NEWSBYJOSIE RAYMOND

UPDATE 11/19/10: Giant Food reps have been responding to petitioners urging the company to expand the Salvation Army's collection window with a new statement detailing its corporate responsibility efforts and reiterating, "Many of our customers tell us that shopping at our stores should not involve passing by group after group 'asking for money,' 'selling items' or 'requesting support for a cause.'" It's hard to believe that the customers irritated by bell-ringing outnumber or override the ones who contributed small amounts totaling more than $600,000 last year.

Tis the season for Salvation Army bell-ringers to hit street corners collecting donations for the underprivileged. The Grinch this year is Giant Food, a major grocery chain in D.C., which is limiting when and for how long charities can solicit shoppers.

Giant Food has declared that bell-ringers can stand outside its automatic doors just 12 days over the course of November and December combined. On those six days, they are welcome for just four hours. (In years past, the Salvation Army and others collected for 10 hours a day, six days a week.)

A Giant spokesman said the new restrictions were enacted, "In order to best serve our customers, and not hinder their shopping experience." What are the odds their customers are all named Ebenezer Scrooge?

I tell you what would really offend delicate sensibilities; shunning charity efforts and then being confronted with homeless and hungry families asking for cash instead.

The decreased collection time will put a major crimp in the local Salvation Army's plan to raise $1.6 million over the holidays to help 33,000 people. Last year, a full half of their $1.3 million haul came from Giant Food shoppers. Tell Giant to get into the holiday spirit by allowing charity collections!

More bad news on the foster care front. Or rather, bad news about a would-be foster care placement. Lutheran Child Family Services, an organization in Illinois that received $20 million from the state last year, declined to place a homeless 15-year-old boy named "Kenny" with an enthusiastic and welcoming couple — just because they're gay.

Fred Steinhauer and Matt Nalett of Chicago began the process of certification, home inspection, therapist meetings and all. They were obviously committed and caring. Then they got handed a piece of paper with a statement saying the agency "will not develop or license adoptive or foster care families who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning."

The story comes from the Gay Rights blog, which documents not only why it's wrong but why it might be just plain illegal for the organization to flout state anti-discrimination laws, especially while it's raking in taxpayer dollars. This has to be the silliest example of foster care discrimination since the Maryland mom who happened to be a Muslim and wasn't granted foster care certification because she didn't serve pork in her home.

Lest the fear be that this needy child would be uncomfortable, it's worth noting that he identifies himself as gay. And he already knows Nalett, who does outreach work with homeless youth. Everyone involved knows that finding people excited about welcoming a gay teenager who has run away is beyond difficult. The good news is that "Kenny" is being transferred to a different child welfare agency that doesn't discriminate, and that Steinhauer and Nalett are again beginning the process to become his guardians.

Temperatures are dropping and shelter doors are ... closing? While Washington D.C. officials push a plan to turn away non-residents from area shelters, homeless people in Columbus, Ohio have been turned away from shelters with nowhere to seek refuge from temperatures in the 30s.

City rules stipulate that all people are guaranteed shelter when the temperature dips below 25 degrees. (Since 27 degrees, or 29, or 32, isn't dangerous?) But because it was 39 degrees and rainy last week, 41 men and women were turned away from the Faith Mission, where 514 beds were already full.

Here's where the city is stuck between a rock and a hard place. In recent years it has targeted its funding at getting its homeless residents into apartments, rather than adding shelter beds. But now that the economy is forcing people to seek help for the first time, there aren't enough beds to go around. Non-profit officials acknowledge that they might have to rent additional space for temporary shelter this year. It's better to spend the money well the first time to make sure that the city's most vulnerable can get shelter in dangerous temperatures.

As if the need could be more clear, the AP tells the story of Columbus resident Nicole Moberly, 24-years-old, nine months pregnant and homeless. (For the record, she's employed at a fast food restaurant.) As she climbed into a bed in a homeless shelter, she told a reporter, "I am blessed. I saw a girl as far along as I am sleeping out in the rain." Tell Columbus' mayor and city council to guarantee shelter for homeless residents all winter long!

As Tropical Storm Tomas nears Haiti, more than a million people in Port-au-Prince who are still homeless from January's earthquake are being told to seek shelter. Well, if they could, they would. Some have nothing except a tarp to protect them.

Civil protection official Nadia Lochard told the AP, "We are using radio stations to announce to people that if they don't have a place to go, but they have friends and families, they should move into a place that is secure."

Here's the rub: many of Haiti's homeless, as many of the world's homeless, don't have anywhere to go. In Haiti, it's because an earthquake tore down their homes and businesses. In the U.S., it might be because they escaped abusive marriages, or were kicked out by their parents when they came out as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or because they lost their jobs.

It became clear that people are trapped outdoors in September, when it was reported that a wealthy landowner wanted some Haitians left homeless by the quake off her property. NGOs were trying to install temporary toilets at the same time residents were being told to move it along. Rosena Desriveaux, 21, lived there with her unemployed husband and their infant. She complained of the police harassment, saying, "They tell us, 'Get out of here, you're nothing but dogs'," but said she stayed because there was nowhere else to go. I wonder where Rosena, her husband and their baby are as Tropical Storm Tomas approaches.

Don't just sit there! Why? Because it's now illegal in San Francisco.

On the ballot yesterday was the controversial Proposition L, better known as the sit-lie ordinance, designed to ban sitting on city sidewalks between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.

Supporters, especially businesspeople in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, said it would curb loitering and aggressive panhandling. Opponents believed, as we do, that it will be unfairly enforced against homeless people. It passed with 53 percent of the vote.

There are (at least) a few logic gaps behind the bill, which was strongly supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom (the newly-elected lieutenant governor) and Police Chief George Gascón. If the people neighbors object to sitting there are homeless (and thus stereotyped as stinky, drunk or crazy), all the sit-lie ordinance will do is move them. What's next? A no-sitting-in-public-parks ordinance?

Second, it openly allows sitting and lying on sidewalks during the night. So everyone's admitting they're ok with homelessness to the point of people sleeping on the sidewalks, as long as the homeless wake up and move along by rush hour? It's sad to think that the fundraising — $280,000 for the "Yes on L" group — and the political capital could have been better spent on an affordable housing or drug treatment campaign.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 against the measure in June, causing Mayor Newsom to take it to the ballot. Ask city Supervisors to take action once again to end this discriminatory sidewalk sitting ban!

When I was 16, I talked to one of my friends on my brand new cell phone all night. When my dad got the bill, he told me I'd have to pay for the overages. Fine, I told him, embarrassed but relieved I had a part-time job that would cover the costs. How much, I asked? "$125." Gulp.

The only consolation you can offer to someone suffering from cell phone sticker shock is the news that they're not alone. The Government Accountability Office found that 34 percent of cell phone users got unexpected charges in 2008 and 2009 (pdf). The report doesn't say so, but I'll deduce that zero percent of them were happy about it.

The Federal Communications Commission just released a paper on what it calls "bill shock" (pdf). Researchers found that 30 million Americans had seen their bills go up even when they didn't change their plans. Of bill complaints sent to the FCC, most were for more than $100, 20 percent were for more than $1,000 and the biggest disputed bill from the first half of 2010 was for $68,505.

All this is infuriating enough, but here's something that will make you madder than a dropped call. Did you know that in Europe, cell phone customers get notified when they're approaching their talking and texting limits and again when they hit them?

There's good news and there's bad news. Which you get depends on which industry you're in.

I got good news from American Public Media's Future-Jobs-O-Matic, which predicts (using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics), that the number of jobs for authors, writers and editors will increase eight percent over the next 10 years. Will the 22,100 jobs that will be added be enough to employ out-of-work journalists as well as new graduates entering the field? I doubt it, but I'll take even mildly good news right now.

The news was even better for the 10 fastest growing professions, which include home health aide, waiter, teacher, customer service representative and retail salesperson. (Again, there's a grain of salt, since these positions are generally not well paid. Home health aide, waiter and retail salesperson also made the lowest paid list.)

There's bad news for those in shrinking professions such as machine setters, farmers and mail sorters. Give it a shot for yourself, if you dare.

Of course, it's hard to think long-term when many employed people worry they could be fired tomorrow and many unemployed people worry they'll never be hired again. Worse, even though the recession is officially "over," economists don't expect the unemployment rate, currently at 9.6 percent, to drop substantially for several more years.

Candidates have said some crazy things this election season, but I still believe that no candidate, for any office, would be so ignorant and insensitive as to say they support homelessness. "It's their own fault," sure. "Let's cut anti-homelessness programs," yes. But flat out advocating for homelessness? I don't think so.

On the flip side, though, very few politicians make ending homelessness a central tenet of their platforms. Why is that? Because there are bigger priorities? Because it's too hard? Because homeless people don't contribute much to campaigns or vote in large numbers?

So far, just fringe candidates are emphasizing these issues. Jimmy McMillan (watch out, his campaign site has sound), the face of New York's "Rent Is Too Damn High" party, made a splash with his theatrics in the state's recent gubernatorial debate, but pundits were quick to warn that a vote for McMillan would detract from Democrat Andrew Cuomo and be a boon to Republican Carl Paladino, who has previously suggested housing welfare recipients in empty prisons and giving them hygiene tips.

Meanwhile, Joe Schriner has been running for president for the last 11 years but apparently not doing so well, since I just heard of him today. He's an addiction specialist who invites homeless people stay in his spare bedroom in Cleveland. He says he would invite homeless people to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom if he occupied the White House. "You see these veterans sleeping at the gate in front of the White House," he said. "Well, if I'm president, I'd like to house some of them and help them get back on their feet."

Homelessness can wreak havoc on the adult brain, causing mental disorders like depression and post traumatic stress disorder in addition to being caused by them. Imagine what going without stable shelter does to the developing minds of young children.

In fact, one in three homeless kids has a mental health problem that affects their functioning by age 8. Long before that, though, 75 percent of kids 4 and under have developmental delays while about 40 percent of them have emotional and/or behavioral problems. What school teachers think is a problem child might just be a child with problems, a child who is homeless.

Why? Take your pick of reasons: stress, depression, fear, hunger, sleep-deprivation, or a parent who's so stressed, depressed, scared, hungry or sleep-deprived to give kids the care and attention they need. President Obama's federal plan pledges to end family homelessness by 2020. Make sure it happens!

Many people don't realize how many children are homeless, relying instead on the stereotype of the grizzled homeless veteran to distance themselves from the issue. But the average homeless family is made up of a single woman in her 20s and two children, at least one of whom is under age 5. The National Center on Family Homelessness estimates that 1.5 million children are homeless at some point each year. (I've got a feeling the number is even higher in recent recession years.)

The 99ers got the 60 Minutes treatment this week. Will it help them get the Congressional-funding treatment?

One unemployed woman, Mary Ann Rose in San Jose, California, said, "I remember it coming close to like six months, I was saying, 'I can't believe I'm out of work this long.' Then the year mark hit and I just started panicking, seriously. Now that it's over two years, I can't believe it. I just can't believe it." Watch the whole segment here.

Rose was laid off with 100 others from a real estate firm. Now, single and 54-years-old, she lives in the upstairs room of the brother of a friend. It's a sad story, made even sadder by the fact that there are at least 1.5 million other Americans like her who've exhausted their 99 (or fewer) weeks of unemployment.

Like the former fiber-optics engineering manager is happy to be taking a $9.25 an hour job at Target. Congrats to him — he's leaving the 9.6 percent of people who are unemployed and joining the 22 percent who are underemployed. He's still way better off than the one third of the unemployed who've been out of work for more than a year.

Sad turns to scary, though, when the 60 Minutes anchor asks a room full of long-term unemployed, "How many of you are beginning to feel a little bit desperate?" Suicides and calls to suicide hotlines are both up during this recession.

Join the call to extend unemployment benefits!