Last week, when a prominent and long-standing central New Jersey soup kitchen went to the newspapers as a last resort to inform the public that demand was up, donations were down, and that it would have to cut back on meals, the immediate response was overwhelming. Donations, totaling upwards of $7,000 poured in almost instantly, the full meal service was restored, and there was a happy ending just in time for the pre-Thanksgiving headlines. The support was touted as a “Thanksgiving Miracle.”
But what happens to places like Elijah’s Promise—that central Jersey soup kitchen—when it’s March, or August, or any other time when holiday spirit cannot be tapped? It’s just another characteristic of this New Economic Order. Americans are spending less, and have less disposable income. At the same time, not-for-profit organizations like Elijah’s Promise, face the daunting challenge of carrying out its mission with fewer dollars and more demand.
Of course, it goes without saying that this is not an isolated incident. While foundation support for nonprofits has yet to take a major toll, there is the looming threat of a sustained decline in charitable giving, putting the hurt on nonprofits everywhere.
Whereas not-for-profit services might decline with diminished funding, the demand for food banks increases in tough economic times. AP reports:
The Greater Chicago Food Depository, the city’s food bank, has seen a 33 percent increase in food pantry demand from July to September of 2008, compared to the same period last year, said spokesman Bob Dolgan, “Our network is strained right now,” Dolgan said. “Our most successful pantries … are having to turn people away.”
And to make matters even worse, those who were donors or volunteers at food banks in years past are now clients. Food, sadly, is one of the first “luxuries” to go—before gas and electricity, according to Paul Ash, the executive director of the San Francisco Food Bank, who appeared Wednesday on PBS’ NewsHour. Last year, his organization distributed more than 27 million pounds of food.
Ash explains:
Well, it bites worst at the end of the pay period, so just depending on how someone is paid. We always see more people showing up to a pantry if the distribution is in the last few days of the month, or the, you know, 13th, 14th, 15th of the month, just before someone can expect their paycheck.
Food is the one thing that you can just parse out your dollars very, very slowly. And so that’s why you end up running out of food toward the end of the middle of the month.
The other penalty there is you don’t buy the giant economy size. You have to buy the small size, so your dollar doesn’t go as far. So there;s a lot of penalties to living paycheck-to-paycheck and trying to stretch your dollars out for food.
The food stamps program, and other federal nutrition programs do not limit the number of participants, those programs do not offer sufficient support to feed a family for a month. As a result, more strain is placed on food banks, which suffer from falling donations.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
No Choice But to Age In Place
Aging in place for some is the ultimate ideal. Elderly individuals, with their faculties in tact, and who are physically sound, stay in the houses where they raised their families, and remain in the communities where they have roots, paid taxes, and have an historic reference.
A community with a sound housing policy would ideally provide low- and moderate-income housing for aging seniors so that they can downsize, while remaining in their community. For residents of greater means, market rate senior housing, replete with wide doorways, limited services, and near town amenities is, or should, be an option.
But with the New York Times Saturday reporting that aging in place might, in fact, be a burden, this whole ideal is going out the window.
Welcome to the new economic order. With every passing day, as housing values plummet and the level of unsold houses approaches a one-year extent. Older Americans can no longer sell their houses to downsize—never mind downsizing within their own communities. They can’t downsize anywhere, presenting a potentially frightening prospect for people—stuck in their homes.
According to The Times:
Facilities that have watched their waiting lists wither and their occupancy rates fall in the last year are now scrambling to bring people through their doors. Some assisted-living centers have called in real estate agents to teach prospective residents about online advertising and how to clean and preen their homes for showings. Others have set up programs with banks to provide bridge loans to homeowners, or are discounting apartments and offering low-interest loans.
“It is part of the hidden problem of the recession,” said Larry Minnix, president of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
Talk about aging in place. But in these cases, it’s not by choice.
A community with a sound housing policy would ideally provide low- and moderate-income housing for aging seniors so that they can downsize, while remaining in their community. For residents of greater means, market rate senior housing, replete with wide doorways, limited services, and near town amenities is, or should, be an option.
But with the New York Times Saturday reporting that aging in place might, in fact, be a burden, this whole ideal is going out the window.
Welcome to the new economic order. With every passing day, as housing values plummet and the level of unsold houses approaches a one-year extent. Older Americans can no longer sell their houses to downsize—never mind downsizing within their own communities. They can’t downsize anywhere, presenting a potentially frightening prospect for people—stuck in their homes.
According to The Times:
Facilities that have watched their waiting lists wither and their occupancy rates fall in the last year are now scrambling to bring people through their doors. Some assisted-living centers have called in real estate agents to teach prospective residents about online advertising and how to clean and preen their homes for showings. Others have set up programs with banks to provide bridge loans to homeowners, or are discounting apartments and offering low-interest loans.
“It is part of the hidden problem of the recession,” said Larry Minnix, president of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
Talk about aging in place. But in these cases, it’s not by choice.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Bag Here, Bag Now
In Amsterdam, at a Super de Boer, imagine my surprise when I had to pay for a grocery bag because I didn’t bring my own. In the U.S., I buy those biodegradable poop bags for my dog, so I don’t need the plastic grocery bags. I bring canvas to the store, etc. Yeah, I try to be “green” when I can. I think more and more people these days do.
But when I left the Super de Boer, I was amazed. I don’t live in an area, or a state, for that matter, that would employ such a progressive-minded initiative. I do know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been on a lengthy campaign to get people to recycle their plastic grocery bags, or bring their own from home, but like Europe, in an ever-shrewd way to use taxes (or fees, in this case) for the public good, Bloomberg is now proposing a bag fee. Joe Biden, eat your heart out—now here’s a tax that we can feel patriotic about.
According to The New York Times:
The article continues:
If the proposal passes, New York City would follow the lead of many European countries and become one of the first places in the United States to assess a so-called plastic bag tax.
It’s a fantastic plan, and every city should engage in such bold plans, but does it go far enough? In New York City, cigarettes approach $8 per pack, and guess what? Smoking is way down. A study by the city’s health department in 2007 indicated a 20-percent decline in smoking since 2002. Why? A combination of strategic advertising, a smoking ban in public places like bars and restaurants, and that cig tax were all attributed to that decline.
New York City, in 2006, also banned artery-clogging artificial trans fats at all restaurants. Why? Because public health is in the utmost interest of any government (and not just public health that keeps a locality from getting sued, like bad sidewalks, etc.)
So what’s my point? There are always going to be the “keep your laws off my trans fat” people, but isn’t one of the roles of government to protect the citizenry, from both exogenous and endogenous forces? I think so. And here’s the other thing: the city’s real intent is to not make money from this fee. The intent is environmental: people would stop using plastic bags, and any subsequent revenue from a bag fee would dry up. Further, $16 million is a mere whiff of New York City’s $50 billion municipal budget. This ain’t about more money to line the pockets of the folks at City Hall.
But it’s always baby steps with these laws. The cig tax was slow to increase; no one noticed a flavor difference when their food lacked trans fats; and, alas, the bag tax is too small, and needs to hit the consumer. We’ve squandered three decades of environmental warnings, and these are issues our local governments can control. Just like implementing aggressive recycling plans, plastic grocery bags are things of the past we need our local governments to help to drive home that message.
The Times article notes that following Ireland’s implementing its 33-cent bag tax in 2002, plastic bag use dropped by 94 percent. Ninety-four percent. Now that’s the stuff!
The article quotes local grocery store owners saying that customers would be outraged by paying for bags. Perhaps, but how long would it take for a customer to start bringing a bag? Once? Twice? It wouldn’t take long.
We don’t have long. Bag here, bag now.
But when I left the Super de Boer, I was amazed. I don’t live in an area, or a state, for that matter, that would employ such a progressive-minded initiative. I do know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been on a lengthy campaign to get people to recycle their plastic grocery bags, or bring their own from home, but like Europe, in an ever-shrewd way to use taxes (or fees, in this case) for the public good, Bloomberg is now proposing a bag fee. Joe Biden, eat your heart out—now here’s a tax that we can feel patriotic about.
According to The New York Times:
City officials estimate that the fee could generate $16 million a year, a figure that Mr. Bloomberg would no doubt appreciate, given the lingering and concussive effects of the global economic crisis on the citys economy.
The article continues:
If the proposal passes, New York City would follow the lead of many European countries and become one of the first places in the United States to assess a so-called plastic bag tax.
It’s a fantastic plan, and every city should engage in such bold plans, but does it go far enough? In New York City, cigarettes approach $8 per pack, and guess what? Smoking is way down. A study by the city’s health department in 2007 indicated a 20-percent decline in smoking since 2002. Why? A combination of strategic advertising, a smoking ban in public places like bars and restaurants, and that cig tax were all attributed to that decline.
New York City, in 2006, also banned artery-clogging artificial trans fats at all restaurants. Why? Because public health is in the utmost interest of any government (and not just public health that keeps a locality from getting sued, like bad sidewalks, etc.)
So what’s my point? There are always going to be the “keep your laws off my trans fat” people, but isn’t one of the roles of government to protect the citizenry, from both exogenous and endogenous forces? I think so. And here’s the other thing: the city’s real intent is to not make money from this fee. The intent is environmental: people would stop using plastic bags, and any subsequent revenue from a bag fee would dry up. Further, $16 million is a mere whiff of New York City’s $50 billion municipal budget. This ain’t about more money to line the pockets of the folks at City Hall.
But it’s always baby steps with these laws. The cig tax was slow to increase; no one noticed a flavor difference when their food lacked trans fats; and, alas, the bag tax is too small, and needs to hit the consumer. We’ve squandered three decades of environmental warnings, and these are issues our local governments can control. Just like implementing aggressive recycling plans, plastic grocery bags are things of the past we need our local governments to help to drive home that message.
The Times article notes that following Ireland’s implementing its 33-cent bag tax in 2002, plastic bag use dropped by 94 percent. Ninety-four percent. Now that’s the stuff!
The article quotes local grocery store owners saying that customers would be outraged by paying for bags. Perhaps, but how long would it take for a customer to start bringing a bag? Once? Twice? It wouldn’t take long.
We don’t have long. Bag here, bag now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)