Now it’s everybody’s problem.

For years neighborhood leaders had been screaming about it, but hardly anybody listened.

Oh, yeah, there were some legislative hearings here, some tweaking of obscure regulations there. But let’s face it, so long as the sickness of predatory lending and mortgage foreclosures was confined to have-not neighborhoods full of minorities and wide-eyed immigrants, who cared?

Certainly not the administration of President Bush. Listen carefully to “W” and his aides talk about the subprime mess now overtaking Wall Street and they’re still quibbling about borrowers needing to read the fine print. Which is to say, caveat emptor. It’s a sentiment shared by a lot of the talking heads on CNBC’s stock market shows and by the ever-so-conservative suits who write editorials for The Wall Street Journal. Don’t crack down on the loan brokers, they say. The free market will work it out if the Federal Reserve just pumps a little more cheap money into the system.

But this time America’s vast middle class might not buy the laissez faire line. Because this time the damage caused by predatory lending isn’t confined to immigrant neighborhoods like Marquette Park and Little Village, or starter-home suburbs like Streamwood and Hazel Crest. This time the poison has seeped into the mainstream, into the sale-ability of your house, into the value of stocks and mutual funds in your retirement accounts.

Now we all know what they’ve been complaining about along the Bungalow Belt, where foreclosures mean board-ups, overgrown lawns and lower property values. Now we all understand, or should, that too many of those tricky mortgages and home equity loans — loans that start with minimum monthlies but balloon into budget-busters — are marketed to families that should not qualify for credit in the first place, or do not understand how the monthly burden will double or triple after the teaser rate expires. Now we all learn that, after the fast-talkers grab their commissions upfront, the loans are repackaged into “securities,” blessed by bond rating houses that should know better, and ultimately sold to hedge funds and other “sophisticated” investors who appreciate the high yields … if not the softness of the underlying surety.

And so the financial rout is on, as holders of too many securitized subprimes file for bankruptcy, beg for bailouts or sell off perfectly good stocks and bonds so as to pay panicked investors hellbent for the safety of treasury bills.

Now we know. But some of us, including yours truly, should have spoken up sooner.

Should have suspected something back in the ’80s, when the late Gale Cincotta, the West Side housewife who began a national fight against credit scams, warned us about a new-fangled home loan she wryly called “the ARM-and-a-leg mortgage.”

Should have written something last year when James “Jim” Capraro, the dean of community organizers who’s been fighting foreclosures on the Southwest Side for 30 years, called to say things were getting worse. Despaired of appealing to the better nature of sleazebag mortgage brokers, he wanted me to connect some dots and aim some ink at the major banks and investment houses that provide the liquidity that enables subprime. Should have done a column then. Didn’t.

Should have written something two years ago when one of the more egregious subprime operators, Ameriquest Mortgage Co., sponsored the Paul McCartney halftime show at Super Bowl XXXIX (Patriots 24, Eagles 21). Or when the company’s billionaire owner, Roland Arnall, led all GOP fundraisers behind the 2004 re-election of you-know-who. Or a year later, when President Bush named the guy ambassador to the Netherlands. Or last year, when Ameriquest Mortgage Co. entered into a $325 million settlement with the attorneys general and regulators from 49 states. They had sued the company for predatory lending practices such as hidden charges and falsified loan applications.

Should have written something but didn’t.

Not that one more article about foreclosed bungalows in Marquette Park would have slowed down America’s easy-money bender. Who cared that, last year, we had 10,268 foreclosures in Chicago and 18,729 in the suburbs … roughly 36 percent more than in 2005? Who cared that one of every five subprime mortgages issued since 2005 likely is headed for foreclosure, or that worse is yet to come as teaser rates “reset” to levels bordering on usury? Remember usury? It used to be a crime.

Fact is, before the Dow industrials and S&P 500 went into a swoon earlier this month, most of us thought subprime was somebody else’s problem.

Now we know better. So what are we going to do about it?

There are good ideas on the table: mandatory mortgage counseling; full disclosure of ultimate costs to the borrower; stiff penalties — as opposed to ambassadorships — for filing inaccurate credit and employment histories.

But the main thing we need to do is this — to understand the interconnectedness of us all. In the end, the many do get hurt when the system is allowed to victimize the few. That board-up on the other side of town really is next door.

Residents in a northeast Wichita neighborhood want the city to get rid of problem bee hive.  Dozens of bees buzz inside the trunk of a dead tree.  It’s on the easement of an abandoned house in the 1700 block of Northeast Parkway.

Residents say its been there for two and a half years.  Saul Jones is allergic to bees.  He’s not only been stung but his young son has too.  “He was stung in the side of his head, he was playing on the sidewalk about 30 yards from the tree,” Jones said.

Jones has called the city several times.  This summer they tried using tar to close the hive but it didn’t work.  Then inspectors came for another look.  He says they told him they would put out traps and fix the problem.  He says that was a month ago.

Since then, school has started.  The bus stop is not far from the hive.  “The kids have to walk through here every morning.  Sometimes they cross the street because they’re scared of getting stung by the bees,” he said.

Jones wonders how many more people have to be stung before the city does something.  “Either remove the bees or take the tree out.  One or the other would make me happy and the rest of the neighborhood I’m sure,” he said.

Sunflower Community Action held a neighborhood meeting near the hive Saturday.  The group is trying to raise awareness of the problem in hopes its fixed.  Residents want the city to also condemn the empty house near where the tree sits.

About 20 people gathered Monday at Kalamazoo City Hall to protest a city ordinance that prohibits sleeping in public parks during certain hours.

They carried placards, some of which read “Abolish Sleep Police” and “Homeless Have A Right To Sleep.”

“Not being able to sleep (in Bronson Park) is harassment as far as we’re concerned,” said Ian Valenzuela, 45, who has been homeless for two years. “I’ve slept out there many times. The worst thing we do is talk to one another. That’s it.”

A city ordinance forbids sleeping in public parks between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., a law approved last summer after months of negotiations between city officials and members of the Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network, City Attorney A. Lee Kirk said.

On July 15 and 16, five people were ticketed by Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety officers for sleeping in Bronson Park, said Michael Evans, KHAN’s lead organizer. Pretrial hearings are scheduled Aug. 24 before Kalamazoo County District Judge Richard Santoni.

KHAN leaders are planning to legally challenge the constitutionality of the city’s no-sleeping ordinance, Evans said. The group has secured the help of the National Law Project on Homelessness and Poverty, he said.

After rallying on the City Hall steps, KHAN members attended the commission meeting, where several spoke, saying for some the park is the only place to go at night.

“It’s an act, you have to sleep,” said Stacey Meegan, 22, who is homeless. “We’re not advocating sleeping there, but it should be our right.”

City Manager Kenneth Collard said that sleeping in Bronson Park –the only city park open 24 hours and the most popular park for the homeless to sleep in — is prohibited because “it’s a health issue.”

“There are no facilities (bathrooms) out there,” he said. “They’ve got a law they have to abide by.

“They’re seeking judicial restraint, and we wish them well. But urban parks are simply not to be used for camping.”

The action marked the first of 16 commission meetings KHAN members say they will attend to push the group’s 2007 People’s Agenda. The agenda calls for more openness in allocating housing vouchers to the homeless through the countywide Affordable Housing Fund. It also seeks representation of the homeless on government boards that make decisions about how money for the homeless will be spent.

KHAN board member Jonathan Braun asked Judge Santoni to continue the cases to give homeless people more time to prepare a constitutional challenge to the anti-sleeping law. Mr. Braun also asked Judge Santoni to subpoena Police Chief Dan Weston and Kalamazoo City Attorney Lee Kirk as witnesses.

After considering the requests, Judge Santoni reversed an earlier decision and appointed public defenders for all five homeless defendants and he also set a new pre-trial hearing for August 24.

The National Law Project on Homelessness and Poverty has also pledged to assist in the defense of the homeless defendants in this case.

KHAN bases its challenge to the anti-sleeping law in part on a 2006 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a landmark case, the Appeals Court ruled that the City of Los Angeles could not arrest homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks because such laws violated Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In another important case, Pottinger v. City of Miami, the district court ruled that the city’s practice of arresting homeless individuals for harmless life sustaining activities that they are forced to perform in public is unconstitutional because the arrests constituted

(1)      Cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

(2)       Restricted innocent conduct in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,

(3)    Burdened the fundamental right to travel in violation of the Equal ProtectionClause.

KHAN argues that the Kalamazoo anti-sleeping law gives the government too much power to control and criminalize innocent, involunatry behavior by homeless people who are forced to live in public.

The Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network (KHAN) is a union of poor and homeless people, and their allies, who are using direct action community organizing to bring a greater degree of justice to the Kalamazoo community. KHAN is an affiliate of the National Training and Information Center and a local member of the Michigan Organizing Project.

WICHITA, Kansas, July 24, 2007 – A youth group that has long expressed concern over the use of tasers in schools sat down today with representatives from the Wichita Police Department. Both sides say progress was made.

The history is a long one, involving Hope Street’s opposition of the taser weapon. Soon after Wichita Police officers started carrying tasers, a North High student was tased. Members of Hope Street then demanded the weapons not be used in schools.

They group protested in front of City Hall, calling for a new policy regarding the weapon. Then the following year, they appeared at a school board meeting. There, they presented 10 recommendations to “improve” the use of tasers in schools.

Today, Hope Street members said they understand the need for tasers, but want a more defined policy when it comes to the weapons used in classrooms.

The outcome from today’s meeting:
1. Hope Street members will have a place on the department’s oversight committee. That committee monitors the use of tasers.
2. The department agreed to look into the possibility of requiring school resource officers take conflict resolution training. That is a training SRO’s already take, but the policy does not mandate its requirement.
3. The department will also allow students to take a portion of the training that is required for officers.

“Everything they asked for today is not only feasible and realistic, some were very good.” Deputy Chief Tom Stolz, Wichita Police Department, said.

But still, these students say they have more to do. They would like the taser policy to be outlined in student handbooks and a taser demonstration done in each school at the start of the year.

By Sabrina Eaton

Washington – With two children in day care, poor credit and little in the way of savings, Audrey Sweet and her husband couldn’t get a regular mortgage for the house they bought two years ago in Maple Heights.

Although Sweet thought a subprime loan would fulfill her dream of home ownership, it instead became a financial nightmare, the Cuyahoga Community College program manager told a congressional committee investigating the nation’s skyrocketing mortgage foreclosure rate. Home-loan documents completed by the lender overstated her monthly income and savings, and her barely affordable payments soon ratcheted up.

“I felt so undeserving of a loan because I had been turned down so many times before, and I realized I had signed my name to a 30-year mistake,” says Sweet, whose home was saved from foreclosure when a community group called the East Side Organizing Project helped her obtain a conventional loan through Third Federal Savings and Loan.

Foreclosure problems in the Cleveland area epitomize a mortgage crisis that’s expected to worsen nationwide in coming years, local officials told the Joint Economic Committee.

“Cleveland is the canary in the coal mine,” said Ohio’s Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Cuyahoga County Treasurer Jim Rokakis told the committee that some 17,000 properties in the county will face foreclosure this year, five times the 1995 total. More than half the foreclosures come from individuals who buy multiple properties with no money down in “get rich quick” schemes. The vacant properties reduce neighboring property values and lower the county’s tax base, he said.

Cleveland City Councilman Tony Brancatelli said foreclosures have devastated his Slavic Village ward, which has one of the nation’s top foreclosure rates.

“What once were $30,000 to $40,000 homes are now stripped of any equity,” Brancatelli said. “The only thing left is the wrecking ball.”

Barbara Anderson, one of Slavic Village’s first black residents, told the committee her predatory-lending odyssey began in 1996, after her home was damaged by multiple arsons that she believes were racially motivated. When her insurance company dropped coverage after the first fires, she had to tap home equity for repairs.

She didn’t realize that interest on the 8.5 percent loan she obtained from a broker would jump to 14.5 percent in four years and raise her payments by 60 percent. Her loan was then sold to Fairbanks Capital Corp., which charged illegal fees. Fairbanks was cited for a variety of illegal business practices by the Federal Trade Commission. After it erased nearly $30,000 in bogus fees charged to Anderson, she obtained a conventional loan with the help of the East Side Organizing Project.

When several witnesses suggested home buyers get financial counseling before taking out subprime loans, Anderson countered, “The brokers, the lenders, the appraisers and the servicers need counseling in ethics so they can do what is right when it comes to dealing with the American public.”

Ohio’s representatives say they’re working on the problem. Rep. Dennis Kucinich has held a pair of congressional hearings on the matter, and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones has introduced a bill to regulate mortgage brokers. Both are Cleveland Democrats.

In the Senate, Brown helped put $100 million for neighborhood foreclosure prevention programs into a 2008 federal spending bill, and Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, has introduced a bill to keep homeowners from facing income tax penalties if lenders forgive parts of their loans.

“You people really irritate me.” We’ve scarcely arrived and already a heavyset man accosts us as we walk into the lobby, photo boards and newspapers in hand, getting ready for our first stop in the Reality Tour. This is our first impression of La Crosse, a mid size, historic, middle American town on the banks of the Mississippi River. Fortunately, the initial hostility of the evening was not a foreshadow for the rest of the event.

The forum starts out with testimony from three perspectives: Luz Huitron, a worker impacted by a factory raid in Whitewater, WI and detained for two days; John Rosenow a Wisconsin Dairy farmer and employer of migrant workers; and Dr. Jeff Thompson CEO of Gunderson Lutheran Medical Center in La Crosse.

Then, Keith Matthews of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR); Christine Neumann Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera; and Victoria Seltun, immigration attorney took the stage to respond to audience discussion. A myriad of emotions came forward. Comments ranged from the sympathetic to outright racist. Luz is accused of embellishing her story, but many in the crowd rush to her defense. One man, an employee at the hospital, storms out and confides to us in the hallway, “It’s hard enough that I have to put up with vermin like him in addition to trying to take care of sick people.” Another woman in the audience comments, “lady liberty would be sad.”

They talk about the past. Christine makes reference the sanctuary movement for Central American refugees in the 1980’s, where churches opened their doors to the refugees with the message that if refugees were sent back to their countries where they would fear for their lives- it would be “not in our name.” She calls for a new sanctuary movement. People also look at the trade deals of the past, identified by many as a root of the problem. Christine highlights a net loss of jobs in Mexico as a direct result of NAFTA. A local farmer agrees saying “trade agreements hurt everyone.” He says his employees don’t want to stay long and they don’t want to be so far from home, he says we all want to be close to home, the trade agreements and the negative impact on the economy for the poor overrides that desire to stay, it forces people to leave.

They talk about the status quo. People are worried about crimes, gangs and a strain on resources. One man calls the Latino population “cruddy people” and suggests that if these cruddy people were taken care of it would ease the path for the nice people who don’t want to cause problems. Another person defends the immigrant contribution of the billions of taxes that are being paid and notes that none of those workers are taking welfare because they are afraid of being identified. Another farmer comments on the demand for labor. Of her employees she says, “They want to obey the laws, they are decent people who just want to make some money and go home. You think there’s enough people to work here? There’s not!” Another man reminds us that we are in a war, a war on terror and unsecure borders make us vulnerable. A blue collar worker feels threatened, he says, “I see what they do- we’re losing.”

We talk about the future. There are legitimate concerns- how can we reach an acceptable compromise? How do we address population pressures? There are also somewhat preposterous concerns as one man prophesizes, “we’re going to be impoverished by these immigrants! America will become a third world country!”

And of course the blame gets passed. The undocumented immigrants are to blame for their defiance of the legal system. The corporations are to blame for the unfair trade agreements, the exploitation of workers on both sides of the border. The Mexican government is to blame for their corruption. Our government is to blame for not enforcing the laws. No one, it seems, is personally to blame.

Yet through all the polarization and strong opinions there is an overtly present middle ground. This perspective came from people who I believe see themselves as hardworking, decent people who provide for their families and do their best to not cause problems. They want the best for everyone, but they want to see it happen within a certain prescribed legal framework. One woman describes herself as a grateful citizen and says that she wants to help everyone who needs help, but “let’s be legal so I know who I’m helping.” This is where I see some common ground. She wants the same things for her family that the millions who cross our border want for theirs. She wants to do it legally, so do they. The problem is that she has little context for understanding just how tenuous and complicated the process is. The difference is that the undocumented have already seen that they could be waiting for ten years, fifteen years or a lifetime to gain entry if ever and this is too long. When wages are falling, jobs are moving, and families are going hungry the immediacy of survival supersedes respect for the law. We share this fundamental drive for survival. We also share these same basic desires for work, for community, opportunities for our children and for a little bit of security. As more and more in the audience extend their empathy but demand order, I can’t help wonder what kind of choices they would make under different circumstances. Would they uphold the laws they love if it meant forsaking the survival of their family, the opportunities for their children? Would you?

~Melanie Benesh, Reality Tour Coordinator, Voces de la Frontera

Much of this bill was a wholy grassroots process, with issues identified by the local organizing efforts of National Training and Information Center and our local affiliates and allies such as Hartford Organized for Power & Equality (HOPE) and the Seattle Section 8 Tenants Organizing Project (STOP), in collaboration our advocacy allies such as the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities and National Low Income Housing Coalition.  Section 8 Voucher tenant leaders worked with NTIC to draft, fight for, and WIN several amendments that will put an end to the displacement of families due to the negligence of slumlords to fulfill their maintenance obligations and prohibit denials for factors such as past-due medical bills!  Families will also be guaranteed fair hearings in the case of all terminations and denials.

While several harmful amendments were defeated last night, such as the establishment of time-limits and work requirements, we did suffer a defeat in an anti-immigration amendment that would require social security cards for all applicants.  This is impractical and will affect more than only undocumented families. SEVRA is not the place to fight out the anti-immigratrion fight!  Additionally, the manager’s amendment included a provision that moves away from the Brooke requirement that families pay 30% of their income on rent; while it would still be prohibited to raise rents above Brooke requirements, this sets a dangerous precedent for rent reform.  The task now will be to get this bill through the Senate WITHOUT these provisions and WITHOUT expanding deregulation through the Moving To Work/Housing Innovations Program.

Overall, this is a HUGE victory for affordable housing!  Most importantly, SEVRA creates a comprehensive funding formula that will lead to more affordable housing opportunities and SEVRA authorizes 100,000 new vouchers over the next 5 years, among other improvements for portability, fair market rents, and enhanced vouchers for families who have been displaced from project-based Section 8!

Stay tuned for next steps…