Thousands are being deported without a chance to appear before an immigration judge.
One and done
If a CHA resident is arrested one time, the tenant is sent to eviction court. But a Chicago Reporter analysis found that the policy separates families and ousts some who were never convicted of breaking the law.
Jessica Moore and her six children were sent packing when the Chicago Housing Authority evicted the entire household based on her boyfriend’s arrest for a $12 bag of marijuana. Photo by Jason Reblando.
Jessica Moore showed up at the Daley Center, shaken and without a lawyer. She had a bad feeling about how things might play out in court.
A lawyer hired by a company that manages Chicago Housing Authority properties approached her. She followed him into courtroom 1302 and was ushered into a small conference area tucked away in the corner. A steady stream of eviction cases were called at the bench as they talked.
The CHA wanted to cut a deal: If she agreed to move out, the agency would let her and her six children stay seven days.
Moore balked.
“I’ll take it to trial,” she told him.
Moore, 39, is just one of hundreds of low-income residents the CHA has taken to eviction court for violating the agency’s one-strike policy during the past six years. The rule is part of a set of national guidelines created in 1996 to make public housing developments safer by ridding them of people who commit crime.
But there was a problem. Moore was no criminal.
When the national policy was drafted, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development empowered local housing authorities to tailor their own one-strike rules for best rooting out criminal activity as long as it was relevant to the peace and safety of its residents.
By the CHA’s standard, all arrests are subject to one-strike. As a result, tenants have lost their homes over nonviolent offenses, including shoplifting and marijuana possession.
The CHA had also chosen to evict leaseholders under one-strike for crimes committed by their children and anyone living in the unit, even if the crime occurred on property not owned by the CHA. Tenants are also culpable if their guests commit a crime on CHA property.
A new Chicago Reporter analysis found that from 2005 to 2010 the CHA opened 1,390 one-strike cases. The vast majority of them—86 percent in 2010—had nothing to do with the primary leaseholder.
When people were arrested, the person named on the lease was automatically summoned to eviction court, a civil matter, even though the criminal court cases were still pending in many instances.
If the CHA had considered how those cases played out in criminal court, it would have discovered that more than half of the defendants were found not guilty, their cases were thrown out or they were never prosecuted, the Reporter analysis found. Instead, one in three tenants whose criminal cases were tossed out or ended with a “not guilty” verdict, had their entire household evicted or moved out without a fight, the analysis shows.
CHA lawyer Scott Ammarell said that his agency takes an across-the-board approach to pursuing a one-strike eviction policy, regardless of the severity of the charges.
“If we get an arrest report and the charge on the arrest report is an offense that will end somebody’s eligibility to continue to receive a subsidy from the federal government, we pursue it,” he said.
It’s a policy that newly elected Mayor Rahm Emanuel appears to stand by. The mayor’s office declined an interview but issued a statement that said, “The Chicago Housing Authority has an obligation to provide the 30,000 individuals who currently reside in public housing with affordable and safe housing. The safety of CHA residents, its children and families as well as its neighbors is a top priority.”
Some critics say that the evictions are not only too harsh, but also premeditated. Earlier this year, the CHA demolished the last of its 51 high-rise public housing buildings. It was part of the agency’s Plan for Transformation. Eligible residents will get new units in mixed-income neighborhoods or subsidies to move into the private rental market. By barring many from public housing, some speculate that the CHA can avoid having to move them into replacement units, which are currently in short supply.
The Reporter’s analysis found that the number of one-strike cases across the city increased sharply in CHA developments where demolition was eminent. Cabrini-Green, Harold Ickes, Henry Horner and the ABLA housing developments accounted for more than a third of all one-strike cases in the past six years. Combined, those four developments accounted for more than half of all public housing units demolished during that time.
A large number of one-strike evictions have occurred in the new mixed-income communities, which replaced traditional public housing in gentrifying neighborhoods in the Near North, Near South and Near West sides. It’s in those same mixed-income communities that residents’ ability to fight one-strike evictions has been weakened the most.
One-strike cases are the only type of public housing eviction where tenants have no chance to file a grievance or request an internal hearing. Their only shot at beating the case is in civil court.
But most CHA tenants can’t afford a lawyer. And they can face long odds at winning the case—even with a legal defense. Meanwhile, in the spring, the CHA attempted to revoke its “innocent tenant” clause, residents’ main avenue for fending off evictions in the courtroom.
The clause gives the head of household—the person who was not arrested, even if someone in their household was—a chance to plead their innocence and protect the housing unit for the rest of the family who wasn’t involved in the crime.
The CHA’s proposal to revoke the clause was quashed in late June after public uproar. But the defense is becoming a moot point in most of the newest one-strike cases because the private developers hired to create mixed-income communities aren’t required to consider culpability in pursuing an eviction. That’s because the innocent tenant defense is not written into the lease agreement that tenants in the privatized developments are required to adhere to. Meanwhile, the number of one-strike cases continues to climb in these developments.
“We know the game,” said Shannon Bennett an organizer with the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, which has been an outspoken critic of the policy for more than a decade. “These policies are intended to push people out.”
1230 N. Burling St. | Photo by Jon Lowenstein.
No community has experienced more one-strike cases than Cabrini-Green.
The CHA had 74 public housing developments sprawled across the city. Yet, roughly one in five of the one-strike arrests involved Cabrini residents.
A decade ago, nearly 13,000 people lived in the Near North Side public housing community, which was anchored by 1230 N. Burling St. and seven other decaying concrete towers.
Today, the buildings are all gone; some have been replaced by mixed-income homes, apartments and condos. Many of the new residents of the area are increasingly white and college-educated, and just 444 of the units there are for public housing.
Moore moved in when she was 23.
Her paychecks never came close to covering rent in the private market. So for more than a decade, she and her children squeezed into a two-bedroom Cabrini-Green apartment at 624 W. Division St.
When a four bedroom at 1230 N. Burling St. opened in 2005, she and her children—whose ages at the time ranged from 1 to 13—jumped at the chance to spread out. She had just quit her job as a cashier at a Walgreens and enrolled in classes part-time at Robert Morris College working toward a business degree.
She crossed paths with her boyfriend Ricky Dyer not long after moving in. Dyer had a history with Cabrini. He was born in 1983 and grew up in the development. As a teenager, he earned a reputation as a drug dealer and was given the nickname “Rickdog.” By the time he was 20, he was convicted of selling drugs. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts and was sentenced to one year in prison.
Once he got out, Dyer moved back in with his mom and steered clear of major trouble, but he had a few run-ins with police. He was arrested for trespassing and public drinking, but both cases were tossed out.
Around that time, he and Moore began dating.
By 2009, their neighborhood had changed dramatically. Moore’s building was one of the last two Cabrini-Green high-rises left standing. Her building sat to the far left of a rusting gate that served as the official, but least used, entrance to the 15-story buildings known as “the whites” for their pale concrete exterior.
The other 21 mid- and high-rise buildings had been knocked down by the wrecking ball and replaced with red-brick townhomes with lush shrubs, flawless concrete and quaint names, like North Town Village. Police were brought in to pay special attention to Burling Street, which was one of the last corners of the neighborhood occupied exclusively by public housing residents.
Under an agreement with the CHA, the agency and the Chicago Police Department freely exchanged arrest information. The two agencies signed off on the pact in 2000. If someone with a public housing address was arrested, or an arrest was made on the CHA’s property, police automatically passed along the police report to the CHA.
Burling residents became suspicious when police began showing up by the dozens. Moore knew that all it took was a single arrest to open a criminal-activity eviction. No conviction was required. No internal investigation was launched. And Moore knew from experience that the cops patrolling her building rarely flinched at throwing cuffs on her neighbors.
“The police would come into the building each day either knocking into somebody’s apartment or grabbing guys downstairs,” Moore said.
Arrests climbed as demolition of the building inched closer. Burling began to empty quickly. In the fall of 2010, only 39 of the building’s 134 units were occupied. During the last 20 months that the 1230 N. Burling St. building was occupied, 19 households were hit with a one-strike eviction. The leading cause for arrest was misdemeanor marijuana possession.
Moore had a love-hate relationship with the police. On one hand, she feared them because she knew that her eldest son, Devonte, was becoming a troublemaker. At 16, he’d already been in and out of rehab after getting arrested for drugs.
While many of Moore’s neighbors did their best to avoid the police, she saw them as her last hope for reining in Devonte. He was hardheaded.
“I couldn’t tell him anything,” she said. She appealed to a couple of trusted cops known around Cabrini as “Eddie Murphy” and “Babyface” for their help. “I told them, ‘Stop him if he’s selling drugs. I don’t want to get put out.’”
Nothing prepared Moore for the morning of Sept. 25, 2009, when a team of 19 officers busted down her front door just after 8 a.m. as her children slipped on their shoes and backpacks on their way out to school.
For two hours, the officers picked through Moore’s four-bedroom apartment, finding $48 worth of marijuana stashed on a shelf in Devonte’s bedroom. During a pat down, a dime bag of cannabis, worth $12, was recovered from Dyer’s right shorts pocket. He was charged with misdemeanor pot possession.
Within days of the raid, Moore got her notice that her lease would be terminated.
The Reporter found that a growing number of families have similarly faced eviction based on low-level, misdemeanor charges. More than 70 percent of the one-strike cases involved drug possession; less than 10 percent were attributed to the drug dealing that one-strike was created largely to address.
A growing number of these cases are based on low-level crimes. In 2005, 40 percent of all one-strike arrests involved a misdemeanor charge. By 2010, that figure had grown to 76 percent, the Reporter found. A disproportionate number of those arrests involved black teens and men living in the two rapidly gentrifying Chicago wards, the 2nd and 27th, which have flipped from being majority black to racially mixed over the past decade.
Alderman Walter Burnett, whose 27th Ward includes Cabrini where he grew up, chalked up the spike in arrests in the area to the increased pressure city officials, the CHA and police face from new homeowners.
“Just look at 1230 Burling,” Burnett said. “Those [neighbors] complained about the building every day. Every day. Why? Because they wanted the building down. Why did they want the building down? One, because they thought it was affecting their property values.”
Elizabeth Rosenthal | Photo by J. Geil.
Moore fought for her apartment for six months. When her trial date finally came, police testified about Dyer’s pot possession. She lost, and a judge gave her and her children seven days to move.
“I’m like, ‘Where I’m gonna go with six kids?’” she asked.
In a gesture of mercy, Moore said, the CHA extended her move-out date to 60 days.
Cook County Sherriff’s police hauled the last bit of broken furniture out of her apartment on June 30, 2010. Nine months later, the Burling high-rise was demolished.
What happened to Moore, Burnett said, runs counter to what the CHA is given millions in federal anti-poverty dollars each year to do: stabilize families.
“CHA should be thinking about how to keep people in those apartments. They should be advocating toward helping people to keep their places, not finding ways to put them out,” said Burnett, who was convicted of armed robbery, a felony, at 17 when he was joy riding with friends in Kankakee. “Everybody deserves a second chance.”
In June, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan issued a letter reminding housing authorities that there are only two types of people who are prohibited from living in public housing: methamphetamine producers and registered sex offenders. “[E]vidence of rehabilitation or evidence of [a] family’s participation in or willingness to participate in social services such as counseling programs should be considered,” Donovan wrote.
CHA officials, however, point to a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2002 that upheld a California housing authority’s right to evict an Oakland woman although she wasn’t responsible for the crime that got her evicted under one-strike.
Still, even within the CHA, the importance of arrest histories is inconsistent. Arrests alone, for example, don’t preclude applicants from joining the agency’s housing waiting list, which currently has roughly 40,000 names.
Ultimately, HUD cedes to housing authorities the power to draft policies that protect the safety and well-being of their residents. But under the Obama administration, the agency isn’t quick to endorse them.
“Housing authorities tend to point the finger at HUD, saying [one-strike] is a federal policy,” HUD spokeswoman Donna White said. “We leave it to them to use discretion.”
As Linda Couch, senior vice president for policy with the National Low Income Housing Coalition sees it, “Both HUD and local agencies play both sides when it serves their purposes.”
The Chicago-based Legal Assistance Foundation negotiated an innocent tenant defense back in the mid-1990s to help soften Chicago’s one-strike policy. Because private firms own the new mixed-income communities, they aren’t bound to the defense. But the number of new one-strike cases is becoming more prevalent in those areas. For example, in the Westhaven Park community, which replaced the Henry Horner Homes on the Near West Side, 41 percent of all one-strike cases in the past six years occurred in 2010 alone.
As far as lawyer Elizabeth Rosenthal is concerned, the innocent tenant defense is the only avenue public housing residents have to defend themselves. “Otherwise, CHA operates with no discretion in these cases,” she said.
It’s particularly important because in 84 percent of the eviction arrests, the primary leaseholder wasn’t responsible for the criminal activity, the Reporter’s analysis found.
The CHA’s expectation is that tenants who successfully evoke the defense will end up barring the person they describe as the “bad actor.” Typically, the rest of the family is allowed to stay under the condition that the person barred will never return to CHA property. One slip, and the deal is broken with no chance for appeal, even if the person barred is the tenant’s own child.
Moore found an apartment in West Englewood. Her family squeezed into the two bedroom for six months until the building went into foreclosure.
People suggested she move into a transitional housing shelter until she could get back on her feet. But she feared Devonte, who’s now 18, would have been pushed into an adult shelter and that her 17-year-old daughter would be next.
“I’m not leaving my kids,” she said. “My kids are my life.”
Moore maxed out her student loans—taking out $8,000 last fall—to cover the rent in her current two-bedroom in Avalon Park on the South Side. Three children sleep in a sunroom filled with garbage bags full of clothes that were soiled by a leak in the first apartment. There’s mold in the kitchen and a hole in the bathroom ceiling where water gushes in from time to time. There’s no washing machine, so she sometimes washes the family’s clothes by hand.
Moore’s rent is now $750 a month—a far cry from the $72 a month she paid at Cabrini-Green. “Plus I have to pay the gas bill,” she said. “Plus the light bill.”
After six years, Moore and Dyer are still together. Finding permanent work has been tough, though. He’s handy and has been able to pick up odd janitorial jobs.
Moore has also turned to the state for welfare through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families fund, which she hadn’t done in nearly two decades. It brings in another $555 a month.
“I felt I didn’t want it or need it before. I was working,” she said. “But now it’s really hard to find a job. And I really don’t want to quit school. I’m at the door of my associate’s degree.”
Meanwhile, her children catch a train and a bus to get to the same North Side schools they went to while living on Burling Street. “I didn’t want to switch schools because I didn’t know if I was going to be moving,” Moore said.
Two are at Suder Montessori, which she describes as a good magnet school. Her two youngest boys attend Jenner, the neighborhood school closest to Cabrini-Green. And her eldest daughter is going to be a senior at Lincoln Park High School this fall. In one more year, she’ll be off to college.
Both Moore and her daughter are trying to stay positive and think of college as their best chance to open new doors. When her daughter starts stressing about tuition and considers downgrading her plans to community college, Moore pushes her.
“I’m like, ‘No, you’re going to go out of Chicago,’” Moore said. “I want her to get a good education so she can go wherever she wants to go.”
Dylan Cinti, Alexis Pope, Caitlin Huston and Louis McGill helped research.
acaputo@chicagoreporter.com
Wow.
Where do I begin? Great program for starters. Finally people are being held accountable for their actions and a lifetime of bad decision making. The morals of the story are, STOP HAVING KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD. DON'T QUIT YOUR JOB, WHEN YOU HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO MAKE ANY MONEY. STOP DOING/DEALING DRUGS. If Dyer is so handy, why doesn't he fix any of the things that are afflicting them right now? What are you going to do with an Assoc deg. in business when kids with full degrees cant get jobs? Her daughter SHOULD go to community college. it's cheaper and is better in case she decides college isn't for her.
ALSO, Alderman Burnett took part in an armed robbery at a Kankakee savings and loan at the age of 17. He served two years in prison for his role in the crime. NOT JOYRIDING IDIOT.
My final thought is, why do we try to continue this mixed-income housing debacle. It doesn't work, for the simple fact that it makes no sense for one person to pay full price, while drug-dealing Devontae lives next door for free. And for the people worried about their property values, YOU BASTARDS!!! HOW DARE YOU WORRY ABOUT YOUR SINGLE BIGGEST INVESTMENT AND MAIN OPTION TOWARDS BUILDING WEALTH?
You are disgusting.
You are scum. I am a law abiding, republican citizen of these fine United States. I am caucasian, work in Radiology as a head mammography technologist, and I own my home. I have 3 children, two of which who go to private school, one is two. In my life, I would never once in all my thoughts wish a child to be homeless. How DARE you spew your hatred and stupidity in an attempt to bring this woman down. People who can afford to pay for their homes, sure should be paying! A CHILD, to a mother who is attempting to turn her life around should not be subject to life on the streets due to a sense of entitlement and arrogance. You are a pig! America is surely no place for you, with your flawed thoughts that this country is a picket-fenced epitome of the fifties, with Ms. Cleaver delivering her working husband a meatloaf dinner each and every night! America is a melting pot of all different circumstances and people. You have NO authority to cast judgment on these struggling families when you yourself are the number one enemy of this fantastic country. To be quite blunt sir, you can fuck yourself. I DO NOT use that language lightly, but in a situation where a 32 year old American woman who works in her community to help those in need sees the egotistical and belligerent filth, those unnecessary blots on our country's landscape, is absolutely enraging.
wow ouch
i had my whole response wiped out on accident. Darn it, some good stuff too. anyway, here it is in a nutshell. I think you are full of shit. I don't think you are who you say you are. Your response is all over the place. I understand. You were just blinded with rage at my "sense of entitlement? and arrogance?" America is EXACTLY the place for me. I'm the perfect example of hard work paying off. I know little of the 50's since I'm nowhere near that old but did watch The Beaver from time to time. That's good wholesome TV for ya. I could not eat meatloaf every night by the way. Also, I have EVERY right to cast judgement on whoever I want! This is life AND America, where I can think and say whatever I want. You're funny. I'm so glad I got to be the first person to get the whole discourse started. Take your "white guilt" and shove it up your ass.
what is this 'white guilt' nonsense?
I believe we were discussing the legality of what the CHA is doing, not whether Pocahontas is supposed to make people feel bad about themselves while offering a path to redemption. So white people never need section 8? Other races are excluded from drug use, illegal search and seizure and never have their constitutional rights trampled? Awesome, I shall spread the word.
Guilt
YOURE the one who introduced race by stating you're caucasian right off the bat. Now why would you do that? Is it by stating that you're caucasian, black readers can feel better knowing that "enlightened" white people are out there, and they are with them in their struggle. That's white guilt. You could have just made your point. Stating that you are white, AND a Republican no less, is completely unnecessary. Lots of people need help now and then, but but being a career welfare recipient, be it through tuition, housing, food, healthcare etc. makes you nothing more than a drain on society.
workers
I agree. I cant afford to have children so i don't have them. I don't expect tax payers to pay for my mistakes. I work two full time jobs to pay my bills and don't expect hand outs from the government or taxpayers.
wow AGAIN
from reading the comments, it seems most of the people agree with me on this one. so there.
Oh of course!
I like how you have the ability to see through cyberspace and miraculously see who I am, what I've done with my life, and "out", me to the public. Charming.
No dearie, you are mistaken, on many things;
First of all, even IF the majority of the WORLD agreed with you, something that is wrong, is wrong. Since you're so jaded to be "set in your ways," as an early twenties anglo-saxon male I THINK, then please grace all of us with your supreme intellect and tell me what part of depriving children from homes and splitting broken homes further is beneficial to ANYONE.
Shall we face it? You're heartless and cruel; and that's just pathetic. You are a disgrace. You are a pig. You are filth. If anyone in this entire scenario needs to be deprived of basic rights, let's save future generations from such insipid thoughts and have YOU put to sleep...
I am hard, no doubt
why is "set in your ways" in quotes? early 20's white guy, wrong again but getting closer. These kids have a home and have always had a home. Let's face it, living with mom has gotten these kids to this point. We won't even discuss where any of the dad's are. Maybe living with someone else might give them a chance. THAT may seem cold, but you can't ignore the practical nature of things and that is, mom ain't getting the job, try as she may. She is not equipped to raise 6 kids on her own. The boyfriend, whatever his name is, will be gone, sooner or later, not that he's producing much anyway.
A roof over your head is NOT a basic right. People at some point realize that if they are to survive, they need to find a way to support themselves. Go to school, get a job, work hard all the while, and you'll have everything you need to make it. You can still do all that and fail, but that's usually due to the individuals lack of discipline in some area. maybe booze, gambling, whatever.
Have ME put to sleep? Without me, and people like me, and people who think like me, there would be NO TAXES PAID to support all this bullshit. Be careful what you wish for.
Convoluted thinking
Anonymous you are so angry that you are boarding on prejudice and I think that is what many respondants are reacting to. I am an ex Robert Taylor housing resident. I hold a master's degree and I work. I can attest to how hard it is to raise a son alone. I am a single mother. I did not plan to be a single mother. I have two children by the same father. I was going to get an abortion with my first child and my ex begged me not to and promised to help support them and offered marriage. We fought alot. I realized we were getting married just for the child and declined his offer. So I can relate to what the mother was going through. I do feel that something has to be done about wayward youth. The youth need to be taken in hand. Many do not respect the opinions to the women who are raising them and have abandonment issues due to the lack of male influence. Youth who jeopardize the living situation of the family should be made to join a program where they give back, like vlounteering in positions that help to offset the budget. They can get work experience and the city gets non paid labor. These positions could eventually flex into lasting positions. Give solutions with criticisms.
me not, this was not
me not, this was not racist.
tenant referencing
me not, this was not
me not, this was not racist.
tenant referencing
Re: Wow
Thank you-- I absolutely I agree with you on this one. Reading this article, I felt nothing for this selfish woman who decides to have SIX children! Why would anyone with common sense decide to have kids when they can barely support themselves? I am a 35 yr. old college educated woman living in Los Angeles working as an Advertising Executive-- I would not even want to raise kids on my salary that is considered high by standards. However, the normal person would want the best for their child and therefore think about it financially before attempting to have children. This is very low class and selfish of this woman to just live off tax payer's money just because she wanted to have kids. Really? Move to the jungle in Africa and start your own village if you want to continue to breed! Sickening!
All of u r ignorant everyone
All of u r ignorant everyone needs help what about when your government is stealing money from taxpayers so what she have kids do that make her a bad person u really need help and so what u have a job any one is bound to fall in hit there head anytime
HUH?
Sounds like you hit your head already.
huh?
you also probably hit your head by hammer :)
tenant referencing
why do we try to continue this mixed-income housing debacle
My final thought is, why do we try to continue this mixed-income housing debacle. It doesn't work, for the simple fact that it makes no sense for one person to pay full price, while drug-dealing Devontae lives next door for free. And for the people worried about their property values, YOU BASTARDS!!! HOW DARE YOU WORRY ABOUT YOUR SINGLE BIGGEST INVESTMENT AND MAIN OPTION TOWARDS BUILDING WEALTH?
This garbage happens all over the us.
yeah, welcome to life in
yeah, welcome to life in Burnett's ward.
wealth building by home
wealth building by home ownership? lol!
but of course...
home ownership is expensive. You are a silly goose for thinking that is the easiest way. And sillier still for blaming section 8 for more home depreciation than the financial crisis of '08. Here I thought homes were for living in, have we been doing it wrong!
Eviction may sound like a harsh consequence
This eviction scenario sounds harsh; however, it is a testament to the growing impatience of society with unbridled crime and the refusal of parents, grandparents and other caregivers to take responsibility for their own children. It says that we MUST raise our children or face the consequences of having limited housing choices. No one wants to live next door to drug dealers- even if they are only pushing low level drugs. The bottom line is that if you decide to have kids- one or ten- make sure you are prepared to raise them to be responsible, law abiding citizens. And- have some standards when you pick your boyfriends.If you don't - you end up just another Ms. Moore. I trust her daughter has learned a valuable lesson and will complete college and make responsible child rearing and partner choices when the time comes.
Interesting
Considering that low level drugs are trafficked unfortunately all over the country, in projects and multi-million dollar mansion, drugs are every where. They can be in your own home without you even knowing, not matter how you raise your children.
I have an idea
Take control of your kids, don't let them commit crimes.
You are 100% correct.
?
You can blather as much as you like about not 'letting' your kids commit crimes, but you cannot prevent them from messing up. It is part of growing up. even the most straight laced kid will do something of questionable legality or moral fiber while growing into being an adult. It is a process, not a switch.
The parents cannot prevent their children from committing a second offense if on the first one they have to choose between being homeless and having a sliver of a chance at teaching their children to respect a system that doesn't care about them and kicking them out permanently no matter their age. Isn't that illegal, ps? Kicking out a child before 18 is against the law, yet for some reason this rule expects it....
blather ...?
" but you cannot prevent them from messing up."
-Not fit to have kids in the first place.
It is part of growing up. ''
-Obviously, for you and your kids. I guess thats just the way you choose to raise them.
Please keep your kids away from my kids.
Sure.
A) I do not have any kids,
B) my observations are based upon that, observations. Are you claiming you never got into trouble before you reached 18? You would be the first I have ever heard of then. Well, at least I would have heard of whose parents loved them enough to care what you did. There would not be books and books and books on how to parent if children sprang forth fully cognizant of their actions and right and wrong. There is scientific proof that teenage brains are still not fully developed even physically.
Not getting into trouble is not a sign of excellent parenting. The phrase 'acting out' exists for a reason. Oh and 'free will'. Speaking as one who has never been arrested and has nothing worse than student loans and a few speeding tickets to speak of, I can also say I have had to sleep in my car more times than I can recall...which is illegal in many areas. Does this point to excellent parenting, abuse, or that I really am just a rapscallion who is doomed to leech of society indefinitely? Please do tell me so I can plot my life accordingly since you obviously are an excellent parent o'mysterious internet stranger.
C) yes, yes I did use the word blather. It is appropriate for the nonsensical streaming of words some people seem to be barfing up on here. I was led to this thread through a news update for teachers I receive. I took that to mean there would be a greater appreciation for logic, equality, etc. My apologies.
More than just $12 of pot
I see by reading the story it is not the first time there has been trouble within the household. Her son Devonte has been arrested for drug dealing. This woman has been milking the system popping one kid out after another. She paid $72 for rent??? Than she blows $8,000 that she got for a 2 year associate degree. Oh please.
Why should the CHA try to "think of ways" to keep these families together when they give no thought about it when they commit armed robbery, drug dealing or drug abuse. Decent families don't have children they can't afford to feed, clothed and shelter. Why should taxpayers pay for this crap, where are the fathers of these children? do they work?
You're right, it's the ability to live.
"Decent families don't have children they can't afford to feed, clothed and shelter"
So by your definition my family isn't 'decent'.
My mother is battling stage 3 systemic neurosarcoidosis. If you don't know what it is, google it. And while you are using the amazing power of the internet, maybe you want to research what real life is actually like. My family struggles week to week. My mom is sick but still working part time. I go to school to get my teaching degree full time, while working 3 different part time jobs. I help take care of my 3 younger sisters, who low and behold, need to receive waived school fees and free lunches because we spend upward of $3,000 a month on medicines alone because the vast majority of the things they are using to save her life are not generic. Our house is in foreclosure. No, there is not some benevolent father figure about to swoop in. Let's look at criminal neglect, absenteeism and worse, then decide whether to start saying they would be a better choice, hmmm?
So how many kids do you have? Do you know exactly what every family being evicted has gone through? There is always a story. The percentage of people 'milking' the system is a lot smaller than the percentage of heartbreak that leads to using the system in the first place.
YEAH RIGHT
Your are so concerned with the fathers, how about where is the WORK for the fathers. If some of you trash talking whites would be in the same place things would be different. JUST LIKE WE NOW HAVE TEA PARTY Republicans. Just when a Black man is elected President. How ironic is that.
So go spew your hate and stupidity on something else. BET you your paycheck if you cut out all the welfare programs (Food stamps, WIC, Housing, & TANF) this country would still be broke. Why, because nobody wants to pay more taxes. REMEMBER you get what you pay for.
WORK????
GO FIND WORK YOU LAZY BASTARD!!! There was a time when people would drive to any part of the country for a job. Not just sit on the porch, look around and say "oh well, no work here." Dig a ditch, find a house that needs a fence rebuilt, do something. White people were never poor? Everyone came to this country with pockets full of money you ignorant moron? No they got off a boat and went right to work. They did what they were good at, or learned something new. They didn't sit around and demand that the gov't give them a job, a house and put food on the table. The TEA PARTY exists due to this Presidents horrible policies. There is nothing "ironic" or conspiratorial about it. Stop using race as an excuse for all of your "communities'" failings. There are racists in this world no doubt, but most people are just trying to get by, not figuring out the grand scheme to fuck the black man.
People don't want to pay more in taxes, because they are sick of watching it get mismanaged, given away or flat out stolen. You fucking idiot.
workers
Wish working familes could pay only $72.00 a month for rent and then have a quest card that pays out another $400.00 a month for food. That is a dream for working familes to go to work and be able to pay all their bills and afford to pay for the poor people at the sametime. Better yet how about the poor people pay their own bills and not live off of the middle class workers. I am a educated middle class worker who paid for my education thru hard work and now pay my way thru hard work. I never got a free hand out from government or taxpayers. Basically you should only do what you can afford to pay for in the first place if you can't afford to pay for it then you shouldn't have it. To think it is ok to have kids when you have no job and no income on how to pay for them, then you should not have kids.
Who are you to judge?
I am mildly disgusted that the comments I am seeing having nothing to do with the heart of this article, which is the discrepancy between the percentage of one strike cases and who and where these people were. So you are perfectly comfortable with the younger children in this example family living in unhealthy conditions, having to face educational instability and the choice between being a family or having a roof? No one feels a twinge of injustice that families are getting ripped apart over offenses that in many cases are not convictions, or are dropped when the juvenile's case is sealed when they reach adulthood. Gotcha. You know I might rather have the low level drug using neighbors that care about family and value self betterment than neighbors who only care for how much a plot of space is going to be worth in an indeterminate amount of time. These people knew where they were moving, hearing that they have every right to evict the group of socioeconomically challenged people THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE LIVING WITH is repulsive. I sincerely hope that none of you judging ever have need for the public aide you are so eager to revoke from others.
Let's be honest
Becky is born in the suburbs by no choosing of her own and sells her adderall to her classmates everyday. However, there are no police knocking on her parents door on a regular basis to catch her up. I have seen more surburban kids from "good" homes come through our doors (I work in a rehab facility) than I have lower income youth. And you know why? Cause mommy and daddy can afford to sweep their little drug abusing criminal under the rug. Let's not pretend that people with money don't commit crimes; the reality is that the police presence in there neighborhoods are not there for the same reasons. Even when these children commit b&e in their own communities, they are often times able to escape prosecution or given rehab as an alternative to jail. They used Ms. Moore as an example, but what about people who AREN'T convicted. Its just too bad for them, huh? Its always amazing to me how people separate themselves based on class, but the moment there's a terrorist attack, everyone's an "american" and equality abounds. Do people really still think that they can control the actions of another human being? My parents neither drank nor smoke; I enjoy wine and an occassional ciggy - is this a reflection of their parenting? No its a matter of choice but it didn't make me any less their child just like Becky's pill dealing coke snorting behind. Lets dig the log out of our OWN eyes before pointing out the splinter in another's.
BECKY'S Parents are SUPPORTING HER ITS DIFFERENT
I get your point but that is an apples to oranges comparison...Beckys parents are paying for her mistakes, We are paying for this free loaders mistakes.
Not fair.
It's a huge problem in Chicago, so many people got used to living for free. If I work my ass off to pay for my rent they should do the same. I think the ones that are really in need of assistance are being shadowed by the ones who got used to free riding the system... So much money is wasted because of them and their advocates. The welfare system needs fixing.
CRY ME A RIVER
So because you have to pay more in rent, this family should be homeless. Well if you get fired, should I have to pay for your unemployment after 26 weeks. YOU would think that was fair, because YOU need help. Right now, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Evicting them is not going to help Chicago and its crime.
RE:
At least she is working and making an effort to support herself. That's life-- as an adult you should be responsible for YOURSELF and the Government assistance is there in case something tragic happens and you need it. It's not there for you to take advantage of it. I don't feel sorry for any of these people! Other than the elderly and the sick people, I don't care. If you are a twenty somthing year old, there is no reason for you to NOT be working and supporting yourself. Otherwise, what kind of worthless person are you? A waste of space!
workers
Agree if you are 18 years old you need to go work a minumum wage job and start off at the bottom and work your way up. Not just say I am bipolar and I can't work and I collect social security that I never paid into in the first place. I can get arrested but I can't work. Funny how you can break the law but not work a job.
Agree if you are 18 years old
Agree if you are 18 years old you need to go work a minumum wage job and start off at the bottom and work your way up. Not just say I am bipolar and I can't work and I collect social security that I never paid into in the first place. I can get arrested but I can't work gold stocks . Funny how you can break the law but not work a job.
The problem..
Is that up until this point, she was not using any public assistance except for the housing assistance.
Knowing several families who,"work their asses," off and still need help, I'd say your comment is stupid. Say to cut costs, your spouse and yourself cut your health insurance, neither one of you "get sick," so it should be fine, as long as the kids are insured.
Well, you've got another baby on the way! Surprise! As you live in a comfortable lifestyle, everything seems to be able to work out.
Your husband is diagnosed with cancer. He has no insurance. You and your husband are unable to get health insurance for either your pregnancy, or his cancer.
What the fuck are you going to do?? Your house is up for foreclosure because your income is trying to keep your husband alive.
YOU are the same,"scum" as described in the article.
Thank you!
I just want to thank you for appreciating how things actually work. I can't remember the actual statistic, but most poverty requiring aide starts from illness or other health issues. Also it is refreshing to see someone acknowledge that a large percentage of pregnancies are a surprise too. I do not want to open the abortion/ birth control debate. But 'surprises' happen across the income brackets.
Me.
To me the issue is Why did she not save money when she was working in hopes to get out of the environment for the children she cares for so much? Unfortunately our government encourages these families to strive harder in staying in the program than teaching them how to get out. We need to focus on education in this country and not let those who get on the system to not work harder....assistance should be temporary, but unfortunately assistance is the American Dream to some! Educate these people that there is more out there in the world and they can achieve what they wish! These issues in this story are much deeper than most writing on this board understand.
REALLY
Well let me ask you! Why haven't you saved up enough money to move into Lincoln Park! You have been given all the perks of White America, what's your problem. You are not where you should be either. Should I make you feel less than a human. Do you make $250K a year, do your kids go to the best private schools, are you vacationing in Jamaica this December? NOPE... So by my standards...YOU'RE A FAILURE!!!
WOW!
You sound like an angry racist! LOL, I used to live in the Gold Coast, now living in Beverly Hills and I make about 175K.. Guess what? I don't have children and I refuse to help people because they take advantage. I would rather help animals and rescue dogs. As for a vacation, I would NEVER go to Jamaica, gross! I already see enough mean Blacks in America, I would rather go where the beautiful people are-- The South of France!
cheers!!!
reponse to wow!
.....and there's a reserved place in hell with your picture posted on it............Go ahead, keep playing the "i"ve got money game...you can't be serious?
TANF
Please do some research on how the welfare programs in this country work. It is ignorant to say that people are taught to not work harder to get off of welfare when that is exactly what the reforms passed back in '96 did.
Also, have you tried to save while having to go to school and support kids?! It is hard to do two of those things simultaneously. All three, especially with six children, is ludicrous.
some of you people are hard.
some of you people are hard. I see why the are shutting down the high rises because of all the crime. But moving them into my neiborhood do not like it. If they have a job or at least had a job i can see giving them a hand. So sure they can move in. but the problem is they want to move the hard core welfare people in my neigborhood with their 6 kids and raise my taxes to pay for thier schooling and have to lower the standards for my school so they can pass (or else the great jesse will picket my school.) Because I am a a hole why do not we tie every women's tubes up and snip all the men till they have a job and can support the kids they have. and we can put the eggs and sperm in the freezer till they can support them
RE:
So sorry to hear that! I would be livid to have to put up with these people in my neighborhood!
There's always exceptions, but for the most part I support this.
Before I moved to Woodlawn, I may not have agreed with this rule. But now that I am a first time homeowner with a few CHA buildings on the block, I'm hoping this rule helps to change my neighborhood. Everyday I trudge to work, while some of my neighbors sit on their porches from sunrise to sunset, throwing trash, drinking, gambling, playing loud music and having no respect for their neighbors. It only takes a few neighbors like this to attract the wrong crowd to the block and bring the whole neighborhood down. Before you know it, they've invited the "small time, misdemeanor" drug dealers over to party or hang out. I know for a fact a woman in Section8 housing across the street with at least 5 kids has a boyfriend in the drug trade. I would welcome the day that CHA tossed her out for his behavior. It is her fault, she allows it, and her kids are learning that he "hustles" and what he does is okay, when it's not. And the landlords are no help, with Section8, they just sit back and collect their checks, never check on their properties, so neighbors are constantly calling police, streets and sanitation, and building inspections, to try to rid the block of the issues these buildings/neighbors cause.
I don't hate people on public assistance. I benefited from it as a child when my mother divorced and simply couldn't afford to provide some of the essentials, after paying rent, food could be scarce so she applied for food stamps off and on for a few years. But the key thing is she never saw it as a given, as soon as she'd find a second job she'd be off assistance. Thankfully once we became teenagers we often bought our own food and helped out and said bye to aid permanently. The point of the system is to roll-off of it and too many of the current folks on welfare have become accustomed to ridiculous things like $72 for rent. That shouldn't even be an option as it does not prepare people for the real world...which should be the goal right? To help people transition?
Not the right degree
For the record, if you haven't studied urban development and its interaction with public health, social capital, and human capital, your thoughts on where and how people should live their lives is meaningless (and is usually plainly racist). Lots of people study mechanisms for safely housing people who are resourceless. I can assure you that those who pursue the J.D. degree are not them. CHA attorneys no nothing of public health and could care less about your community - they care about their conviction rate.