesting the shutdown was hurting “millions of Americans,” as a Fact-Checker suggested only 800,000 federal workers have been furloughed. But Schumer didn’t say federal workers, he said Americans, and the Times‘ own reporting indicates he is probably right. Regardless, those 800,000 workers have families. It’s OK to say the president is more dishonest than other politicians. It’s the truth, and he and his allies will attack you either way.
President Trump will not answer any more questions from Mueller: Giuliani
By Karen Freifeld, Reuters January 9, 2018
By Karen Freifeld
(Reuters) – Lawyers for U.S. President Donald Trump have told special counsel Robert Mueller that he will not answer any more questions in the probe of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told Reuters on Wednesday.
Trump submitted written answers to questions from Mueller in late November. In an interview with Reuters, Giuliani said Mueller raised the possibility of follow-up questions but that the president’s outside legal team told the special counsel before Christmas that Trump would not respond.
Trump’s lawyers and Mueller’s team have had no contact since then, Giuliani said.
“As far as we’re concerned, everything is over,” Giuliani told Reuters. “We weren’t convinced they had any questions they don’t know the answer to.”
Giuliani said the ball was now in the special counsel’s court. “They could try to subpoena him if they want,” he said. “But they know we could fight that like hell.”
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to try to help Trump win.
Trump has denied any collusion with Moscow and Russia has said it did not meddle in the election.
Mueller was appointed in May 2017 to investigate the Russian interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. It is unclear when the probe, which has clouded Trump’s first two years in office, will end.
Trump answered Mueller’s campaign-related questions focused on Russia in November. However, Giuliani told Reuters at the time, he would not answer questions on whether he tried to obstruct the investigation once he won office, such as by firing former FBI Director James Comey.
In his latest interview, the president’s lawyer said it was time for the special counsel to issue his report. “Put up or shut up,” Giuliani said. “We challenge you to do it.”
When Mueller ends his investigation, he will send a report on his findings to the Justice Department. It is unclear if the report will be made public.
Since at least last summer, Trump’s legal team has been drafting a rebuttal in preparation for Mueller’s report. Giuliani said the team also was ready to respond to legal issues raised by the hush money paid to an adult film star and a former Playboy playmate before the 2016 election.
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced last month to three years in prison for crimes including orchestrating the payments in violation of campaign finance laws. When he pleaded guilty, Cohen said he was directed by Trump.
“We have a memo from a number of campaign finance experts that paying what they call hush money, since it has a personal purpose, is not considered a campaign contribution,” Giuliani said. “Therefore it’s not a violation of the campaign finance law.”
Giuliani said it is unclear to the legal team whether acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is now in charge of the investigation.
Rosenstein, who is preparing to leave his job soon after attorney general nominee William Barr takes office, has overseen the Mueller probe since former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in 2017.
(Reporting by Karen Freifeld in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
To understand Trump’s speech, look at the US-Mexico border as it exists today
By Johnny Simon
Donald Trump delivered a statement last night from the oval office, laying out his argument for funding a wall along the US’s southern border with Mexico. Funding for a wall has been the sticking point in federal budget negotiations and has led to the government being shut down for the past few weeks.
Rhetoric from the Trump administration around “border issues” has been growing more more dire and fearsome in recent weeks, despite a lack of factual basis for the supposed concerns. While it is true some people entering the country illegally climb over current fencing, sometimes in full view of photojournalists, the amount of crossings has been on the decline for years. That’s why Trump opponents have become louder and louder in pointing out the sheer ludicrousness of the wall. Even Trump’s visions for his proposed wall have changed over time. From the monolithic concrete vision he commissioned prototypes for, just last week the phrasing had shifted to, in his words, “a see-through wall made out of steel.” Those are often called “fences”—which already exist across much of America’s southern border.
The network of border barriers in its current incarnation covers over 650 miles of the U.S, stretching in portions through desert, towns, and ending in the sea.
REUTERS/EDGARD GARRIDO
A house stands next to a section of the border fence separating Mexico and the US, in Tijuana, Mexico in 2017.
AP PHOTO/RUSSELL CONTRERAS
A US Border Patrol agent drives near the US-Mexico border fence in Sunland Park, New Mexico in 2016.
AP PHOTO/CHRISTIAN TORRES
Sunland Park, New Mexico, is seen over the US border fence as a protestor finishes painting the Spanish slogan “Neither delinquents nor illegals, we are international workers” on the Anapra, Mexico side of the fence in 2016.
AP PHOTO/RODRIGO ABD
A farm located adjacent to the fence at the US-Mexico border in the Juarez valley, Mexico in 2017.
AP PHOTO/BRIAN SKOLOFF
An aerial photo of the border fence along the edge of Nogales, Arizona.
AP PHOTO/RODRIGO ABD
The border fence that divides Mexico and the US is seen in Tecate, Mexico in 2018.
REUTERS/MIKE BLAKE
US Border Patrol supervisor Robert Stine looks out over the border wall from the top of a hill near Jacumba, California in 2016.
AP PHOTO/DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA
Migrants looks for a place to jump the border fence to get into the US side to San Diego, California from Tijuana, Mexico in December of 2018.
AP PHOTO/DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA
Tijuana, Mexico, left, and San Diego, California, right, are seen separated by the US border fence.
AP PHOTO/REBECCA BLACKWELL
US Border Patrol vehicles are parked along a secondary fence as they respond to a group of Central American migrants crossing the border wall illegally, seen from across the wall in Tijuana, Mexico in 2018.
REUTERS/MIKE BLAKE
US border patrol agents on horseback patrol along the US Mexico border fence near San Diego, California in 2016.
REUTERS/JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ
A section of the US-Mexico border wall at Sunland Park, taken from the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, in 2016.
REUTERS/MIKE BLAKE
Three men jump the fence from Mexico and give themselves up to US border patrol agents in Calexico, California in 2017.
AP PHOTO/DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA
The border fence that extends onto the beach between San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico is reflected on a puddle of sea water as seen from Mexico on Jan. 3, 2019.
AP PHOTO/DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA
A bird stands on top of the border fence between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico on Jan 3, 2019.
This former official says the Trump admin is priming Americans for war with Iran — and he would know, since he helped George W. Bush do the same for Iraq
Complaints about fake Social Security calls up 1,000 percent
By Stephanie Zimmermann January 1, 2019
Federal officials report that at least $10 million has been stolen in 2018 by scammers posing as Social Security Administration employees. Shauna Bittle/Sun-Times.
Calls from scammers impersonating Social Security Administration officials threatening to take away benefits ballooned in 2018, with complaints increasing by almost 10 times.
About 35,000 consumers reported getting Social Security scam calls in 2018, up from 3,200 reports the previous year, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC released audio of one of the scam calls, in which a computer-generated voice claims a person’s Social Security account will be suspended “on an immediate basis as we have received suspicious trails of information in your name.”
It directs the victim to call a toll-free number immediately or face arrest.
In some versions of this scam, the con artist claims the person’s Social Security number has been linked to a drug or money laundering crime, or claims someone else has used the number to apply for a credit card.
The scammers ask the victim to confirm the number and send a fee to supposedly reactivate it or get a new number. Sometimes, the caller says the person’s bank account will be seized and offers instructions on how to withdraw the money and supposedly keep it safe.
Victims lose millions
As improbable as the scam may sound, the FTC says panicked victims have already lost $10 million just this year.
The scammers often spoof the real Social Security Administration’s phone number on the victim’s caller ID to make the con more believable, the FTC says.
The Social Security scam is similar to the fake IRS agent scam, which has hit taxpayers in recent years. In that scam, callers pretend they are from the IRS and say they need to collect back taxes.
The IRS says it will never call a taxpayer to demand immediate payment via a prepaid debit card, gift card or wire transfer – and it won’t threaten to have you arrested or deported, or have your driver’s license or business licenses taken away. If you owe taxes, the IRS will mail you a bill.
The FTC offers these tips:
Ignore the calls. Your Social Security number is not about to be suspended, and your bank accounts won’t be seized.
The Social Security Administration does not call people to threaten their benefits or demand money be wired or sent via cash or gift cards. Any such demand is a scam.
If you would like to speak to the Social Security Administration, you should make the call yourself to their real number, (800) 772-1213. (Be aware that scammers calling you can spoof this number on your caller ID.)
Never give out your Social Security number (even the last four digits) or your bank account number or your credit card number to someone who contacts you out of the blue.
Federal officials report that at least $10 million has been stolen in 2018 by scammers posing as Social Security Administration employees. Shauna Bittle/Sun-Times.