Helping Worcester or Prison Industrial Complex?

How Is This Gang Plan Going To Be Different?

It was announced this week at the Worcester Boys and Girls Club that Worcester will have a new gang control initiative. There will be nearly one million dollars spent on this program.

My first impression was a question about how would this program be different. There were almost no details about the program.  It is clear that for the first year that no money would go to the families directly affected by the gangs, no after school, no tutoring, and no jobs.

The first year money would go to get the “input “of the community, about one third of the money will go to academic doing research. The police will have special patrols; another third of the money will likely go to the cops. Then there are the administrator and coordinators who will get their fair share.

My second thought when reading the article about this gang control policy was that it was another element in the Prison Industrial Complex. There was no obvious plan to divert people away from the gang culture. And prison.

The third thing that came to mind was that groups like EPOCA and MOSAIC which work with ex prisoners will probably not get a cent of this money. The groups who have mentors and after school programs such as Dynamy would probably get not a cent.

Some people I have talked with indicated that Springfield tried something similar. That money had strings attached that led to what some perceived as oppressive police procedures.

However I will keep an open mind and see what happens in three years. It is likely that this new program will be like “Worcester Fighting Back” which wasted five million dollars and there was no substantive change.

The people who are trying to mitigate gang related problems should be applauded for trying. I hope that I am wrong and some good goes to those negatively affected by the bad aspects of the society in which we live. 

What is Really Going on With Worcester Housing Authority?

The Worcester Housing Authority (WHA) policy makers are misguided. This might be caused by the driven personality of Mr. Mariano who cannot seem to see any side of an argument except his own. He and some in the media cover up this personality flaw with the façade that he is “motivating” the lazy. The reality is that to a significant extent the WHA policy of limiting tenancy is a libel and slander against the poor, women with children, and people with dark skin.

I don’t dislike Mr. Mariano. He is quite personable and considerate. In 1997 when my Dad passed, he was the only public official to call me and offer his condolences. I do not doubt his sincerity. However I have doubts about his policies.

His policy to limit the tenancy of some people living in WHA apartments is unprecedented and therefore unsupported by any evidence, no statistics, and not even anecdotal hearsay. The limitation of tenancy policy is based entirely on the false assumption that people receiving benefits are somehow not “motivated”.  There should have been additional discussion on the issue other than the uncommented upon “annual review” at Housing and Urban development (HUD). HUD correctly stated that it had no authority to limit tenancy without cause.

Bashing HUD and libeling the tenants are attempts to cover up the lack of objectivity of Mr. Mariano’s policy.  Nothing less could be expected from some in the media; the apologies made for Mr. Mariano by others came as a surprise. I suppose they see him to be sincere, albeit a view that makes objectivity more difficult.

The appropriate way to change HUD policy is through the due process seen in laws made in Congress and interpreted by HUD.  The Congress could limit tenancy after a review of the facts. However to bureaucratically enact limits on tenancy without due process and public discussion is not how democratically thing should be done.

I suggest that Mr. Mariano take a look at his own agency before trying to make national laws.  There is so much to fix there and it might require more of Mr. Mariano’s attention than he has given it. Recently I defended a client at a Grievance Hearing at the WHA.  The WHA did not follow or even know some of the rules of HUD.  It confused a Grievance Hearing with an Eviction Hearing.  The Chair of the Grievance Panel would not identify himself nor would the WHA reveal his relationship to the WHA. The WHA refused to provide documents about the case even though HUD rules compelled it to do so. The people at WHA were rude and hostile.  I guess that they were more interested in bullying the poor and people ignorant of their rights than in due process. I offer my best wishes to Mr. Mariano and hope he gets it right. 

I represented a client at Worcester Housing Authority. Its legal department is hostile, uncooperative, and does not follow its own HUD rules. I suppose it is used to bullying poor people who do not know their rights.