Student advocates for local government to allow short-term rental

I am writing to encourage you to consider our community's home sharing policies and the recent laws that have tried to restrict the ability of local residents to rent out rooms on a short-term basis. There are many services such as Airbnb, Home away, and VRBO. These services have allowed families and individuals to receive an extra income and help them afford housing costs of their own. While helping out those that open their home to others home sharing also helps individuals, couples, families, and others have access to affordable places to stay for short or extended periods of time. The services have become something that not only benefit one party, but both parties involved in home sharing. 

In past years, there have been laws in different states and regulations on how home sharing with these services can be done. Localities depend on taxes for overnight guests at hotels to help support tourist infrastructure and other local services, so there is concern about lost public revenue. Another concern is maintaining safety and health in the homes that are shared; how can guests be protected from thieves and predators who might take advantage of guests, and how can the public ensure that homes open for sharing are wholesome and safe? On the other hand, the services use reputation scores to screen out hosts or guests who have unsavory dispositions or menacing behaviors, and cities and states already collect revenue from shared homes through property taxes and income taxes (perhaps there could be regulation on how revenue earned through home sharing services is reported to the IRS). There are several articles about this, but two I recommend are the October 26th 2016 article in the New York Times “Airbnb Sues Over New Law Regulating New York Rentals” and the information page at 2nd Address Research updated (when I consulted it) on February 5, 2020: “Short-Term Rental Laws in Major U.S. Cities.” These two articles have valuable information in regard to laws and the regulations that some major cities must follow to use home sharing services. 

Home sharing services are ideal and a great asset to our communities throughout the United States. Although risks come with home sharing, like renting, there are fees involved to ensure elimination of major risks that could arise. Home sharing helps people earn income by lending out their property to allow individuals to have a place to stay and resting area when visiting or staying in the local area of their property. Banning these services would hurt low income families and individuals as homes are typically people’s greatest asset. When using one of their greatest assets to produce a side income or an income at all, this helps lift low income families away from struggle and being on the brink of poverty. 

Most cities that have regulations forbid renters in rent-controlled housing or in public housing or in public subsidized housing from participating in income-generating home sharing. I suppose the assumption is that the subsidies or rent-control are there to make housing affordable so people can live there, but should not be used to gain an advantage in generating income. This seems odd to me, since many businesses and industries also receive subsidies and government support to enhance their ability to earn profits, so why should poor persons in low-income housing be denied an opportunity to earn money? Other common regulations are limits on how many homes can be shared for short-term rents. Limits in several cities are just one or two homes, and usually the home or one of the homes must be a primary residence of the person who is offering it for short-term sharing. It is also common for regulations to demand that only a room or two be rented, but the primary resident must be in the apartment when their guests are there. There are also many cities that set limits on how many guests may pay for short-term stays. Some of these regulations make sense; we don’t want wealthy people to buy up all the housing units and run dozens of apartments and houses like a hotel, displacing local residences who find it difficult to locate affordable housing. Other regulations seem unreasonable. Why do some cities only allow two guests, but not three? Doesn’t such a regulation discriminate against families with children? 

Although home sharing is wonderful for producing income and for the owners of the properties, there are also many benefits that come from home sharing for those that utilize the services. This allows individuals to not have to utilize the typical hotel arrangement, and typically the pricing is much more reasonable. Hotel arrangements are great for a quick stay, but a more reasonable and ideal home would make sense for someone that travels often and will be in the area for an extended period of time. A home, apartment, or town home typically has a kitchen allowing for home cooked meals, saving guests money from continually eating out. Continually eating out at fast food restaurants may save money, but it is not healthy, and eating at sit-down places typically aren't cheap and, can add up and take attention away from saving funds to put toward something more important and valuable. So, the home sharing services make travel and vacations more accessible to persons with modest incomes, who could not afford to stay in hotels and eat out in good restaurants every night while traveling. A city council considering regulations against home sharing might want to force visitors to eat in local restaurants to generate more tax revenue, but if people are cooking in a kitchen in their short-term shared home or apartment they will still need to purchase supplies in local grocery stores and markets, so either way, they stimulate the local economy. 

Another example of how home sharing benefits individuals is for instance, someone that cannot quite yet afford to get an apartment, rent a home, or buy a home could use home sharing services while they work to get back on their feet. It is a home-like environment that is welcoming and has appliances and resources that are ideal for families, couples, or individuals. Like hotels that rent by the week, low-income persons who are saving for a deposit on an apartment or home may find very low-cost short-term “rents” by engaging in a home sharing plan, getting a room in someone’s home for several weeks or a few months, and avoiding the requirement of signing a six-month or 12-month lease, such as most rental properties require. 

Home sharing is a great resource for individuals to earn extra income to help them thrive and survive and is a great resource to help people get back on their feet. Additionally, home sharing is a great resource for people that travel frequently and like a homey experience. It helps those that aren’t quite ready to rent and be restricted to an apartment, duplex, or home for however long the lease is written for, typically a year. All around, home sharing is the preferred way to go when traveling somewhere and has proven to be profitable and a great resource for all parties involved. Restricting people from doing what they wish with their property seems makes sense in some cases: we don’t want people manufacturing fireworks in their residential neighborhood, or hosting loud live music concerts every evening in their garage. But, house sharing services are not like these hazardous or polluting activities, and we should allow home sharing to happen. Allowing our city’s residents to share their homes brings valuable benefits to many in our community, and harms no one.  Please, as you consider regulations on home sharing in our city, do not impose regulations that go too far in restricting the freedom of those who would share their homes, and certainly do not ban this practice.

 

Articles Referred To:
https://www.2ndaddress.com/research/short-term-rental-laws/ 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/technology/new-york-passes-law-airbnb.html

Another resource:

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benefits-of-airbnb-no-reason-for-local-policymakers-to-let-airbnb-bypass-tax-or-regulatory-obligations/ 

Student reviews $2 a Day

2 Dollar’s a Day Reaction Paper

After reading $2 dollar’s a day, I feel that this book was very riveting and eye opening for anyone that isn’t aware of what takes place in the poor under-resourced communities. When you actually take the time to actually read the stories instead of just hearing vague stories about how difficult it is, the book's narration actually can paint you the mental image of pain and disparity that these people face everyday. Knowing that not everybody is eating every night and that they suffer from circumstances that are insurmountable and that will lead to an early grave is shocking to those who are ignorant about this, but for me that was the community I was raised in. 

Growing up in one of the hundreds of the government housing developments in New York City known as the Bronx River Projects, I watched my own family and others try to survive off of $2 dollars a day income. Seeing people wake up early in their one-of-many attempts to get down to the welfare offices was nothing abnormal in my neighborhood, especially during the crack era in the 80s. I can remember going over to my friends' houses and comparing their poverty to mine, which wasn’t nothing out of the norm for kids in the projects because you always wanted to know if somebody has it as bad as you do. This book was like a time machine as much as it was an eye opener for me. Hearing the stories of how people operated in the “Shadow Economy” reminded me of the morning the NYPD knocked on my door and arrested my mother when I was 10 years old. In the moment I didn’t know what was going on; all I knew is that the cops took my mother away, and luckily me and my sisters didn’t get taken by DCFS because her friend Chrissy spent the night. Later on that day I remember watching the news and seeing my mother’s mugshot flash across the screen as she was being charged with food stamp fraud. Till this day my mother stands firm by her stance of saying that she did that so we wouldn’t starve, and you know what? I can’t blame her. Everyday people are deprived of food, shelter, and the money needed to survive in America. It's not fair.

So in closing I would just like to say that this book was a very good read and should be a part of any coffee table decor, especially in the homes of the privileged. I feel that anyone who is fortunate enough to not have to worry about food or shelter in world is blessed and off to a head start in life already. To know that you have mothers out there struggling to feed their kids and themselves daily and forced to live off of $2 dollars a day is saddening to anybody with a conscience or first hand experience in dealing with hunger pains.

I Daniel Blake reviewed by a student [spoilers]

  The movie, I Daniel Blake, was about an older widowed man who was experiencing some health problems and was told by his doctors that he shouldn’t work until his health was better.  Daniel listened to the doctors and didn’t work and tried to apply for benefits to help him financially through this time he had to be off work.  While at the office where he went to apply for benefits, he met a young woman named Katie with two small children who was experiencing problems of her own with getting benefits to help her and her family get back on their feet.  Daniel and Katie became friends and Daniel would often help Katie out with anything that he could.  

[SPOILER ALERT; PLOT DETAILS FOLLOW]

After receiving no help from the state, Katie resorted to stealing personal care items, which indirectly led to Katie taking work as an escort to make money to provide for her children.  Daniel found out and told Katie he didn’t want her doing such things to make ends meet.  By the end of the film Daniel and Katie were at an appeal for Daniel and were getting ready to go into the meeting and Daniel went to the bathroom to freshen up and ended up dying in the bathroom just minutes before he was to go in the meeting to win his appeal.

After watching the movie, I was able to understand the struggles that many people go through every day.  There were a few times during the movie that I felt extremely sad for what Daniel and Katie were going through.  I have always had a hard time understanding why people had so much trouble getting services when they need help.  I now have a better knowledge of some of the struggles people all over the world go through.  

One thing I never thought of was when Daniel was having problems with filling out paperwork that he had to locate and complete online.  There are many people all over the world that are not able to access the internet.  For someone who has never got on a computer, navigating the internet and completing a complex form is an impossible task.  The policy should include paper forms of whatever is needing completion for those who are not able to access the internet or do not understand it.  If that is not possible then there should be someone who can sit there and go through the application, start to finish.  This would have been very beneficial for Daniel. After many attempts Daniel had lost hope that he would get the help he needed.  

Another thing that bothered me was the social worker telling Daniel that he had to try to find work, knowing all along that he would not be able to accept any position he was offered due to his health concerns.  I could almost feel Daniel’s pain when the social worker told him that he needed to try harder to find a job.  

I found so much humor in Daniel painting on the wall outside of the benefits building.  I am sure so many people can relate to what he was feeling at that moment that he spray-painted that on the wall.  I also felt sorry for Katie with her situation as well.  She was trying so hard to do things right for her and her family.  When the system failed her, she had to resort to stealing simple grooming items for herself at the local store.  Katie had also been practically starving herself just to make sure her kids could eat.  I was shocked when she opened the can of food while she was at the food pantry and started eating it because she was so weak from not eating.  I do not feel anyone should go through the things that Daniel and Katie did.  

The system is broken and needs to be changed so things like this do not have to happen.  This film was accurate at describing how hard it is to receive help and it accurately depicted different things that people go through.  I came from a poor family and I can relate to Katie’s daughter when she was getting made fun of at school because her shoes were falling apart.  Lucky for me, we had a large family and would often get secondhand clothing and shoes.  I understand that kids make fun of others for things like this and I know how it feels to be the kid getting made fun of.  My twelve-year-old daughter was watching this film with me and she too was shocked at how the people were treating Daniel for things out of his control.  There is too much money in this world for people to be going through this everywhere in the world.  There must be a better way to fix this problem than what we are currently doing!

Student hears the story of Raul Rodriguez on This American Life

I recently have been listening to a podcast that was suggested to me by a friend. This American Life is a weekly public radio program and podcast that chooses a theme related to living in America and tells the story. This week, the episode “Get Back to Where You Once Belong: Nowhere Man” caught my attention. The story of Raul Rodriguez was compelling and heart-breaking with no resolution or, quite frankly, hope. 

Raul’s mother, a Mexican citizen, had crossed the border in order to have Raul in America with the hope that he could then grow up with his Aunt and Uncle in Texas. His parents truly believed that this was the best possible opportunity for their son and, even though Raul grew up unhappy, lonely and missing his parents, as an adult he understood why his parents had made that choice and appreciated his life. As an adult, Raul would serve in the military and go to work as Border Patrol Agent in Mission, TX. That job and his wife, who worked for Immigration, would become the close knit family that he had always hoped for.  

Raul worked as a BPA for almost 18 years. He was recognized for his integrity, work ethic and dependability more than once and was a well-respected member of the team. So, when Raul applied to sponsor a family member from Mexico for citizenship, he had no idea that it would turn his world upside down. In the course of that investigation, Raul would learn that he in fact was not an American citizen; that his mother had not crossed into the US to have him and that even his date of birth was a lie. After an investigation led by Immigration, Raul’s real birth certificate was uncovered and, after questioning his father, was told that his parents had falsified the document and snuck him across the border to live with his Aunt and Uncle. Raul was terminated from his job – his family – and no longer an American citizen. His son, from a previous relationship, had also lost his citizenship status since his was based on his father’s. Raul and his wife decided that the best course of action was to have Raul apply for a green card since his wife was an American citizen but after months of waiting for a response, Raul was denied because he had “defrauded” the government. At the end of the story, Raul’s situation had not been resolved. He is still living in America but fears being deported at any time. The family he had built and the family he was born into are both gone and this previously hard working, active man is spending most of his time at home, afraid to venture out because he might not ever get back.

While I was listening to Raul’s story being told by Raul, I felt so sorry for him and his family; for his parents who had to make that choice and live their lives knowing that they had lied about who their son was and for Raul who had done everything right and still lost everything. Listening to him talk about his father and son, about his work family he had lost and the shame he felt was hard. I actually went back and listened to it again because I was convinced I had missed something in the original telling. Surely, Immigration had some other reason for refusing this man a green card. It couldn’t be because of what his parents had done while he was an infant? Even as I write this, I’m angry. I think that Raul’s story is a great example of what I believe is really wrong with this country sometimes. With the exception of death, there is no clear black and white when it comes to human beings and our circumstances. There are times when we should look at things on a case by case basis and take into account the entirety of a person and their circumstances and not stamp everyone with the same bureaucratic stamp. Raul’s situation was beyond his control. His father openly admitted that Raul was never told the truth and had nothing to do with his current situation. Even in the midst of the chaos that this choice brought to Raul’s life, he isn’t fighting for his job or trying to get away with something or make excuses; he is once again following the rules and doing what he is supposed to by applying for a green card. This is an example of what an American citizen should be. Hard working, dedicated to his family and his country, loyal to his president and to the men and women that he worked with every day. Someone who overcame and challenging childhood and took pride in what he’d had to survive in order to be an American.

At one point in the podcast, a former BPA comments on how much harder it has gotten for people like Raul to get their green card since Trump was elected. Ironically, Raul and his wife both voted for Trump. Doing the work that they do, they appreciated his interests in keeping the border safe. I did not vote for Trump. I don’t agree with is ideas about immigration but I do believe in our Immigration system and I think that there should be a REASONABLE process that immigrants can follow to become citizens. I also know how backlogged that system is and how hard it can be for those living in poverty in other countries to be able to afford what it takes to make it through that process successfully. I have a good friend who was born in Cuba and immigrated with her father to America when she was two.  She grew up in Miami and never became a citizen for a number of cultural reasons but mostly because no one in her Cuban neighborhood wanted that kind of attention. Due to circumstances beyond her control, she lost her green card and status in 2016 and is currently facing deportation back to Cuba – a country she has no memory of and had to leave because her father had been imprisoned for political reasons, had been tortured, and is still considered someone who should be killed on sight if he ever returns to Cuba. In the course of this experience, I have watched her be dismissed, discounted, insulted and mistreated by the same system that is supposed to be working to help her be safe. I have been sad and angry and most of all, frightened, for my friend who has lived the whole of her life in this country. She went to school here, worked a job here, paid her taxes here and now, at 59, could lose everything and be sent back to a country that is not her home. 

I love listening to podcasts but a lot of the stories out there are about how many people dream of coming to American and how many people are ultimately disappointed by what that really looks like and how much that costs. I don’t know what the answer is or how to fix it but I know that we have to start seeing people for who they are and not how much they are worth. The one size fits all approach doesn’t work in immigration and its honest, hardworking citizens like Raul who are paying the price.

Student discusses privilege and racism

I am not a stranger to my privilege. For the longest time, I struggled with white guilt. I hated myself because I did not look like my friends, my parents were not like my friends’ parents, my family did not have to struggle like my friends and their families. I hated myself because the people who looked like me hated my friends. The majority of my extended family talked down about the people who were just like my friends, my step-siblings, my adopted siblings, etc... The overwhelming majority of the people who look like me openly support a man who threatens every single piece of my life. When we discussed liberal ideologies in class, I really identified with the excerpt that said that the liberal cannot be content with what they have when what they have means that someone else isn’t getting it as well. 

In the $2.00 A Day book, the authors said that a white person could send out three applications for a call back, but a black person has to send out six or more resumes in order to receive a call back. We read that part of the book a few weeks ago, but it is still echoing in my mind. One time, I applied for three jobs and was interviewed for two of them, and then I had to decide which one to accept and which one to turn down, and that was just in high school. More recently, I went for an interview to be a tutor at a school, and walked out with an additional position as an Activities Specialist for a Boys and Girls Club after-school program. In class, we discussed that affirmative action in university admissions existed for only a short time, and as soon as one white dude sued because he didn’t get admitted, affirmative action ended (in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 and 1996’s Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932). As soon as Affirmative Action ended, there was a decrease in the rate of black college attendance and a decline in the growth of African-Americans entering higher-paying professions. Affirmative Action evened the playing field (Cross & Slater, 1999). If the difference between a black student having a teacher who looks like me is affirmative action, then so be it. Similarly, the book $2 a Day also drew attention to the different scale of problems for white and black men with a felony on their record. White men with a felony are more likely to receive a job than black men without a felony. Black Americans make 12-13% of the U.S. population, yet there are slightly more black people in prison and jails than their white counterparts. The school to prison pipeline is brought up many times in class because the education system is not equal, and unfortunately, diverse schools tend to be poorer. 

A comment that I made one day in class after watching the movie “I, Daniel Blake” is “What do people get out of being assholes?” It is because of the illusion of power that someone might have. It makes me think of the book Why Are They Angry At Us? from last semester when Larry E. Davis said that white people continue to treat blacks horribly because they are afraid that the blacks will get into power and treat them how they treated the blacks for so long. The idea that people have to rationalize and justify their racism to keep a socially constructed pedestal is just sickening to me. 

It is scientifically proven that racism and discrimination exist, but people dismiss it so easily because they don’t want to acknowledge it. In addition to the study mentioned before, there have been other studies where actors of different races go to buy a car or house; every time, the people of color were given a higher price than their white counterparts, and in some of the older studies, the people of color were even turned away. Going back even further to the Clark Doll Experiments (run by Kenneth and Mamie Clark in the 1940s), which I talk about a lot, this study showed the negative effects of segregation and pervasive racism. This phenomenon, empirically recorded in the 1940s, is still happening today. My seven-year-old sister has said many times that she wishes to be white and prefers to play with light skinned dolls. I try to combat this by saying things like “I want you to braid my hair like yours” when she plays with my hair and “Where’s your barbie with pink hair? I want to play with her” referring to a black barbie with a pink afro. We are now in 2020. 

If reparations were successfully implemented during the Reconstruction Era instead of the creation of Jim Crow laws and the likes of that, then I really believe that this country would not be in the state that it is. We would’ve had a better infrastructure to work with. My AP US History high school teacher said that many people who fall into the category of racist and conservative argue that people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but black Americans never had any bootstraps to do so, and I would say that many still don’t. If true equality was given during the Reconstruction Era, then maybe white people wouldn’t be so set on enforcing policies that don’t give parents enough time off of work when their child are born, don’t help parents pay for high quality daycare while they go to work, don’t give schools the same resources to work with, etc... I don’t know why people talk about the American dream because as long as the country has been founded, it has worked to drive people apart. 

I don’t struggle with my identity as much as I used to. I like to say that “I am nothing, and I am everything.” I have grown up around so many different types of people, who aren’t just “black” or aren’t just “gay” or aren’t just “latino.” So I am more than just “white.” I try to help people realize their privilege, starting with my family. I don’t know if that will ever happen, but I know that at the end of the day, I will be an ally, not an asshole. 

Reference:

Cross, T., & Slater, R. (1999). Only the Onset of Affirmative Action Explains the Explosive Growth in Black Enrollments in Higher Education. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (23), 110-115. doi:10.2307/2999332

A reflection on the Frontline: Poor Kids documentary

Watching the Frontline video “Poor Kids” made me extremely emotional for various reasons. I watched this video with my roommate in our living room on Sunday afternoon, curled up on our couch, with hot coffee and full bellies. We were sheltered, warm, and completely safe. We did not have the gnawing worry that these children and their parents are faced with every single moment of the day. That became increasingly apparent to me the further into the segment we got. I felt riddled with shame and guilt because I am oftentimes so fixated on ‘problems’ in my life that are minuscule compared to the problems thousands of Americans face every day. Problems that, a few short years ago, my family and I stared directly into the face of. 

The segment threw me back to times in my childhood where my mother, sister, and I were in semi-similar situations as these families were. For years, we bounced from house to house, sometimes baring the cold winter months in houses where we could not afford to turn the heat on. We would layer up and sleep in the same bed to stay warm and stay late at school to write our papers because we could not afford internet. My sister and I stood in the lunch line at school, acutely aware that when we scanned our fingers to get our lunch, everybody behind us would see that our lunches were free. Looking back, it angers me that our school did not do a better job of privatizing this fact. Although life has gotten increasingly easier for me since coming to school, I am constantly burdened with the overwhelming guilt that my mother still lives her life without many of the luxuries I now experience.

These families, although impoverished, showed extreme closeness and togetherness. If they must live in extreme poverty, they seemed to accept it (although saddened by it) and allowed themselves to be in it together. They were innovative when it came to making things work. For example, the Hageland family that had to move out of their spacious home because they could not afford the mortgage, electricity, and water on top of car payments, groceries, and gas had to settle for a motel room. They were not given a mini fridge to hold cold items, so they put their cold items in the sink and used ice from the ice machines. This is a clear example of basic survival and needing to be innovative to do it. The kids had to eat canned foods because they had no stove or microwave, and although it was clear that they wished they could have warm food and fuller bellies, they did not complain about it. The Smith family had many issues with their home and vehicles, so they had to be innovative in order to wash their dishes, take showers, use the toilet, and get to work. They also did not turn the heat on because it saved electricity and bundled up instead. They did not have internet or cable because those two things are not “necessities,” which was hard on the kids. It later came out that Britney was bullied extremely bad at school because the kids knew she was poor. It showed the families six years later, and although they all seemed to be doing better and the kids were not getting into trouble and things like that, they still struggled to make ends meet. It was obvious that the children in the families hoped for a better life for themselves, and Kaylee, Johnny (family), and Britney all seemed to have the most motivation to get out of poverty by going to college.

Kids should not have to live in constant worry and fear because of money. In this frontline video, all of the kids were very aware of the lack of jobs for their parents and the real possibility that when they grow up, they are going to struggle to make ends meet too. It is something that, as a child under the age of 18, you should never have to worry about, and the insecurity and stress they have endured as children will impact them greatly as adults. Of course, understanding the value of money is extremely important, but there is a difference between understanding its value and fearing that you won’t have any of it. For me, I now live my life terrified to spend any of my money. In a way, I feel greedy because I struggle to let myself spend money on other people and I never want to be a selfish person. Sometimes it feels like it physically pains me when I spend any money, whether it is on groceries, clothes, or my friends/family because my childhood created those anxieties. I empathize with the kids in this video because I know that they will be faced with those same anxious burdens as adults. 

A few quotes by the kids that really stuck out to me were, for starters, Kaylee Hagelan at age 15 saying, “I think I’ve just gotten so used to bad things happening, I just don’t care anymore.” This made me feel so devastated because, at the young age of 15, she had pretty much lived a life full of let-downs. They bounced from place to place and struggled financially for her entire life. At that point in her life her grandma and mom had just been diagnosed with cancer, and her mom was not even able to see a specialist in Iowa because they would not take her Medicaid. Another quote that stuck out to me was Roger Smith at age 19 saying, “I just think at this point in my life I don’t need to be happy right now, I need to make everything I need to and get the ball rolling.” He had to sacrifice his own happiness in order to work full-time to help provide for his family, and it did not matter if it was not what his dream was. He felt responsible for his family because he loves them and they needed his help to live. These people have to sacrifice every single day for their families, and society has still made them out to be lazy, greedy, and dependent on the government. So many people are blind to the truth and this video could help a lot of people see how. The last quote that stuck out to me was Johnny at age 19 saying, “Everybody knows the American dream is go to college and go live your life, that’s all I wanna do, living my dream and take care of my family.” This reiterates the fact that these families have a closeness that families who have never experienced poverty may not have. These kids know the value of sticking together and unity because they grew up in a world where all they had was one another. That is an important take-away from this video. Although they did not have money and struggled to live, they had one another.

All in all, this video pulled out a lot of emotions for me that I did not even realize I had. I was triggered at times by how similar some of these kids' situations were to many of mine growing up. I was reminded why I am going into the field I am going into and why I am so passionate about helping make these kids lives better in whatever way I can. It is important to understand that poverty is complex and deeply impacts millions of Americans every single day, including children. There has to be something that can be done and I hope to be alive to see the day when that happens.

it is very good to gain some perspective on what hassles and irritations in life are worth getting excited about. It is also important to realize that social strength, bonding, and human qualities are not dependent upon wealth. Persons or societies with material deprivation or economic poverty might have spiritual wealth or social riches far beyond what materially comfortable have. This truth has to be recognized, but it should be balanced with the insight that the sort of poverty that creates insecurity and chaos and many emotional crises is generally damaging to the brain, and causes much misery, and is at the root of many problems. I share your appreciation for how the documentaries show these aspects: the strength of the characters and the families, as well as the stresses and frustrations and pain suffered as a result of their poverty.

As to guilt: in mild doses surely guilt is a good thing to have, if we use it to guide our thoughts and behaviors toward ways of living that do not bring guilt into our hearts. But it is also possible to over-indulge in guilt, and let it become a limitation and obstacle to getting on in life. There can likewise be a wide range of healthy and functional relationships to have with money/wealth. Our society suffers perhaps too much from greed and a sort of materialism that leads many into hollow and empty lives devoid of deeper meaning or connection. Yet, people can go too far in opposing money and wealth, forgetting that the object ought top be a health emotional detachment in which we shed excessive desire or excessive disgust in relation to money and material treasure. 

Sometimes social workers can go too far in being uncomfortable with money, and fall into an asceticism where they tolerate pay that is too low. This can cause some problems for charitable work, as we have a double-standard and disapprove of rewarding philanthropic workers with financial security.  Social workers are prone to the other problem as well, assuming that money and material goods will solve problems. It is true that material assistance that removes the stress of precarious living and establishes security in housing and food will indeed solve many problems, but surely once the problem of meeting basic needs for security are met, the real problem that follows is finding meaningful lives in which we can flourish in several dimensions of existence, and material abundance isn't really one of those dimensions. Does having lots of stuff give us greater fulfillment or better lives? It may do so to the extent that we gain greater freedom and range of choice when we have more money, but that is a product of our society that relies so much on money to open opportunities and possibilities, and don't you think we could organize society in such a way that many possibilities could be set before us where money was not requisite for participating? 

Student is appalled by South Carolina's treatment of prisoners giving birth

The article I read was from the The State newspaper, which is in South Carolina. This particular article was about women prisoners being shackled while giving birth, which violates laws in ten states, but not South Carolina [ACLU Briefing Paper]. A bill was being discussed that would ban prisoners from being shackled during birth, but opponents said (incorrectly) that such a law was already in place. A doctor testifed that he witnessed a prisoner being subdued while birthing and said that the bill needs to be more specific and actually acted on. A spokesperson for the police department said that the proposed policy was in place and a spokesperson for the correctional center stated that the policy was being followed there but the hospital is not acting on it. The article reported:

The bill also requires that pregnant women only be handcuffed in front of their bodies. Cook said this would allow pregnant women to brace themselves in case of a fall. Preventing shackling could also help reduce other risk factors faced by pregnant women, such as deep vein thrombosis. 

 “What we have learned from seeing patients that have high risk for bad outcomes is that if we can support them, we can decrease the risk of bad outcomes,” Cook said. The bill also extends protections to inmates who have just given birth, prohibiting shackling during the first skin-to-skin contact and nursing of the mother and the child unless there is reason to believe that she is a threat to herself or others. The use of waist restraints before and after the birth also would be prohibited. Thirteen states restricted the use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women as of June 2019, according to data from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Twenty-one states allow medical personnel to request that the restraints are removed immediately. In all, 32 states have passed some legislation limiting the use of restraints in some way.

When I read this article, I was just baffled by the fact that policy or bill was even being discussed. Why is this issue being argued? Even though some of the informants interviewed for the article claims that such restrictions on shackling are enacted already and being enforced, the statements of these doctors and healthcare workers is proving it is not. Once again the police officers are not following through on their oath to protect the communities they serve. The article highlighted the role of shift changes in shaping women’s experiences, and how some police officers enforce the policy and others do not. Why is that? What do the officers get out of dehumanizing someone going through one of the most earth shattering events like giving birth? 

Senators in South Carolina were also requesting the bill go even more intensive, saying body cavity searches need to be prohibited for pregnant inmates and also dietary observations as well. Why were these not already in place? 

I believe there need to be more policies protecting our nation’s incarcerated population and helping them to become rehabilitated. Also, this policy and others like it should be in place to simply protect their humanity and to prevent harm and injustice happening to them. Let’s actually help the people that need it most and deserve grace. I hope this policy gets put in place.