Protect Big Business, Don't Kill the Job

Protect Big Business, Don't Kill the Job

"We don't have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says [...] good research is already available." (Boston Globe Editorial, "A future without homelessness," August 8, 2007)
But Rushing does not explain what kind of research is available.
Does the research explain what will be done with the millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated for treatment by human services corporations and the caring professions? What will become of all of the not- for-profit employees who work at the many shelters?
Where will the suburban wives and their visiting college age children go to volunteer on Thanksgiving? Where will the politicians go for photo opportunities if there are no shelters?
Rep. Rushing ignores the potential for displaced money and people if persons without homes are housed. Homelessness is a big business, which has a big lobby at the legislatures. Forget that it costs less to house people than to arrest them and transport them to hospitals. Appropriating more taxpayer money is better for the human services corporations and the caring professions.
What are your priorities?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Globe Editorial
A future without homelessness
August 8, 2007

WE DON'T have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says of a new state commission that he proposed to address the issue; good research is already available.


Instead, the commission has to answer two questions. What kind of housing do people need? And, what will it take to keep formerly homeless people housed?

If Massachusetts can find and pay for answers, it could end homelessness -- for families, adults living on the streets, people leaving prison, and those with mental illnesses or addictions.

"We're on the cusp of a new era," says Tina Brooks, the state's undersecretary of housing.

The commission should work to meet its self-imposed deadline and come up with a comprehensive plan by December.

[...]