| Community Living Centers Donald S. Weiss
____________________________________________
555 W. 151 St., #26, N.Y.C., N.Y. 10031
Tel: (917) 923-2441 / Fax: (212) 283-6522
E-Mail: DWeiss5348@aol.com
CommunityLivingCenters.org; DSWeissPhotos.com; DSWeissWebSites.com Community Living Centers
A LONG TERM SOLUTION TO POVERTY (and HOMELESSNESS) America is at a crossroads. Most Americans have little confidence in our future and fear for our economic future. Most American cities are suffering huge budget deficits. America is becoming a country of rich and poor. This can change. How we deal with poverty is of utmost importance. Most American cities have huge populations of poor. We have become accustomed to this as we have no other alternative to poverty. My idea, I believe, would help us restore our cities, create an economic boom in America and give Americans hope that there is a better future. If it is estimated that there are 1 million poor people in NYC and each of them cost government(s) $50,000 per year to support, with the various social services, medical, etc. and these people were replaced by middle class and upper middle class (there would be the demand, but the Rent Stabilization law in NYC has "cemented in" NYC's population base at its lowest socio economic level), who generated $50,000 per year in tax revenue, by paying taxes and the flow of money spent, this would create an additional $1 trillion a year in revenue! In Los Angeles recently the City Council voted for a 50 year moratorium on the conversion of any hotel over a certain size (I read, I believe, that there are about 250 hotels that qualify) that house poor people to be converted unless alternative housing could be found for all the residents. Again, no alternative to poverty so the grand downtown hotels that once catered to a middle class and upper middle class tourist are relegated to poverty. Community Living Centers could provide the alternative. Maybe someday downtown LA could once again be attractive for the middle class.
Best Long Term Solution for Poverty and Homelessness -
A “Revolution” of our Social Service System
Community Living Centers (CLC’s) Philosophy: It does not make a lot of sense to take care of our poor ( and homeless in our most expensive real estate, our cities. We should take care of the bulk of this population in our least expensive real estate - rural America or cities that require revitalization (i.e. Buffalo, Detroit). The poor and the homeless have been housed and cared for in our cities because we have no other alternative for poverty. The Plan: CLC’s would be constructed to become towns and cities. Just the homeless population in America has been estimated at approximately 1 million - and there are about 30 million poor. I am not sure how many are in cities, but the L.A. Times recently reported that 40% of LA’s population is considered poor. CLC’s would: 1. Be geared toward teaching skills - if a person is capable of learning a skill. They could then work wherever they chose to.
2. Have profit oriented business that the members would be obliged to participate in - farming, manufacturing, cottage industries, call centers, etc. This will allow the member to be productive and to contribute to their own sustenance.
3. Members would help with communal cooking, child care, cleaning & maintenance.
4. Qualifying members would be allowed to buy their units with low interest government loans - let them build up equity also. 5. Become a venue for national community service - let our young people help lift up these two disenfranchised populations. Doctors in residence could spend time at CLC’s to help with the myriad of medical needs. 6. Be mandatory for new immigrants to:
A. Allow us to make sure they are not here to destroy us
B. Allow them to learn English
C. Teach them a skill, if needed.
D. Teach them about America 7. Be sponsored by wealthy American &/or Corporations - The Oprah Winfrey Community Living Centers - teaching “X, Y & Z” - later to be known as Oprah Winfrey, Illinois.
The Result: 1. America would take pride in properly taking care of, and directing, the homeless & poor. 2. The cost of their care would be greatly reduced as they would be almost self sufficient, hopefully. 3. Qualifying members would have a chance to own their own real estate and build up equity 4. Our great American cities would be allowed to return to havens for the middle class & upper middle class - we could choose the poor who would be “allowed” to live in our gentrified cities. 5. Massive economic growth would take place as we build CLC’s & refurbish our cities.
Respectively Submitted: Donald S. Weiss
February 19, 2008
DWeiss5348@aol.com
DSWeissWebSites.com HFRA-2-19-08 *********************************************************************** Community Living Centers A "Solution" to the Problem of Poverty and Homelessness in Los Angeles (and elsewhere). http://www.communitylivingcenters.org/ The problem of poverty and homelessness in Los Angeles, and most other American cities, has been unsolved thus far. It has been estimated by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty that there are between 700,000 and 2 million homeless people in America on any given night. I am not certain of the estimated number of homeless in L.A., but I did hear recently that there are about 18,000 homeless young adults and children in American and half of them are in Los Angeles. I believe the concept of Community Living Centers (CLC’s) would finally solve the problem of where to "house" the poor and homeless and how to deal with their problems to help them learn how to help themselves. My idea is that CLC’s would be built in very rural areas where land is cheap and where there would be little or no opposition to this development. CLC’s could be built, physically, by constructing small (200 sq. ft.) individual modular housing units with a bathroom and small kitchen or multi-family units. Some shared housing could also be built. CLC’s could house as many people as conditions dictate, as they may expand over time and even allow for the conversion to real towns with ownership of the "houses" encouraged. Each CLC would be geared toward teaching a specific skill - one that the person would like to learn or where there is a need in society for that skill, or if that person is not capable of learning a skill, each CLC would have a mechanism for the "member" to be productive - manufacturing, farming, cottage industries, etc. This would allow the member to be productive during the day and help contribute to their own sustenance. This is the way the Kibbutz in Israel was developed. Also, similar to the Kibbutz, each member would contribute to their own sustenance by doing cooking, cleaning, maintenance, child care, etc. The CLC would operate with a structure to allow for decisions to be made and for the CLC to function properly and be monitored. The CLC would, hopefully, give the member the skill level to get a job and live independently, if that is what they want. They may want to get a job and stay at the CLC. New development would occur on or near the CLC to be close to the new skilled labor pool. For example, could this allow for us to use our unemployed, and even homeless Americans, to become competent call center reps so we could give the employment to Americans (sorry, India). In addition, I would encourage a CLC to be named after a benefactor - personal or corporate. This name could continue if the CLC became a town. For example, Bill Gates might be interested in a Community Living Center for computer skills (I heard he was good at that!) and it could be know as the Bill Gates Community Living Center. And, if in time, it became a town, it could be Bill Gates, California. Not a bad way to be remembered (assuming the town flourishes). CLC’s could also be used as a way station for new immigrants that come to America. It would serve many functions: allow us to make sure that person is not here to destroy us; teach that person about America and to read and speak English (no more pressing #1 for English!); teach them a skill for employment. Illegal immigrants would be sent to an Illegal Immigrant CLC where it would be determined if they were to be made legal and sent to another CLC or deported. Although the problem of homelessness in America is huge, there is also a huge problem with poverty. We have become accustomed to accept that we take care of poverty in our cities. Since urban real estate is now in high demand, it does not seem like a good decision to deal with poverty and homelessness in expensive real estate. My original concept of the CLC was for the poor of America: to allow for a place for them to be, other than our cities, so they could learn a skill or be productive. This would also allow our American cities to become middle class again! I read that one third of the population of L.A. is considered poor. CLC’s could produce a degree of wealth in America by allowing the units to be purchased, with low interest government loans, etc., which would create real estate equity for those who were once poor! One major problem is how to deal with all the medical issues, both mental and physical, that will be encountered with this population base. I think the answer to require National Service at a CLC, which would include medical students. Some CLC’s would also "specialize" in dealing with people with medical problems and they would be at a facility that dealt specifically with the problem they had. CLC’s could also have a number of units for people who want to volunteer and become part of this "healing process" for America. Some people may choose to pay to live at the CLC. The CLC should allow for a greatly reduced cost to America for taking care of the poor and homeless as they will be productive, be earning money, and will help share in taking care of their own and other’s needs. My recent introduction to Kabbalah has given me the foundation to move forward with this idea and for this "presentation" to the City of Los Angeles. I believe the healing nature of Kabbalah would have an extremely positive impact on the future of this population that we will be taking responsibility for. Kabbalah’s existing programs, Technology for the Soul and Spirituality for Kids, have helped thousands in "grounding" themselves. Raising Melawe has been the single program to recognize the horror of poverty that exits there and to try to deal with it in a spiritual way for healing and personal progress. Respectfully Submitted: Donald S. Weiss http://www.communitylivingcenters.org/
April 29, 2007 DWeiss5348@aol.com
DSWeissWebSites.com *********************************************************************** The Homeless & Foreclosure Rescue Act of 2008
A SHORT TERM SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA Proposal: The Federal Government will strongly encourage, or oblige, banks to give a stay on foreclosure to those homeowners who are threatened to loosing their homes to foreclosure (not investors) in consideration for taking in a homeless person. A monthly stipend of $400 would be paid to the homeowner for food, etc. for the homeless person. Benefits: Solve 2 serious problems, at least in the short term. Better ability for social workers to follow up on homeless (and those who were loosing their home). It would help the national (& world) economy by reducing the number of foreclosures. Banks would favor this as they would not have to write down the losses from foreclosures. The homeowner & the homeless would be helping each other while also helping America! Shortfalls: Need homeowner, & homeless, to sign “Hold Harmless” Agreement. Will cost the government money. Estimate: If payment of $400 per month is paid for each homeowner and 100,000 homeless & property owners threatened with foreclosure take advantage of this program, the cost would be $480 million plus administrative costs. - a mere pittance compared to the $168 billion that George is having printed and is being given away! Trade Offs: Maybe in time the poor and homeless will get back on their feet and contribute to society and be able to work and the homeowner who did not loose their home will help stabilize the real estate, and mortgage, markets and should allow them some flexibility in remaining solvent
Respectfully Submitted:
Donald S. Weiss
June 29, 2007 DWeiss5348@aol.com
DSWeissWebSites.com |