Summary and brief evaluation of the sixteen (16) recommendations from the IDA team report for
the New Orleans Downtown Development District, "homelessness issues."

There are ten short term and six long term recommendations from the IDA 2003 Draft Report summarized and evaluated below.
The IDA team plans to meet with DDD and other New Orleans homeless service providers on December 15 and 16, 2003.

The ten (10) short term recommendations are listed below:

• 1. The DDD should serve as a "co-convener," to produce a plan for a comprehensive "Homelessness Strategy."
  We could support this concept if the group, convened by the DDD, was composed of
  • Neighbors,
  • Business Owners,
  • Property Owners,
  • Tourist & Convention Commission Representatives, and
  • some limited number of "Service Providers" and "Homeless Advocates."
    
  There should not be a disproportionately large number of service providers on the committee. Usually such groups are heavily stacked in favor of the homeless advocates.

• 1. Support if properly structured.

• 2. The DDD should reorganize "maintenance workers" and the "Hospitality Rangers" to work directly with a "homeless outreach" program.
  We could support this concept as well, if the outreach program focused on removing homeless from the DDD to shelters located outside of the DDD.

• 2. Support if structured to move homeless out of CBD.

• 3. The DDD should relocate or manage day-labor pickup locations.
  The DDD could attempt to cause day-labor pickup locations or "labor pools" to relocate to more appropriate areas outside the DDD. However, the DDD should not be in the business of managing day-labor pickup locations. Day-labor pickup locations or "labor pools" should not be located inside of the Central Business District.

• 3. Support if designed to move day-labor pick ups out of CBD.

• 4. The DDD should partner [sic] with the Ozanam Inn to control behavior around the property
  The DDD could attempt to force the Ozanam Inn to relocate to a more appropriate location, and to help them build a modern, appropriate facility. The DDD should not use our funds to police and control social deviates drawn into the area by the Ozanam Inn, when the problem could be solved more easily by OZ.

• 4. Do not support.

• 5. The DDD should organize internships with the homeless outreach organizations.
  This recommendation assumes that the "students" want to help the homeless and the poor. It ignores the political motives for feeding in public. Loyola faculty claim that the students feed in the park because they want to make a political statement. This is probably more true of the faculty than the students.

• 5. Do not support.

• 6. The DDD should partner [sic] with the Immaculate Conception Day Center, at 130 Baronne Street.
  
  • One must assume this means DDD funding the center. It takes about $100k a year to operate. Money is tight and a new pastor will assume leadership of the Parish in 2004. Could the DDD fund the center if it were located outside of the DDD geographic boundaries? The services provided are excellent and needed. It is well run and deserves funding.
    
  • The logical fallacy used by the IDA "experts" states that " if the center closes, the problem with the "homeless" will become worse in the CBD." The opposite is true. If the center closes, the homeless will leave the CBD, going to other facilities outside the CBD.

• 6. Support if structured to move out of CBD.

• 7. The DDD should organize a count of "homeless persons" in the CBD, getting guidance, methodology, and scope from "Unity." Is this a priority for the DDD? Probably not, and certainly not if Unity becomes involved in spending more of our DDD tax millage on a "count" that inflates the numbers of so-called homeless.

• 7. Do not support.

• 8. The DDD should share board membership with Unity for the Homeless. This assumes that the homeless will be a permanent part of the CBD and that Unity will make decisions on non-homelessness issues before the DDD Board. We recommend strongly against this suggestion.

• 8. Strongly oppose.

• 9. The DDD should undertake the development of a new, "high tolerance" shelter, one that would accept severely mentally ill persons, practicing drug addicts, and serious alcoholics. This is not a good idea. The point is to remove shelters, soup kitchens, and the homeless from the CBD, not to draw more serious social deviates into the CBD.

• 9. Strongly oppose.

• 10. The DDD should serve as the mediator for problems between the "stakeholders" and CBD shelter and soup kitchen operators. Now, with a Unity board member on the DDD Board, the IDA recommends that the DDD board resolve disputes between shelters operators, soup kitchens, and the homeless themselves. Again, another bad idea. Problems need immediate responses, not monthly policy statements.

• 10. Strongly oppose.

• 1. The DDD should take the lead on the development of the supportive ("Common Ground" type) housing development. This suggests a siginficant additional responsibility for the DDD. Perhaps Common Ground itself should shoulder this responsibility.

• 1. Oppose.

• 2. The DDD should develop a PR campaign to "demystify" the homeless and to promote its commitment to ending homelessness. The DDD can commit to eliminating homelessness, only from the DDD. The DDD can't commit to end homelessness in New Orleans.

• 2. Strongly oppose.

• 3. The DDD should coordinate feeding programs. This would keep feeding programs coordinated inside the DDD. The DDD can't control what happens outside the CBD. The point is to eliminate feeding programs in the CBD, not to coordinate them.

• 3. Oppose.

• 4. The DDD should develop literacy and vocational training programs for the homeless. The DDD has neither the skill nor mission to perform this task.

• 4. Strongly oppose.

• 5. The DDD should serve as the broker of the development deal that would allow the Brantley House to relocate out of the CBD. Again, the DDD has neither the skill nor mission to perform this task.

• 5. Support if DDD incurs no financial liability.

• 6. The DDD should create the "Homeless Funders [sic] Table. The DDD could get the "ball rolling" to raise funds for new homeless projects in the CBD. Another bad idea.

• 6. Strongly oppose.

Produced by the Camp and Julia Coalition and Advocates of Responsible Urban Policy, a private, non-partisan, non-profit corporation of the State of Louisiana, exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination, made by the IRS on November 9, 1992. Our exempt status is retroactive to Advocates' inception on February 24, 1989.

Board of Directors: L. E. Madere, Jr., President; Jerrelyn J. Madere, Secretary-Treasurer; John F. Leyens, Jr., Donald McNabb, Cassandra Sharpe, and George Schmidt.

Advocates is supported by dues and subscriptions paid by our members and gifts from supporters. We enhance urban life in New Orleans through thoughtful, non-partisan analysis of local governmental practices, programs and policies.

Advocates of Responsible Urban Policy
A New Orleans, Louisiana, Non-Profit Corporation
842 Camp Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130