Last week, the Pennsylvania representative voted against unconditional military aid for Israel. This week, she won what was supposed to be a
sometimes headlines are troubling when they're supposed to be… sheez idk what this is supposed to be tbh
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from India
seen from Netherlands
seen from India
seen from South Korea
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
Last week, the Pennsylvania representative voted against unconditional military aid for Israel. This week, she won what was supposed to be a
sometimes headlines are troubling when they're supposed to be… sheez idk what this is supposed to be tbh
Baltimore's population decline has led to a dearth of buildings, some which have been left to deteriorate. Now the city is considering a measure that would allow people to buy homes for $1 instead of demolishing them.
Last week, five Baltimore City Councilors called on the city to revive the $1 home program from the 1980s designed to rehabilitate long-vacant properties. This proposal contrasts with a nearly $700 million state and city effort to demolish and replace 4,000 such buildings.
Unfortunately, Baltimore has a great many empty buildings. The city’s population peaked at nearly 950,000 in 1950 and has declined each decade since then, falling to about 615,000 people in 2016. This population decline contributed to over 16,000 vacant buildings. Aside from being an eyesore, these vacant and deteriorating buildings may also attract incidents of violent crime.
In the face of this seeming intractable problem, the nearly $700 million investment to rid the city of many vacant properties might appear to be a godsend. Announced in January 2016, the four-year Project CORE (Creating Opportunities for Renewal and Enterprise) has nearly $100 million to demolish entire rows of buildings and leave lots that are “clean and green” according to the project FAQ. Further, the state has promised $600 million in incentives and subsidies from existing programs to spur new development. Not everyone is happy.
Preservation Maryland and Baltimore Heritage are urging the city to seek alternatives to widespread demolition. The two organizations call for stabilizing historic vacant properties through new investments in the city’s Vacants to Value program, which seeks to redevelop city-owned vacant properties, and earmarking money for that purpose under Project CORE. Reviving the $1 home scheme may also be a good place to start.
Councilor Mary Pat Clarke’s revived the idea this past August and the Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing last Wednesday to discuss her resolution. Clarke's proposal comes with the backing of H.O.M.E.S. a Baltimore-based community advocacy organization focused on rehabilitating rather than destroying many of the city’s vacant properties. (H.O.M.E.S. stands for Homeownership Opportunity for Mentorship and Economic Success.) The group says under the original scheme, prospective owners would purchase the building for $1 and commit to living in and repairing it.
The estimated cost to restore the properties was as a high as $100,000, so the city made low-interest loans available to new owners. With a one percent interest rate, Clarke's resolution notes that new homeowners could pay as little as $300 per month to repay the loan. With the same terms in the 1980s, H.O.M.E.S. says no new owner defaulted on their loans. During the hearing, representatives from Mayor Pugh's administration were less optimistic about the program. They said the federal funding available in the past is gone today, and that more comprehensive block-wide proposals are needed this time.
THIS IS A WONDERFUL WAY FORWARD
In an interview with The Texas Tribune, Kim Grabert, the state's first director of human trafficking prevention, discussed how the state plans to recover and rehabilitate runaway youth who are sold for sex.
Earlier this year, the Tribune’s Sold Out series examined how state policies — including a severely underfunded child welfare system — failed to help child sex-trafficking victims. Since then, lawmakers set aside a budget increase of more than $500 million for the foster care system and the governor’s office approved new funds for trafficking prevention initiatives — including the state's first-ever director of human trafficking and child exploitation.
Kim Grabert, who in July came to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services from a similar agency in Florida, said in an interview with The Texas Tribune that she hoped to help multiple state agencies cooperate to help Texas trafficking victims.
The only good policy…is a flexible policy.
(Nexus: The Liberator #4)
The state, long known for its challenges with child wellbeing, is now a leader in early childhood education.
I love policies like this. Using your extra money where it will do the most good.
Good Policy
Time of Use
If I live to be 100 I will have spent 35 years as a senior. If I am inactive or in my house all the time those years will be painful and poor quality. This is where Time of Use Pricing benefits seniors because it encourages people to get out of their house and active longer if off peak and on peak are priced further apart this should improve the quality of life for future seniors. Overall electric bills will be reduced or at the very least increase at a slower pace because fewer power plants will need to be built to meet peak demand. The issue is that seniors are hurting today and I have heard plans to address this with out touching Time Of Use.