DC Mayor Vincent Gray's Promise of Affordable Housing

This article about mayor Gray's "effort" to create affordable housing appeared in today's City Paper: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2013/03/12/gray-task-force-unveil-proposals-for-affordable-housing/ . In began to send an e-mail response to my associates here in DC; but, then it occurred to me that my e-mail was, in essence, a blog post. So, after reading the article, read my post below.....

Gray has committed to the creation of 10,000 units of affordable housing by 2020 (5 years after the term that he's serving ends, with there being uncertainty as to whether or not he'll win in 2014 or be able to complete a second term, being in his 70"s).

While I commend his "effort", his math is way off. $100M for 10,000 units comes out to $10,000 per unit, with the cost of creating a single apartment unit in DC exceeding $100,000. The article says that it would take $500M to $1 billion to keep his promise. I also made that point during the March 5th Press Conference on Poverty which took place in the Wilson Building (City Hall). One of the people quoted in the article called it "a wonderful down payment". So, we'll take it for what it's worth.

I take issue with this quote though: "Our vision is simple and aspirational: The District of Columbia is a city that provides housing that is affordable for all who wish to live and work here," I'm left to wonder how many of the jobs in DC pay considerably lower than $30/hr ($60,000/yr.) which is the amount required to live in DC where the rent averages $1,600/month. Is Gray going to make housing affordable for every McDonald's employee and carpenter's helper? After all, such jobs contribute to the life of the city.

The answer may be encrypted into the article, though it's not hard to find if you're paying attention -- and doing the math. Mayor Gray plans to create 3,000 units of market-rate housing every year through 2020. he plans to create 10,000 units of affordable housing by 2020. That means that in the seven years that it takes to create 10,000 units of affordable housing, he will have created 21,000 units of market-rate housing. So, the low-wage worker is still being squeezed out of DC -- at the end of the workday, after they've contributed to the life of the city.

I qualify my last statement with a few facts. Over 7,000 of DC's 620,000 residents (about 1 in 90) is homeless. About 70,000 people were recently on the DC Housing Authority's wait list. At least 100,000 families in the city are rent-burdened, paying more than one-third of their income in rent. At least 50,000 of those families are extremely rent-burdened, paying at least half of their income in rent. Recent stats have indicated that a net gain of about 1,100 new residents per month (13,200 per year) are moving to DC which means that there is a lot of high-end development taking place in addition to the 3,000 units per year that Gray is proposing.

So, whether you compare Gray's 1,428 units of affordable housing per year to the thousands of market rate units going up every year or to the large and growing number of needy, homeless and rent-burdened people, it's just a drop in the bucket. But as I said earlier, we'll take it for what it's worth.

All of this talk about affordable housing raises the question: "How do we define the ambiguous phrase 'affordable housing'" Many of the homeless and housing advocates will tell you that you shouldn't need to spend more that 30% of your income on rent. But that still doesn't answer the question of what income bracket mayor Gray will cater to with this pot of money. his budget director said (off the record) on March 5th that the mayor is focused on helping those that make 30% or less of the AMI (area median income) which stands at around $110,000 in the DC Metro area right now. But his statements were not reflected in the article. Let's hope that he's right.

Here is the Fairbudget Coalition's list of recommendations on how gray should spend the $100M: http://washingtonlegalclinic.wordpress.com/

Fiscal Cliff or Congressional Black Hole?

So, we're going over the "fiscal cliff" in February or March and Congress is ostensibly "trying" (notice I didn't say "working") to soften the impact. This analogy raises the questions: What type of vehicle were we in as we went over the fiscal cliff -- a car, bus, train, hang glider? Were we using dangerously long bungee cords or sufficiently short ones? How far is the fall? What's at the bottom? And is there a steep slope that we bump along until we hit the bottom or does the precipice protrude at the top, allowing for a free fall? All of this will determine how badly we get hurt -- or worse.

I prefer to think of the debacle called the U.S. Congress (the 535 people and ALL that they do, not just their most recent failed effort) as a "black hole". We pay taxes to them, though not necessarily by choice. Congress then spends most of their time and much of our money on legislation that benefits an elite few of us. Congress is like a black hole that is sucking in (taxing) everything around it that crosses its event horizon (national borders and foreign interests) and condensing that matter into a smaller and smaller space (legislating for the benefit of the wealthy elite -- the capitalists).

But so much for analogies -- for now. I'm appalled by the failure of the general public to see the fiscal cliff fight for what it really is -- a smoke screen. After all, in the summer of 2012 Congress MADE the legislation which they later referred to as the fiscal cliff. In their "defense" (a word they're in love with), I'll say that they had to do something about the burgeoning U.S. deficit. (However, they also have a "deficit of reason".) That said, Congress:

1 -- Developed "Plan A" which included budget sequestration and increased taxes
2 -- Tried to come up with a "Plan B" so as to avoid implementing THEIR OWN "Plan A"
3 -- Labeled "Plan A" the "fiscal cliff", sending the world economy into an uproar
4 -- Came up with a stop-gap measure that will need to be revisited and resolved before March 2013
5 -- Convened the 113th Congress with 150 new members.

(I'm left to wonder if, on some level, causing the world to worry (with the U.S. dollar being the world's reserve currency) isn't just a show of power -- asserting the essential roles of the U.S. Congress and currency in the world.)

While considering the recent "acts" of Congress, let us also remember the inter-generational congressional and presidential trends which got us to this point, namely "Reaganomics", Bush-era tax breaks and the Keynesian Theory (the idea that giving tax dollars to "employers" will, in turn, boost the economy). The government has given tax breaks to corporations, ostensibly so that they would create jobs -- thus increasing the tax base and decreasing the number of people who need government benefits. But this "Trickle-Down Theory", as it's often called, has not had its intended(?) effects. Then again, consider the definitions of a "trickle" and a "theory", not to speak of the fact that the corporations that receive this "corporate welfare" look "down" on the poor and the powerless who need jobs and/or benefits.

While the need for social services for the employed, unemployed and unemployable has increased and governments nationwide are decreasing the amount of money that they spend on social services (including unemployment benefits). This ONLY BEGINS to explain the unfriendly environment that our elected officials have been creating for the under-privileged. But, like a frog in slowly-boiling water, Americans remain in the pot and fail to see their certain death as it approaches.

That aside, I'm reminded of one of the reasons behind the American Civil War of the 1860's. I hate to break it to you (LOL), but the North's decision to combat the slavery of the South wasn't due entirely (if at all) to an attack of conscience. The North had paid labor. The South had unpaid labor. Both were trading with Great Britain. The North couldn't sell for as a low a price as the South and wanted to force the South to raise its prices by paying its labor. (There's an upside to Capitalism after all, huh?)

Today, rather than the paid labor of the north competing with the unpaid labor of the south, we have the poorly-paid American labor force competing with the worse-paid or (virtually) unpaid labor of other nations with their sweat shops and slave camps. (That's not to discount the fact that we have home-grown slave drivers in this country too, many of whom prey on the homeless and on undocumented workers.)

American labor rights have become subject to the austere conditions created by globalization. Rather than paying Americans a "living wage", giving them benefits such as health coverage or employing them at all, corporations can just take their(?) business overseas where they force people to work long ours for very little pay and no benefits and then ship the goods to America so that they can be sold to those whose jobs were taken overseas (or filled by robots).

All things considered, it is virtually impossible for ANY national government -- in and of itself -- or the impotent United Nations to arrest the process whereby the world economy is devolving into total chaos and decadence; because, no single government has the level of authority needed to force corporations or other employers worldwide to pay a living wage. (Trying to get the G-20 nations to "agree" on a solution would likely be even more chaotic than 10 U.S. congressional sessions.) All of this just goes to show that our congressional black hole has been sucked into the even larger and "denser" one created by the globalized economy.

While his power to change the world economy is very limited, President Obama DOES HAVE the power -- if he'll use it -- to turn the black hole of Congress into a "neutron star" (see: Big Bang Theory) that sends its hyper-condensed elements outward in all directions. As a lame-duck president, he is no longer obliged to be a people pleaser and more inclined to state his true intentions. Many Americans have wished Obama would make like Bush 43 and man-handle Congress -- but for the right reasons and with the right agenda. Obama hinted that he had a hidden agenda during a conversation with the Russian president some time ago. Maybe it includes man-handling Congress. One can only hope.

Let's see what he says to the new congress in the coming days and what he discloses during his upcoming inauguration and State of the Union Address. Will he give Congress a hard talk, remind them of their duty to the American people, instill in them a sense of congressional principle and show that he'll be unswerving in his determination to "fix" Congress? Once again, one can only hope.

But, before we leave this topic altogether, it is important to note that Congress is a black hole in yet another way, making this a perfect analogy: They are condensing people's ability to do any critical thinking into the congress, further condensing it into a few key congressional figures and using it in ways that ignore (or hurt) the masses. America is becoming dumber by the day, as the quality of our educational system decreases, less people even have access to (low-quality) higher education, hierarchically-minded people exhibit blind faith in a system that doesn't have their best interests at heart, they are told WHAT to think instead of HOW to think and they are conditioned to obey authority without question. By the time that a critical mass of Americans realizes what we should have been doing all along, it will be too late to do it and America will have advanced too far down the path toward destruction to be saved. Such a time may already be upon us. Let's hope not.

INTERESTING FACTS: Unemployment benefits were created due to the efforts of the Detroit auto industry, with Detroit also being where many freed or escaped slaves went in the 19th century. The city has a history and character of "saving the oppressed laborer". It was also hit hard during the "Great Recession" and has yet to recover.

PEACE (for now). Out.

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)
Cell phone: (240) 305-5255
425 2nd St. NW
Washington, DC 20001-2003

SHARC's efforts to meet with Mayor Gray

It is the mission of SHARC to engage the poor, homeless, formerly homeless, community activists and concerned citizens in advocacy efforts for the poor and under-privileged community with an emphasis on self-advocacy.

SHARC's efforts to meet with Mayor Gray

Below is an article which I recently wrote and am trying to have published. It describes the trouble that DC homeless advocates are having getting a meeting with Mayor Vincent Gray. I delivered hard copies to the Washington Post and the Examiner on December 10th, 2012. On December 11th Mayor Gray was the first mayor to visit an Inter-agency Council on Homelessness (ICH) meeting. On that day I got a card from his special assistant as the mayor told me to set up a meeting through him. hopefully this will cause things to take a turn for the better.....

To whom it may concern,

I am Eric Jonathan Sheptock, a relatively well-known homeless advocate in Washington, DC. Since I began advocating in June 2006 in opposition to former mayor Anthony Williams' failed attempt to close the Franklin School Shelter, I've been featured in the media for various reasons ranging from specific campaigns aimed at helping the homeless and creating affordable housing to my use of the internet and social media to advocate and do popular education on the causes of and solutions to homelessness.

As it turns out, homelessness can not be abolished without a sufficient amount of political will. It is for that reason that SHARC (Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change), the group of homeless advocates of which I'm the chairman visited the mayor's Community Affairs office on November 1st, 2012 and filled out an application to meet with the mayor. I've included a timeline of events surrounding SHARC's attempts to meet with the mayor below. But before you read it, here are some additional matters for you to consider:

Many advocates for the poor and homeless believe that no recent mayoral administration has exhibited the political will to enable the poor to live in DC – whether the poor are new arrivals who choose to move here or long-time DC residents who are trying to remain. Anthony Williams is responsible for replacing the rent cap with rent control – a move that has allowed rents to resume their ascent to the stars. Since then, there has been an exponential increase in homelessness locally – whether by coincidence or causation – and, in the last ten years, at least 40,000 Afro-American Washingtonians have left the city due to sky-high rents.

Adrian Fenty seemed like he would be different. As the Ward 4 councilman, he also chaired the Committee on Human Services. He was quite responsive to the complaints of homeless people and has held town hall meetings at the DC Village Family Shelter – one of the two shelters his administration closed, with the other being the Franklin School Shelter. In hindsight we see that it was a desire to ascend through the ranks of government rather than a genuine concern for the homeless which made him so attentive to the cries of the poor.

In December 2006 over 80 homeless people attended a meeting that was put on by Fenty's transition team. Getting that many homeless people to attend a political event was no small feat. Pizza and soda WERE served, though it wasn't until after the meeting – with food always being a draw. However, there was a genuine excitement among the homeless who thought that Fenty's apparent dedication to ending (or at least softening the impact of) their plight while he was councilman would translate into the policies he adopted as mayor. His closure of the Franklin School Shelter (for single men) in September 2008 – after having made the campaign promise to keep it open – was the last straw. The homeless completely lost faith in him at that point – and it was fitting that they did, for more reasons than they themselves understood at the time.

The two housing programs which Adrian Fenty began in conjunction with the shelter closures have had foreseeable funding problems. To justify the Franklin closure, Fenty used two-time federal funding to begin DC's Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Program. When that funding ran out, the DC Council had to use local dollars to maintain the program – which meant that the money was taken from other local programs. To keep from evicting the newly-housed, the Gray administration has more recently had to transfer PSH recipients to the federal housing Choice Voucher Program – which is one of the reasons that HCVP isn't taking any new applications right now.

The System Transformation Initiative (STI) program which families from DC Village were moved into was supposed to house them “indefinitely” but had to change its format and name due to a lack of funding less than two years after the program's inception. Now STEAP (Short-Term Exit Assistance Program) pays a family's rent on a descending scale for a year, after which people with serious employment challenges are expected to pay $1,500-2,000 per month in rent (or possibly $800-1,000 for a slum dwelling). This has resulted in some families choosing the security of the shelter over a year-long program at the end of which they are more likely to end up on the streets than to be in a living-wage job and affordable housing.

A little-known fact about the closure of the DC Village Family Shelter is that former DHS Director Clarence Carter was given a test when hired on July 23rd, 2007 by then-mayor Fenty: he had to close DC Village within three months. He passed. (Clarence Carter now works for Arizona Governess Jan brewer.) Tucked neatly between the two shelter closures was the resignation of Leslie Steen as the chair of Fenty's Affordable Housing Task Force after one year on the job due to not having “supervisory responsibility for the several housing agencies which she was supposed to coordinate”. It looks now as though Fenty made a few token efforts to help the poor and homeless of DC; but all of them backfired. I'm left to wonder if that's the way he planned it. And let's not forget about Councilman Barry's Poverty Commission. What ever became of that?

Now for Mayor Gray. He held his One City Summit at the Convention Center on February 11th, 2012 (the same day we lost Whitney). The primary concern put forth by the 2,000 Washingtonians who participated in the instant survey was the severe shortage of affordable housing. Mayor Gray promised to have another One City Summit in 2013 during which we'd be given the opportunity to grade his progress at meeting our demands. He has started another Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force which held public hearings in October and November. They'll submit their recommendations to the mayor soon. I'm sure that Mayor Gray at the next One City Summit will tout the task force's existence and its minimal accomplishments as proof that he's aiding the poor of the city. But given the failures and token efforts of previous administrations, poor Washingtonians should have learned by now not to count their chickens before they hatch – that is, not to take glory or comfort in what a local politician says they are doing for the poor until the results are actually being felt by the intended recipients.

On September 28th, 2012 – just two days before the end of the fiscal year – Mayor Gray pushed through a piece of “emergency legislation” which enabled him to spend a total of $23 Million on public and charter school upgrades (nicer computers), the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, the Metro System and juvenile detention without going through the usual and lengthy legislative process, the DC Council concurring. While some of the aforementioned measures may have qualified as emergencies, the computer upgrades at the schools definitely don't fit the bill. Meanwhile, he failed to fund the $7 Million budget shortfall in Homeless Services for Fiscal Year 2013, even though it was the first item on the council's “wish list” of items that would receive funding if additional money was found. The Dept. of Human Services has since mitigated the shortfall by decreasing its office space and finding other ways to lower its administrative costs; and, they plan to spend the money saved there on homeless services. Thus, they'll be able to keep shelters open beyond April 2013. Even so, local activists are still up in arms over the unfunded budget shortfall. And they should be. But it's not because the homeless are threatened with a loss of services; but rather, because the mayor has shown callous disregard for the poor of the city, forcing the department that serves the poor to get by on less funding in the midst of a surplus. In spite of what political double-talk the mayor might give, his priorities are clear. We also see for whom he couldn't care less.

When one considers the recent history of local homeless and poverty politics – or shall I say “poli-TRICKS”? – the skepticism of advocates like myself is easily understood. Some people think that I'm a little too aggressive toward politicians and other city officials – which is essentially what was said about the late, great homeless advocate Mitch Snyder. I beg to differ. I've learned during my six and a half years of advocacy what Mitch Snyder learned at some point during his sixteen years of advocacy: that many politicians choose to ignore the plight of the poor and that to advocate for the poor one must employ unconventional, if not aggressive, tactics.

That said, SHARC recently tried to schedule a meeting with Mayor Gray. See the timeline of events surrounding this effort:

Timeline of SHARC's efforts to meet with Mayor Gray

1 -- On Nov. 1st SHARC members entered the Wilson Building (City Hall) and, while there, I filled out a request for a meeting with the mayor as other SHARC members watched.

2 -- On Nov. 13th I did a mail search and found that there were no messages from the mayor's administration in my inbox indicating that a meeting was being arranged between SHARC and the mayor.

3 -- I immediately went to the mayor's Facebook page and posted a comment about wanting to meet with him.

4 -- On Nov. 14th I received a call from a woman in the mayor's scheduling office. She stated that she'd seen the Facebook comment. When I asked her if she'd received the form that was submitted on Nov. 1st, she said "No".

5 -- That same day I e-mailed her a scanned copy of the form from Nov. 1st.

6 -- on Nov. 16th Christopher Murphy who is the mayor's chief of staff e-mailed me a slightly insulting message in which he acknowledged my right to protest and said that "if I wanted to have a “civil conversation" that he would meet with me. Chris' message said that he thought I had wrong information concerning the mayor's priorities when it comes to schools, charter schools and parks. Chris' message made no reference to SHARC and is construed by some to be an effort to pull me away from the group and into a situation where the mayor and/or his staff can try to intimidate me or buy me off.

7 -- On Nov. 20th I saw the e-mail from the 16th and responded, expressing a willingness to meet with Mr. Murphy and asking about possible dates and other logistics. Mr. Murphy responded with a planned
meeting date/time of Wednesday, November 28th at 12:30 PM but no room number (even though I had asked for one). It is important to note that I'd never heard of the guy before reading his e-mail and that, at that point in time, I'd not made any notable public statement about the mayor's priorities – all of which led me to wonder where Chris Murphy got his “information” about me and what sparked his interest in me.

8 -- On the evening of November 23rd I sent an e-mail in which I showed the name of Chris Murphy, BCC'ed many others and made reference to the hidden media names. The e-mail contained a link to a blog post that explained how the mayor's policies hurt or ignore the poor and homeless. I thought it right to let the mayor's chief of staff know what's being said about  the mayor and that the blog post might explain what "wrong information" Mr. Murphy thinks Mr. Sheptock has concerning the mayor's priorities. Mr. Murphy was insulted by the fact that many people were BCC'ed and sent an e-mail which stated that he wasn't sure that Eric deserved "the respect of a meeting". (Though it didn't state with certainty that the meeting was being called off, it strongly suggested that Mr. Murphy was no longer willing to meet with me.

9 -- I read that message on the morning of November 26th and responded to it, telling Chris Murphy to have thicker skin and be more professional. An unfriendly but sufficiently respectful e-mail exchange occurred throughout the day at the end of which Mr. Murphy reiterated his unwillingness to meet with me (but eventually denied it). This exchange carried over into the morning of the 27th with me sending Chris a response to his last message to me that was sent late on the evening of the 26th – which would turn out to be his last message to me to-date.

10 – in the afternoon of November 26th 50 to 60 homeless people entered the Wilson Building to self-advocate. While there, a group of about a half dozen people returned to the mayor's Community Affairs Office to check on the progress of our application to meet with the mayor. Daryl Levine shook my hand as I began to explain our desire to meet with the mayor and told me in hush tones (which I'm not sure anyone else heard), “You can't meet with the mayor”. Sandra Lee explained that getting a meeting with the mayor can take two or three months, with it having been 25 days since our application had been submitted. When we asked for a tentative date, we were told that their office was just beginning to schedule meetings for the end of December. We left having no more answers than we'd come with.

11 -- On the morning of Nov. 28th I e-mailed Chris again (right before heading to NYC) to ask if my meeting with him was still on. As of the writing of this article, I have not received any response to that message nor any additional communications from the mayor's scheduling office via phone or e-mail.

12 – On the morning of Monday, December 3rd I did a 5-minute radio stint on WPFW 89.3 from 7:23 AM to 7:28 AM during which I mentioned the trouble SHARC has been having with Chris Murphy. Due to my personal rule of letting someone know what I say about them (whether or not I actually like the person), I e-mailed Chris Murphy and let him know about the radio stint. I included a link to the show's recording along with instructions on how to find the 5-minute segment. Chris has not responded. I'll send him a copy of this article as well, whether or not he responds.

The radio station said that they would give him an opportunity to respond to my comments. Whether or not he does, it's a win for SHARC and myself. If Mr. Murphy fails to respond, then my words stand. If, in fact, he does respond, then he will have been called on the carpet by someone he looks down his nose at – a poor, homeless man who has never attended a college or university and never held a government job.

Exchange with Mayor's Chief of Staff Chris Murphy

Message 1:

From:"Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
To:"ericsheptock@yahoo.com"
Sent:Friday, November 16, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: an offer

Eric – I certainly respect your right and wish to peacefully protest but I believe you have a misunderstanding of certain actions the mayor took with respect to identifying additional funding for playground renovations, charters schools, and DCPS.  If you have any interest in having a civil conversation about these issues, please know that my door is open and I would welcome it.

Respectfully,
Chris

Christopher K. Murphy | Chief of Staff  
Executive Office of Mayor Vincent C. Gray | Government of the District of Columbia  


Message 2:

From: Eric Sheptock [mailto:ericsheptock@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:27 PM
To:Murphy, Christopher (EOM)
Subject:An Offer for SHARC to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff

An Offer for SHARC to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff


Mr. Chris Murphy,

I just saw your message (below) as I receive many e-mails. That said, I would never flatly refuse to have a civil conversation. I often tell people that, while I understand the need to protest, one should always be ready, willing and able to have intelligent conversation with any and all people -- even those whom they've labeled as "the enemy". I hope that you didn't have me pegged as someone who only chooses to shout and shoot -- a rebel without a cause.

Being that you've given me an open invitation, what is the room number to your office? What is the best number to reach you at? Is there a day or time that works best for you? May I bring other SHARC members? Please advise.
As for your statement, "I believe you have a misunderstanding of certain actions the mayor took with respect to identifying additional funding for playground renovations, charters schools, and DCPS", I haven't the fuzziest idea as to what you're referring to. While I admittedly only have sketchy details on the aforementioned mayoral initiatives, I have absolutely no recollection of having sent you a statement of my position on such matters. I DO know that I made brief mention during a broadcast concerning the $30 million the mayor wants for parks and juxtaposed it with his refusal to fund the $7 million budget shortfall for homeless services. So brief was my mention of the matter that I can hardly imagine that it's what you're referring to. Even so, since you've made "an offer" to talk with myself (and presumably with other SHARC members), I'll take you up on that offer. Please answer my questions concerning meeting logistics and we can go from there.
Thank you.

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)

Message 3:

From:"Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
To:Eric Sheptock
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject:RE: An Offer for SHARC to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff

How about next Wednesday at 12:30?

Message 4:

Forwarded Message -----
From: Eric Sheptock
To: "christopher.murphy@dc.gov"
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:20 PM
Subject: Awesome blog post about mayor Gray ignoring the poor!!!!!

All,
Talk about hitting the jackpot!!!!! I was searching for more info on the mayor's indiscreet emergency legislation that allowed him to give away $23 million. On my first try I ran across this blog post which is a perfect treatise on how the mayor ignores the poor.   It is a must-read!!!!!

I would ask that the hidden media names do research on this issue and write about it. SHARC has requested a meeting with the mayor which should happen in December or January. It would be awesome to get a write-up on this in the mainstream (and tributary) media before that.

I've shown the name of the mayor's chief of staff. He offered to meet with SHARC; because, he felt that we had wrong information concerning the mayor's handling of funds for parks, schools and other priorities of his. SHARC had not sent any official statement to the CoS concerning such matters, leaving me to wonder what made him feel that way. Even so, SHARC is glad to meet with him. Now, read the awesome blog post!!!!!

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC

Message 5:

From:"Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
>To:"'ericsheptock@yahoo.com'"
>Sent:Friday, November 23, 2012 10:33 PM
>Subject:Re: Awesome blog post about mayor Gray ignoring the poor!!!!!

Eric

this is an odd way to communicate with and about me. It concerns me that meeting with you will be a waste of my time. I would hope that would respect me as I am trying to respect you. Your communication does not make me feel respected by you. If that is what you wish, I do not feel it is worth giving you the respect of a meeting.

Chris

Message 6:

From: Eric Sheptock [mailto:ericsheptock@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 08:05 AM
To: Murphy, Christopher (EOM)
Subject: Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff

Chris,

12:30 Wednesday works for me. I'll find out today if it works for others. Put us down for that day/time. I'll let you know by day's end if it won't work. What's the room/office number???

Eric Jonathan Sheptock

Message 7:

From:"Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
To:"'ericsheptock@yahoo.com'"
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2012 8:21 AM
Subject:Re: Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff
Eric

did you see my subsequent email? Your disrespectful, non-constructive behavior makes me think this will be a waste of time.

Message 8:

To:"Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2012 8:34 AM
Subject:NO RESPECT???: Awesome blog post about mayor Gray ignoring the poor!!!!!

Mr. Murphy,

I'm lost as to what you're calling disrespectful. I made 2 basic points in the e-mail which you're referring to:

1 -- I sent the link to a blog post and indicated that it very accurately stated our position concerning the mayor's initiatives and priorities -- how they adversely affect the poor (whether or not it is intentional).

2 -- I reiterated the point that I wasn't sure what statement from me as an individual or SHARC as a whole was the impetus for your initial communication to me; but, I'm glad to meet with you, find out and go from there.

Please tell me what offended you. I have pretty thick skin myself. So, maybe there was a feeling that I missed or forgot to respect. Being that emotion is not a defining characteristic of mine, I openly admit that I might have said something insensitive. please tell me what it is.

As for you refusing to meet with SHARC, 75+ other people were BCC'ed. It doesn't look good for a man in your position as a high-level "public servant" to be so sensitive or to refuse to meet with the public -- especially someone who is so closely connected to the media and has been featured in the mass media for his use of social media (over 15,000 FB/Twitter contacts, not counting e-mail). So, get some thick skin, suck it up, meet with SHARC and let's talk business.
Besides, SHARC has already formally applied for a meeting with the mayor. That meeting WILL take place. So, you can give the mayor a greater advantage than he'd otherwise have by letting OUR meeting serve as a meaningful precursor or you can be the reason your boss ends up flying blind in that meeting.

If you were as smart as a person in your position should be, you'd read the blog post and use it to develop talking points for our meeting on Wednesday. There's still time for you to do that. Now, can we communicate like 2 grown men with thick skin who just want to take care of business as opposed to getting in our feelings? I extend that olive branch to you. We can put this sensitive moment behind us and move forward with some good, rational planning. Are you willing to do that???
I'll attribute some intellect to you and assume you said, "Yes". (Media was BCC'ed. Make your boss and his office look as good as can be expected at this point.) So long as you get and remain in a rational state of mind, we can get along. Anymore feeling from you and you'll be plastered all over the front page of the news. you can take that to the bank.

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)

Message 9:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff
From: Eric Sheptock
Date: Mon, November 26, 2012 8:52 am

To: "Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"

Chris,

I DID see your subsequent after sending the one 2 messages down in this thread. SO DID THE MEDIA!!!!! They can now scroll down in THIS thread and see that you refuse to meet with SHARC. It will be on the radio soon -- unless you suck it up and return to your "offer" to meet with SHARC which YOU put forth without any provocation from me.

So, let me get this: You offer to meet with SHARC. I send any e-mail that wouldn't have offended a professional woman. you (a man) get in your feelings and withdraw the offer which YOU made of your own accord. You and your boss end up looking extremely incompetent. YOU are creating problems for your boss. But there is time to redeem yourself. The next crazy thing you say to me, I'm going all out with the brutal honesty. Suck it up, Baby!!!!!

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)

Message 10:

From: Clarence Talston (WP) [mailto:clarencetalston@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 09:20 AM
To: Murphy, Christopher (EOM)
Cc: ericsheptock@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: [FWD: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff]


Hello Mr. Murphy,

My name is Clarence Talston and I am a reporter for the Washington Post DC Government Division. I was assigned to cover the SHARC matter involving DC Government's refusal to restore the $7 million dollars for homeless services even though there is a surplus.  In my coverage Mr. Eric Sheptock has forwarded me all his correspondence with DC Government Agencies and Officials and we have chronicled quite a story over the past couple of months.  Today's correspondence is quite a hiccup in the progress and unfortunately Mr. Sheptock's responses are not threats as it relates to media.  Every year the Post does a front page piece on homeless matters over the holiday season and we have featured Mr. Sheptock a couple of years ago and value him as a reliable source.  Though I can't advise you how to move forward with the matter, I can only write the facts as has been presented below.  I would welcome any additional information that you would like to provide in reference to the Mayor's office refusing to meet with the homeless of our city during the holiday season.

Thanks for your time and communication.

Clarence Talston
DC Government Reporter
Washington Post

Message 11:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
To: "'clarencetalston@yahoo.com'"
Cc: "'ericsheptock@yahoo.com'" ; "'Craigt@washpost.com'" ; "'StewartN@washpost.com'" ; "Ribeiro, Pedro (EOM)"
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FWD: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff]

Mr Talston - I find the tone and substance of your email troubling. I also note you are using a Yahoo email account - which in my past dealings with Post reporters unusual.

As you may know, I offered to meet with Mr. Sheptock out of respect. I have subsequently expressed concern to him that that respect was not being reciprocated - and have not yet refused to meet with him. I then received from Mr. Sheptock I highly unusual email that included an odd, immature taunt with a very curious and highly inappropriate misogynistic comment.

I have cc'd two local Post reporters known to me who I am hoping can shed some light on your unusual email.

My best to you,
Chris

Message 12:

From: Eric Sheptock [mailto:ericsheptock@yahoo.com]
>Sent:Monday, November 26, 2012 1:45 PM
>To:Murphy, Christopher (EOM)
>Subject:Fw: [FWD: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff]

Chris,
Let me take this opportunity to extend an olive branch and encourage us to meet as planned this Wednesday at 12:30. Here is my direct extension of truce and understanding in the company of SHARC as we galvanize to come down to City Hall. Have a look here http://youtu.be/VkMnun4Mp9k

I look forward to meeting you on November 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM. Please confirm our appointment. Have a good day.

Message 13:

----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: "Murphy, Christopher (EOM)"
>To: "ericsheptock@yahoo.com"
>Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:16 PM
>Subject: FW: [FWD: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH
SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with
Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff]

Mr. Sheptock – Perhaps you would be so kind as to share this email with everyone else that you have blind cc’d on our previous email exchanges. I do not have the privilege of knowing with whom you shared our email conversations but since several people forwarded the thread to me (clearly from you), I assume you will have access to that list.

You are correct – in what was clearly a naïve if well-intentioned effort, I did reach out to you and offer to sit down and have a civil conversation.  I have tremendous respect for all residents of the District and wished to convey that respect to you.  In offering to meet, I sought to clarify certain pieces of
misinformation that were out there and that you were forwarding around.  Again, naively, I thought helping you to understand certain important pieces of information would – at the very least –

allow you to be more informed in your advocacy, which I respect. Subsequent to that very genuine offer, it has become clear to me that such a meeting would not be productive.

To recap, today alone you have:
-sent the odd and troubling taunting, misogynistic email which I have
pasted below in red.

-claimed that I refused to meet with you when I had not – I had only expressed concerns about your erratic behavior, concerns that have only increased throughout the day.

-blind copied large numbers of people on emails you send to me by pretended were respectful, person to person emails between us

-had someone pose as a Washington Post reporter in an email to me and, again oddly, threaten me (here’s just a suggestion – next time a friend of yours poses as a Washington Post reporter online don’t have them use a Yahoo email address).  I believe pretending to be someone online who are you not is a cybercrime but let’s just let that issue go.

-now extended an “olive branch” to me after I replied to the faux reporter’s email and copied known reporters at The Washington Post asking if they had heard of the person posing as a reporter. Needless to say, they had not.

Mr. Sheptock, again – I ask that you share this email broadly with whomever you blind copied so they have the benefit of my reply. Your increasingly erratic, troubling behavior leaves me no choice but to let you know that meeting with you would not be a productive use of my time or yours.

I wish you nothing but the best.

Respectfully,
Chris Murphy

[[From: Eric Sheptock [mailto:ericsheptock@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:52 AM
To: Murphy, Christopher (EOM)
Subject: CHRIS MURPHY (mayor's chief of staff) WON'T MEET WITH SHARC!!!!! : Wednesday at 12:30: to Have a Civil Conversation with Mayor Gray's Chief of Staff

Chris,

I DID see your subsequent after sending the one 2 messages down in this thread. SO DID THE MEDIA!!!!! They can now scroll down in THIS thread and see that you refuse to meet with SHARC. It will be on the radio soon -- unless you suck it up and return to your "offer" to meet with SHARC which YOU put forth without any provocation from me. 

So, let me get this: You offer to meet with SHARC. I send any e-mail that wouldn't have offended a professional woman. you (a man) get in your feelings and withdraw the offer which YOU made of your own accord. You and your boss end up looking extremely incompetent. YOU are creating problems for your boss. But there is time to redeem yourself. The next crazy thing you say to me, I'm going all out with the brutal honesty. Suck it up, Baby!!!!!]]

Message 14:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Eric Sheptock
To: "christopher.murphy@dc.gov"
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:01 AM
Subject: Exchange with mayor's chief of staff

Chris Murphy,

We've had a rather unpleasant exchange today which started with your unfounded and unclear accusation of me having a problematic form of communication. You actually sent the e-mail on November 23rd. I just read it this morning:

Eric - this is an odd way to communicate with and about me. It concerns me that meeting with you will be a waste of my time. I would hope that would respect me as I am trying to respect you. Your communication does not make me feel respected by you. If that is what you wish, I do not feel it is worth giving you the respect of a meeting.

You gave no clear answer at this point as to what you considered to be disrespectful. I've included all of our communications in the attachments so that you can follow the developments from November 16th (before which we'd never communicated) until now.

Being that the e-mails BEFORE the pasted one in blue had no unpleasant overtones by a rational person's standard, it would seem that you have been tasked by the mayor with finding a reason not to meet with SHARC. So, you pretend to be willing to meet, look for the slightest reason to call the meeting off and then blame ME for the process falling apart.

As far as you being offended by my sharing our exchange with others is concerned, you are a public official who is working for a mayor who claims to be transparent. However, you come off as wanting to remain quite opaque. If all that you e-mail and say is of a high moral quality, it shouldn't matter who I BCC. You're not my girlfriend and we don't communicate in confidence. You're a PUBLIC official! DC owns you and all that you do. Get used to it.

As for your other claims and statements:

I WILL share the final message from you. It is in the attachments in its full form. (please excuse the font issues.)

By your own admission, you offered to have a "civil" conversation with me. This came off as you implying that I was less than civil. And it was our first communication ever:

You are correct – in what was clearly a naïve if well-intentioned effort, I did reach out to you and offer to sit down and have a civil conversation.

Did it ever strike you that your first message to me in life might have come across as a little insulting? Nevertheless, I decided to "suck it up" and respond calmly. You "took first blood" -- figuratively speaking. As a matter of fact, you came out swinging.

I sought to clarify certain pieces of misinformation that were out there and that you were forwarding around.

It would have served you and the mayor well had you remained in that aforementioned frame of mind. You seem to have wanted to make the mayor look good. However, you were insulted by me forwarding a public servant's e-mail to the public. That, in turn, led to increasingly unpleasant communications (which is what you hoped for). Now you have an "excuse" not to meet with us.

Subsequent to that very genuine offer, it has become clear to me that such a meeting would not be productive. 

I'm still going to publish information about your boss. If you succeed at telling me something worthwhile that I didn't know, I'll include it in all pertinent statements of mine -- oral and written. That promise stands in spite of our disagreement.
To recap, today alone you have:

-sent the odd and troubling taunting, misogynistic email which I have pasted below in red. 

You make vague, unfounded accusations and don't specify which statements of mine fit the above description. I'll assume your calling these statements misogynistic:

I send any e-mail that wouldn't have offended a professional woman. you (a man) get in your feelings and withdraw the offer which YOU made of your own accord.

If so, you're wrong. Those statements only acknowledge that it's natural for women to be more emotional than men. Those statements are an indictment on YOU for not having thicker skin.

That highly erroneous accusation of yours also helps to highlight the fact that you are extremely sensationalistic.

-claimed that I refused to meet with you when I had not – I had only expressed concerns about your erratic behavior, concerns that have only increased throughout the day.

I'll let the BCC's judge the preceding statement of yours.

-blind copied large numbers of people on emails you send to me by pretended were respectful, person to person emails between us

How did I "pretend" that our messages were person-to-person? Looks like you ASSumed they were person-to person. My first message to you said I would bring other SHARC members in. Your messages to me didn't mention SHARC. Did you know I am the chairman of a group of advocates? If not, you didn't do your homework; because, it's common knowledge. In contrast, those who know me will sometimes ask me not to put something on blast. had you done a Google seaech of me, you would have known my M.O. You got caught slipping. Don't blame me.

-had someone pose as a Washington Post reporter in an email to me and, again oddly, threaten me (here’s just a suggestion – next time a friend of yours poses as a Washington Post reporter online don’t have them use a Yahoo email address).  I believe pretending to be someone online who are you not is a cybercrime but let’s just let that issue go.

Actually, I knew nothing of the "WP reporter" until AFTER the message was   sent. I swear to God and on my father's grave. So, watch your false accusations!

-now extended an “olive branch” to me after I replied to the faux reporter’s email and copied known reporters at The Washington Post asking if they had heard of the person posing as a reporter.  Needless to say, they had not.

I gave you several chances to redeem yourself. The message after the ghost reporter incident was NOT the first time I offered to make peace. maybe it has to be said in the exact same vocabulary for you to make the connection. I understand.

Mr. Sheptock, again – I ask that you share this email broadly with whomever you blind copied so they have the benefit of my reply.  Your increasingly erratic, troubling behavior leaves me no choice but to let you know that meeting with you would not be a productive use of my time or yours.

Consider it shared. Read the paper and see what gets put out there about your boss because you refused to meet with SHARC. You haven't heard the last of me. Neither you nor your boss seem to be transparent. I'll let the general public judge you though.

BTW, what I say is not a threat but a warning.

Here's that OLIVE BRANCH again. And I made this video BEFORE seeing your e-mail response to the ghost writer:
Message 15:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Eric Sheptock
To: "christopher.murphy@dc.gov"
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:41 AM
Subject: Is there still a SHARC meeting with CHRISTOPHER MURPHY the mayor's chief of staff?

Is there still a SHARC meeting with CHRISTOPHER MURPHY the mayor's chief of staff?
Mr. Murphy, is there still a meeting today at 12:30 PM or not? You didn't make it clear as to whether or not you would still meet with us. An urgent matter has arisen causing me to have to run to NYC this morning. I will return on Friday. However, others in SHARC can more than adequately represent the organization in my stead.
SHARC (the GROUP of homeless advocates of which I'm chairman) would still like to meet with you. I can phone in if you'd like. Feel free to call or text. I won't be checking e-mail again until I reach NYC at 3 PM or later. However, I've sent this to others who can meet with you in my absence. Or we can meet when I return. It's your call. See my contact info below.

PLEASE, LET'S MEET.

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)

Cell phone: (240) 305-5255 

Message 16:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Eric Sheptock
To: "christopher.murphy@dc.gov" ; Steve ( EOM) Glaude ; "mayorschedulingoffice@dc.gov" ; Adrian Fenty ; "eom@dc.gov" ; Jim Graham ; Jim Graham ; Jim Graham
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 12:00 PM
Subject: I did a WPFW radio piece this morning on Mayor Gray & CoS Chris Murphy

I did a WPFW radio piece this morning on Mayor Gray & CoS Chris Murphy

All,

I did a short radio piece this morning in which I discussed, among other things, the trouble SHARC is having gaining access to the mayor or his chief of staff. I've pasted my FB comment below. It contains the link to the radio show. But before you go there, you should know these 2 things:

1 -- Chris Murphy will be asked to do a radio interview in response to mine. (It's awesome that homeless advocateS can call a heady city official to account and make him answer for his actions -- or inaction, as it may be.)

2 -- THIS ARTICLE will tell you something about Chris Murphy. Let me draw your attention to these 2 paragraphs"

"Murphy and Pringle also held off-the-record sessions with local reporters, dubbed “chew and chats,” to try and ingratiate themselves with the various hacks who populate the District’s media landscape.

Their first attempt did not go well. According to multiple people present, early in the first session with reporters, Murphy said the media had blown Gray’s various missteps out of proportion and had not given the mayor a fair shake—a position the assembled reporters did not take kindly to. Add an awkward spat with D.C. Watch’s Dorothy Brizill over various perceived slights, and “it never kind of recovered from that,” says one reporter. (LL had a different chat with Murphy and Pringle, and things went fine, though it was also off the record.)"

We'd have to deduce that Mr. Murphy likes to manipulate the media and that he is not transparent at all. As a matter of fact, he put the "ache" in opaque. I'll do a complete write-up on him soon as SHARC builds its case against Mayor Gray and certain members of his administration.

While Mr. Murphy's messages contain overtones of conceit and him thinking that meeting with him and/or the mayor is a privilege, SHARC has the ability and will to flip that idea on its head. When SHARC gets through with Murphy and the mayor, both of them will be clamoring to meet with the homeless advocates. After all, both are afraid of bad PR. And to think that Mr. Murphy accused me of "taunting" him. It looks like I was pretty for real now, doesn't it????? He should've read about me and found out that my use of social media is iconic and that I do many media stints many of which can be found through a quick Google search. You would think that such an ACCOMPLISHED MAN as Chris Murphy and one who is SO AFRAID OF BAD PRESS would have been sure to meet with the likes of me so as to ensure that what I publish about the mayor aligns with what the chief of staff wants.

FACEBOOK Post:

To hear my 5-minute radio discussion about DC homelessness, how the mayor's policies hurt the homeless and the trouble SHARC is having with his chief of staff: 1 -- click THIS LINK, 2-- go to the list of shows that appears and click "play" or "download" next to the entry for 5:00 to 8:00 AM on 12/3/12 and move the slider to the 2 hr, 23 min mark. I come on after a little bit of jazz.

Finally, this BLOG POST by friend Kathryn Baer of DC (BCC'ed) is at the center of this disagreement between Chris Murphy and SHARC. (Chris has never made mention of SHARC in his communications with me, even AFTER I mention the group to him.) What initially upset Chris was the fact that I BCC'ed many people including media people as I sent this blog post around -- and we know that he likes to manipulate the media. In the e-mail text I made mention of the fact that I'd BCC'ed the media. He was not able to "reply to all" and manipulate them. He was counting on them contacting him one-by-one (in which case he'd have to respond to 75+ people one-by-one). Now we all know Chris Murphy's style and his pet peeve. Let's build a citywide campaign against him and call the mayor's hiring practices into question. SHARC is just getting started on CM.

Eric Jonathan Sheptock
Chairman of SHARC
(Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change)
Cell phone: (240) 305-5255

Conclusions:
1 – The mayor must have told Chris Murphy to “pretend” to want to meet with the advocates, find a reason not to and call the meeting off. Though I can't prove the mayor's involvement, I received Chris' first e-mail 15 days after submitting the application to meet with the mayor, 3 days after posting a comment on the mayor's Facebook page and 2 days after a woman from the scheduling office called me in response to the Facebook comment. So, it stands to reason that the mayor knew that SHARC wanted a meeting, didn't want to meet with us and wanted to make us look like the bad guys. Howbeit, his chief of staff focused on me as an individual and never acknowledged SHARC.

2 – The mayor and his staff wanted to get me alone, which is why Mr. Murphy never acknowledged SHARC in his e-mails. They were hoping to intimidate me or buy me off.

3 – Chris Murphy was INITIALLY upset by me blind carbon copying many people (which ties in with the conclusion that he wanted to get me alone for the aforementioned reasons). Though he later cited additional (illogical, erroneous) reasons for not wanting to meet, it seems a bit peculiar that he “somewhat” called off our meeting based on that issue alone. (he later denied calling it off, though the pasted e-mail indicates otherwise.) This serves the notion that he was “pretending” to be willing to meet with me in hopes that I'd give him a reason not to. The fact that he bit too soon rather than waiting for me to toss him a bigger fish helps to show his true intention as they were at the onset.

Politicizing Homelessness: SHARC is Attacking Mayor Gray on Homelessness (Inaccessibility and Lack of Transparency)

Well, as has been the case for the past few months, I've been so busy going to meetings and pounding the pavement that I've not blogged regularly -- and when I do, I have a lot to say. And SHARC as a whole has been doing a lot. We've asserted ourselves in such a way that neither DC Government nor the council can ignore us and we've begun to "politicize homelessness" for this generation -- with the hope of finding lasting solutions.

November 26th, 2012 was a good day for SHARC (Shelter, Housing And Respectful Change). We had a friendly visit with Councilman Jim Graham who has oversight of the Human Services Committee, asserted ourselves in the mayor's executive office and got word that a homeless service for which we'd sought a pardon has received a reprieve and will be kept open through hypothermia season (until 3/31/13) as opposed to closing on November 30th, 2012. Even the sharp e-mail exchange which I had with DC Mayor Vincent Gray's chief of staff Christopher Murphy on the same day doesn't change my opinion that it was a good day overall.

Beginning at noon, we held a meal and rally in the basement of the CCNV Shelter. Also in attendance were our partners from a certain labor union subsidiary. At 1 PM we began to march toward the Wilson Building (DC's City Hall) where we were met by a group of homeless parents and their children. We then proceeded into City Hall to meet with city officials -- about 50 of us.

When security saw that a large group of homeless people was entering the building, they went on high alert -- as they always and only do for the homeless and others who are fighting for the poor. The lieutenant called me by name (having become quite familiar with me) to tell me that we couldn't have a large number of people on the 6th floor where the mayor's executive office is.

We went to Councilman Jim Graham's office where people began to tell their horror stories about the poor services and lack of sufficient services at the family shelter or in the human services framework as a whole. A very pregnant homeless woman explained that she could not receive services specific to her condition prior to the third trimester. An elderly person and a single father explained that there were little and no services for them, respectively. Before it was all over, the councilman had committed to a town hall meeting at the shelter to discuss the lack of sufficient services.

What happened after we left the councilman's office is questionable in some respects. I directed people to go to the third floor so that we could pay a visit to the mayor's community affairs office (Room 327-332). When I got up there myself, the portion of the crowd that arrived before me had been instructed (I'm assuming by council staff) to go to his scheduling office (Room 317). Though they were gathered outside of Room 317, they were being spoken to by the assistant to the Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development (DMPED). Though she was a kind person, she was the wrong person. (I don't know how the mix-up happened.) So, we gave her an earful and left. At that point many in the group had to leave for a direct action on Capitol Hill -- a mile away -- to protest cuts to jobs, social programs and other things that rich Republicans tend not to need or to want to offer to anyone else who DOES need them.

We then went to the mayor's executive office on the sixth floor to drop off a packet containing a printed blog post that explains how the mayor's policies hurt the poor, a copy of the form requesting a meeting with the mayor and a list of demands being put forth by SHARC. We expressed our desire to meet with the mayor and were again directed to Room 317. We explained what had just happened at that location and the security officer insisted that it was the right location. Then we went back to the third floor and to the room that I'd initially planned to go to -- 332. While there, we spoke with some professional BS'ers about our hereto now failed attempt at getting a meeting with the mayor and left having no more of an answer than we'd arrived with.

At this point it was about 3:40 and the few of us that were left were ready to go home -- but not before paying a visit to the office of "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry. While there, I received a call from DC Government's Department of Mental Health which funds the Hermano Pedro Homeless day Program and received word that its closure has been postponed by four months, allowing the clients (many of whom are mental health patients) to make a smoother transition upon the program's closure. And that's how the advocacy day ended.

But, as I recollected the events of the day, it was clear that 1 -- we'd made a big impression at City Hall and that 2 -- there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of how we organize the poor and homeless to self-advocate. During our visit, I reminded Jim Graham that he had, on numerous occasions, asked why he sees the same five advocates all the time if we have over 7,000 homeless people in DC. I then told him, "We've come in greater numbers this time", to which he agreed rather emphatically. I told some and reminded others that we only had about a dozen people at our November 1st direct action (one of several small events SHARC has held as a result of having our 1,000-person event rained out by Hurricane Sandy) but have come back with 4 or 5 times as many people just weeks later and could come with 200-300 people in December. (Some of us are wondering if we'd have gotten anything close to 1,000 people had it not been for Sandy. We DID actually have more time to prepare and more resources on hand as we worked toward the October 29th event than we had for November.)

Though the mayor's office didn't give us a definite date for a meeting, I sensed that we made them very uneasy. Long story short, Mayor Gray is much less accessible than his predecessor was. I've been in multiple sit-down meetings with Adrian Fenty, gone nose-to-nose with him and even cursed him out. Some people credit me with his loss after just one term, as I publicly and electronically exposed any and all gripes I had with Fenty. Mayor Gray avoids me like the plague, lest he meet Fenty's fate. Howbeit, I couldn't remove either man from office on my own. (VOTE.)

I also have reason to believe that Mayor Gray has told his chief of staff Christopher Murphy to find any reason not to meet with SHARC. Long story short, Mr. Murphy initially got upset because I BCC'ed people (and made it very clear in the message that there were hidden names). He didn't like me sending our communications to other people -- thus making what a PUBLIC OFFICIAL (Murphy) says into PUBLIC INFORMATION. He expressed reservations about meeting with SHARC and it just went from there until the meeting process just fell apart. I'll try to revive the process upon returning from NYC.

Though I won't bore you with the many details that lend to my conclusion, I'm inclined to believe that DC Mayor Vincent Gray, his chief of staff Christopher Murphy and others in the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM) are working in tandem with each other to:

1 -- make it seem as though the mayor is willing to meet with myself (and possibly SHARC as a whole)
2 -- find the slightest reason to call off the meeting and
3 -- blame me for the cancellation.

I admit that I fell for it. Nonetheless, I'll call the mayor's bluff and galvanize the public against him concerning his inaccessibility and games. Some people saw him as an older and wiser alternative to Adrian Fenty. In a sense they were right; he's better than Fenty at coming up with "politricks". (But that's a blog post of its own.)

That said, this action revealed ways in which SHARC needs to improve. We could have done better at moving the crowd after our friendly visit with Jim Graham. Unfortunately, very few people in the crowd knew where certain offices were and fewer know who's who in DC Government. That meant that a lot of the instruction giving fell on me -- Eric. If at least two more people could lead a group, we could visit at least three offices at once and the group wouldn't be so heavily dependent on me for instruction. But it must be realized that the aforementioned problem is a good one insomuch as it means that involvement is increasing and thus creating the need for better crowd control and overall organization. All of this is a nice segway into SHARC's mission statement:

"It is the mission of SHARC to engage the poor, homeless, formerly homeless, community activists and concerned citizens in advocacy efforts for the poor and under-privileged community with an emphasis on self-advocacy."

It looks like we've got our work cut out for us.

SHARC Update and Discussion Points for November 5th Meeting

1 – SHARC has weathered the storm and made the best of a mess. Though Sandy “rained on our parade” by forcing the cancellation of an event which we spent five weeks planning and organizing, it hasn't discouraged us from trying again. We'll come back bigger and better the next time.

There is no need to consider what possible shortcomings SHARC may have exhibited during the storm. Given the fact that we had many food donations, the rain date would have been the next day (Tuesday) during which the government was shut down. Sandy was an unpredictable storm which we only found out on the 26th was going hit us on the 29th of October (the day of our event). That said, the five weeks leading up to October 29th were a true show of our increased organizing ability. So, let's give ourselves a hand, dust ourselves off and chart the path forward.

As a result of Sandy, SHARC members were able to:

begin the conversation around bringing three councilmembers together in a meeting. They are Jim Graham (Human Services Oversight Committee), Michael Brown (Oversight Committee on Economic Development and Housing) and Kenyan McDuffie (oversight Committee on Jobs and Workforce Development).

Speak with several councilmembers on the dais during their legislative meeting and make the case for ending homelessness rather than maintaining it.

Arrange a meeting with the mayor


2 – Weekly and Homeless Town Hall Meetings during the holiday and hypothermia season:

a) What day do we want our next big event to fall on?

– November 26th (the last Monday of the month)?
– December 31st (the last Monday of the year)?
December 24th (Christmas Eve)?
December 17th (which would give us six weeks to organize and fall nicely between events highlighting homelessness and hunger in the third week of November and the Homeless Persons' Memorial Day on December 21st)?


b) Do we want to meet on Christmas Eve or new Year's Eve? Both fall on Mondays.

c) Do we want to do anything special around Thanksgiving (November 22nd)? The Fannie Mae Homeless Walkathon would have been on November 17th (the Saturday before Thanksgiving).

3 – What should our next big event (our make up event for “Occupy the DC Council”) be?

An idea is that we plan a march from CCNV to the Wilson Building beginning at 11 AM on November 26th. We make our case to the council and/or the mayor. We then return to CCNV around 1 PM for our regular Homeless Town Hall Meeting. Those who marched are given tickets upon exiting the Wilson Building and eat first.

Another idea is that we plan a large event inside of the Wilson Building on December 17th (possibly without a march) and invite churches and other groups to feed the homeless there.

It doesn't need to be “either/or”. It can be “both/and”.
You are welcome to present additional ideas. These are just conversation starters.

4 – “The Future” of CCNV:

City officials and people from the business community have begun conversation around “The Future” of the CCNV Shelter. During my meeting with one such person, there was some confusion as to when either of us was talking about CCNV as is or the new concept which we envision. We began to refer to the revamped CCNV Shelter as “The Future”.

It is believed by many that the restrictive covenant between Ronald Reagan and Mitch Snyder mandates that the building be used as a homeless shelter until 2018 and the parking lot belongs to the homeless until 2099 with the right to renew the lease for the latter indefinitely. It is also believed that the property on which the building and parking lot sit is worth as much as $120M. What's certain is that, if the building were sold, ALL MONIES GENERATED FROM THE SALE MUST BE USED FOR THE HOMELESS COMMUNITY.

All of this adds up to the city being FORCED to use the CCNV property to assist the homeless community in one way or another. City officials and the business community have been informed that ANY PLANS TO BUILD ON THAT PIECE OF LAND WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE HOUSING AT LEAST 1,350 HOMELESS PEOPLE. This gives homeless/housing advocates a constant (invariable) which we can use as a starting point for our thoughts on how best to assist the homeless residents of the Federal City Shelter (CCNV, Open Door, John L. Young, DC Central Kitchen and the Unity Health Clinic).

Plans that are being discussed include:

building a 10-story building on the parking lot
taking the present building up to 10 stories (possibly rebuilding it from the ground up)
having a mix of permanent apartments, supportive housing units, transitional housing units and shelter for at least 1,350 people
giving tax credits to contractors
having homeless people help design the program

While several people have expressed understandable skepticism about the city's plans to effectively assist the homeless community, let's bear in mind that a 24-year old restrictive covenant is holding them at bay. Let's also remember that, if we refuse to come to the table with those who are ostensibly there to work with us, we give them occasion to say that they reached out to us and WE refused to work with them. On the other hand, if we come to the table with city officials and members of the business community and they fail to make good on their promises, they give us occasion to pin the blame on THEM. So, let's give them a chance.

A contract employee of the business community might attend our November 19th SHARC meeting.

5 – Forming a charette: It has been suggested that we form a charette that would draw up a plan for ending homelessness in DC and then take that plan to government officials, as opposed to waiting for the governments to end homelessness.

6 – Creating unconventional partnerships: It has been suggested that SHARC develop unconventional partnerships with environmental groups, the LGBT community and others who don't usually advocate with or for the homeless, as there are various reasons for which we are inextricably connected to them. (Most homeless teens were thrown out of their parents' house for being LGBT and the construction of affordable housing lends itself to the creation of green jobs.)

7 – Protesting/opposing unconventional targets: It has been suggested that SHARC demonstrate in front of the Verizon Center and other businesses that have tried to push homeless people and/or homeless services (including housing for the homeless) out of their neighborhood.

8 – Making our enemies work for/with us: It has been suggested that we involve those who don't want the homeless in their neighborhoods (see item #7) in our effort to end homelessness.

Back to "Bad"

In 2011 hundreds of homeless advocates and concerned citizens came out in force to demand that the DC Council find money to fill the gap for a $20.5 million budget shortfall in the Fiscal year 2012 homeless services budget. Had they not found it, DC's homeless community would only be guaranteed shelter for the five coldest months of the year. They found $17 million. This year the shortfall was only $7 million for FY 2013 which began October 1st but the same threat was presented along with a possible reduction in funding for feeding programs and transitional housing.

It was determined in the last week of September that DC Government's tax revenue was $140 million above the projection. Additionally, the Dept. of Youth and Rehabilitative Services (DYRS) and the Dept. of Child and Family Services (DCFS) have underspent their budgets by a combined $36 million which leaves DC Government with at least $176 million to put in savings or reverse budget cuts. However, with the lingering threat of federal budget sequestration (which would decrease the amount of money Congress gives to DC Government), the DC Council is being cautiously optimistic. So, as of the writing of this article, whether or not some of these funds would be used to reverse the budget shortfall to homeless services was not known.

SHARC(shelter, Housing And Respectful Change), a group of homeless advocates which formed in April 2011 to fight against the budget cuts, holds the position that we should demand that MORE than $7 million of this money be invested in homeless services. When homeless services were "fully-funded", they were woefully inadequate. The shortfall has threatened to downgrade such services from "bad" to "worse". Merely reversing the shortfall would bring services "back to 'bad'"; but, we demand "better". DC Inspector-General Charles Willoughby recently ran two articles in the Examiner concerning inadequate homeless services -- in August and September. The latter article highlighted the District's failure to actually END homelessness locally -- which the advocates have said for years. There's no word on what, if anything, the District is doing in response to this exposed shortcoming.

But SHARC is planning an event which will place immense pressure on the DC Council and mayor to invest in solutions to homelessness -- not just maintenance of the problem. On October 29th, 2012 we will mobilize 1,000 or more of DC's 7,000+ homeless people (up from 5,757 in 2007) of which at least 1,600 are children. "Occupy the DC Council: A Homeless and Poor People's Town Hall Meeting at DC City Hall" will run from 10 AM to 4 PM (with set-up beginning at 8 AM). There will be food, music, speakers, a coat/clothing drive and much more. Throughout the day people will be directed to enter the Wilson Building (City Hall) across the road and make their pitch for what people need to get out of homelessness. We are reaching out to various faith-based groups, homeless service providers, non-profits, concerned citizens etc. to contribute in any way that they can; because we don't just want to get homeless services "back to bad".

For more information, you can attend a weekly SHARC meeting at 425 2nd Street NW, Washington, DC on Mondays from 1 to 3 PM. You can also e-mail sheptock@streats.tv or leave a message on SHARC's voicemail: (202) 643-1550. To reach SHARC Chairman Eric Sheptock directly, it is best to text a short message about the nature of your concern to (240) 305-5255 and Eric will respond (most likely within five minutes). Voicemails to this number take longer for him to respond to.

2,000 DC Homeless Forced Into the Streets in 2013

Washington, DC has to date been kinder and more accommodating to its homeless community than most other U.S. cities. This truth is borne out in the statistics and touted by the homeless themselves. But, as if being labeled "kind and accommodating" is somehow a negative thing, our nation's capital is in a race to catch up with the draconian policies of other cities that forbid the feeding of poor people and make it a crime to be poor. Unless something is done to arrest the process, a year from now 2,000 more of DC's 7,000+ homeless people will lose their shelter and then run the risk of being arrested for vagrancy as several separate but inter-related policies that affect the homeless go into play.

[But before I make the case against these policies, it is important to note that the public is often too quick to ostracize and criticize the homeless community without understanding the issue. Homeless people who are not suffering from mental illness (the majority) do not "choose" to be homeless, regardless of what Ronald Reagan said. (He was just upset that he was FORCED to help the homeless by signing the McKinney-Vento Act into law and creating the CCNV Shelter.) Neither do they just want a hand-out. Their lowered expectations or aspirations are often mistaken as them wanting a hand-out, as they have come to believe that they will never be able to find gainful employment or affordable housing and they feel disenfranchised to the point that many of them will not stand up and fight even when their sustenance is being taken away by the powers that be.

I, as a homeless advocate, have endured more than my fair share of personal attacks. A man whom I met on September 2nd, 2012 told me on September 3rd that he'd heard (before meeting me) that I had turned down government-subsidized housing that was offered to me. As it turns out, a mentally ill, formerly-homeless woman whom I helped get into housing started the rumor after attending an October 31st, 2008 hearing before Councilman Tommy Wells and getting the dialogue between him and myself misconstrued. (It can be googled, though I couldn't link it in. Go to the 3hr. 11 min. mark.) Others failed to qualify her statements or her level of intelligence, contributing to the spread of the rumor. I actually told him that I would accept housing if it were offered to me. That statement still holds true. Many people have asked me why the government hasn't tried to buy me out by offering me housing, thus shutting me up. Maybe they know it wouldn't have the desired effect.]

The demands and desires of DC's homeless community are similar to those of the larger community:

1 -- Affordable housing (The average rent in DC: $1,600 per month. Affordable to those making $32 per hr.)
2 -- Living-wage jobs (DC minimum wage: $8.25 per hr.)
3 -- For the government to fill the gap and provide social services at least until demands 1 and 2 are met

That brings us back to the matter at hand: the loss of 2,000 shelter beds in the spring of 2013. As the FY 2013 budget stands right now, DC's homeless services are under-funded by $7 million which translates into a loss of 1,200 shelter beds during the seven warmest months of the year (April 1st through October 31st) as well as a dramatic decrease in funding for other homeless services such as feeding programs and transitional housing. That's not to speak of the fact that Catholic Charities which is subcontracted to provide shelter for the city has already ended the work programs it had in its shelters due to one participant killing another in the shelter parking lot. Some governments and officials will use anything as a reason to end necessary rehabilitative services for people whom society deems to be expendible.

On a separate track from the city's fiscal problems, the CCNV Shelter is threatened with closure again. It seems to be an annual ritual that runs across mayoral administrations. In June of 2009 a homeless woman died on a wrought-iron bench which construction workers had mistakenly mounted in front of the shelter. Upon receiving word of the death, then-director of DC's Dept. of Human Services (DHS) Clarence Carter (who now works for Governor Jan Brewer in Arizona) reminded CCNV staff of the clause in its contract which states that the homeless will be prevented from "loitering" (being outside and visible) in front of the shelter where they presently reside. He threatened to revoke the contract if the sidewalk weren't kept clear. (People can't even stand outside of a non-smoking building and smoke a cigarette, but must go hundreds of feet away.) The shelter staff began patrolling the sidewalk on June 17th, 2009 (the same day Renee was buried). You can read about last year's threat (which centered around poor maintenance of the facility due to lack of investment by the city) here or in the blog re-post below this post.

This year, perceived behavioral problems within the homeless community and neglect of the building by DC Government (the same people who are threatening to shut it down) are the reasons that the Community for Creative Non-Violence might close in 2013. It might be converted from a year-round shelter to a seasonal (winter) shelter. At this point in time, there is much speculation and the facts are still forthcoming. However, all 348 men who sleep on the third floor of the shelter (where they've had as few as two working sinks) were given notices on Friday, August 31st announcing a mandatory meeting which will take place at 8 PM on Thursday, September 6th. It spelled out the aforementioned behavioral issues and referenced the closings of other shelters in 2013, stating that 200 CCNV residents could lose their beds to those who come from other shelters -- thus pitting the homeless against the homeless (divide and conquer). It didn't mention the maintenance issues; but, we know from the 2007 closing of the DC Village Family Shelter and the 2008 closing of the Franklin School Shelter that the city would rather close a shelter than maintain the building. Then, after the hundreds of residents are moved from the communal shelter into government-subsidized housing, the housing program loses its funding and the scattered tenants aren't likely (or able, in some cases) to come together, organize and fight to maintain the program. This amounts to a bait-and-switch as well as a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Now for some numbers. CCNV is one of several shelters in a building known collectively as the Federal City Shelter. The entire building (which has 2 city-run women's shelters) holds 1,350 homeless people in the winter and 1,100 during the warmer months. Those two women's shelters might be included in the 1,200 shelter beds that the city shuts down in April. CCNV is not a city-run shelter and does not receive city funding, though they are subject to regulation by the city. Therefore, closing CCNV would not save the city any money in operating expenses. (The city is supposed to maintain the entire building though.) Catholic Charities operates three mens shelters in other parts of the city which have a combined winter capacity of 976 and a warm-month capacity of 890. These three shelters will account for the lion's share of the bed loss. Being that everything is merely speculative right now, we can let our imaginations run wild and assume that the worst-case scenario were to unfold. If the entire Federal City Shelter and the three men's shelters that are run by Catholic Charities were to close next year, we'd lose a whopping 2,326 shelter beds for DC's 7,000 (and counting) homeless people, many of whom already sleep outdoors. So, in an effort to avoid using hyperbole or sensationalism, I'm guessing it's safe to say that somewhere between 1,600 and 2,000 beds may be lost next year. At any rate, it's cause for concern.

And many housed people in the District are already concerned about the presence and behavior of homeless people, though their energies are misdirected. Businesses in and around DC's Chinatown have complained to DC Government about the presence of homeless people in Chinatown. They have suggested that the stop for the shuttle bus which picks homeless men up from the MLK, Jr. Library in the evening to take them to shelter and drops them off at the library in the morning be moved. However, there is nothing preventing these same men from walking a mile or two into Chinatown. Besides, it is the people who sleep outdoors in Chinatown who are most likely to urinate near the Verizon Center (where the Wizards and the Capitals play) and exhibit other unacceptable behaviors, not those who sleep in a building that has bathrooms. If thousands of shelter beds are lost, the behaviors which businesses seek to eliminate will occur all the more as people commit crimes of survival. Each time that I tell a homeless person about the impending shelter closures, they ask where the homeless are going to go. When I tell them "the streets", their response, without fail, is "and crime will go up" [as people struggle to survive].

As it turns out, institutional memory is very short. That is why, during the Great Recession of 2008, U.S. governments made the same "mistakes" that were made during the Great Depression of 1929 -- lowering taxes on the rich and cutting social services. It led to tent cities ("Hoovervilles") in 1929 and in 2008-present (with us having not fully recovered). Locally, people have forgotten about the faulty logic that led to the closure of the Franklin School Shelter. under pressure from the business community, then-mayor Adrian Fenty closed the shelter in order to get the homeless out of sight and out of mind. A year later in September 2009, a DC Examiner article entitled "Bummed Out on K Street" highlighted the greater presence of homeless people along the K Street corridor and mentioned the shelter closure as a contributing factor. The business community had used its left hand to smite its right.

Add to all of this the fact that the DC Council is considering a new vagrancy law, with the Supreme Court having shot down a 1966 vagrancy law created by the District (7 years before "Home Rule") That said, the homeless of DC will soon lose much of their shelter, be forced to sleep on the street and then be thrown into an over-crowded jail for sleeping on the street. This will undoubtedly cause some of the homeless to join the tens of thousands of Afro-American Washingtonians who've partaken in a mass exodus of poor people from the city. And it's safe to assume that this is all part of the grand scheme of the DC Government and its cohorts in the business world. It is for this reason that many people will converge on the Wilson Building (City Hall), 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, at 9 AM on Tuesday, September 18th to welcome the DC Council back from its two-month recess and inundate them with our aforementioned demands. LOCALS, BE THERE!!!!!