Today would be Rosetta Bledsoe's birthday, but she passed away last year. She lived with her three grandchildren at her Rogers Park apartment.
Her daughter, and the children's Aunt, now lives in the apartment and is taking care of the children. But the company that manages the HUD units, Northpoint, is trying to evict the family on a technicality.
Let's join the family in remembering Rosetta on her birthday, and stand with them against this unjust and cruel eviction.
Tuesday 7/14, 8:30PM, 7721 N Paulina (in front of the building)
Gather beforehand to make signs. Tuesday 7/14, 6:00PM, the Mess Hall (6932 North Glenwood)
Source.
14 comments:
Craig, can you supply some background info on Rosetta and her family members?
I'd like to know the whole story here.
More information here.
Typical of Northpoint. There are plenty of people living in their apartments that are not on the lease.
You can watch the baby daddy come out and get in the Escalade or Mercedes. I am sure he is not on the lease. You can watch the man walk the pit bull in and out of the building, even though Northpoint does not allow dogs in their buildings.
The management admits at the CAPS meetings they are aware of drug dealing taking place in their buildings, but then they cry about how hard it is to evict someone.
But 3 children lose the only stable, positive adult influence in their lives, and Northpoint wants to kick them out.
As sad as this is, it is probably a good thing for these children. It will get them out of Northpoint and possibly move them into a more positive living environment.
This is a heart-breaking story, and what is being done to these children is evil.
Erica is a deserving Section 8 voucher recipient if anyone ever was, and there should be no question of evicting these kids and their legal guardian, who, from what I'm reading, has no criminal record or other issues that would make her an undesirable tenant.
Northpoint somehow can't get rid of tenants who deal drugs and commit crimes, but they are driving these defenseless and harmless people into the streets, for no reason at all. These are the kind of tenants you'd think they'd PAY to be there.
What can we do to keep this little family group intact and in their apartment?
While Northpoint MAY turn the apartment over to the children, the question is, WHO will pay for the it? Are YOU going to pay for it? Is Jan Schakowsky with her redistributive policies going to pay for it with HER money and not mine?
When the kids get a section 8 voucher, then they can stay.
The fact is, if the kids stayed, they would have been staying for free and that is not acceptable when bills need to be paid.
Sorry for being cold.
Inasmuch as orphaned children are by law wards of the state, the state will be paying to keep these kids somewhere.
"Redistributionist" or not, last I heard, children under the age of 16 cannot be put out onto the streets to starve, when their parent or other relative has died. Orphaned kids DO have a claim on the taxpayers and always have had. Would we rather pay to keep them with a guardian they know and love, and who cares about them- or would we rather pay some foster family to whom they're just another source of income, to take them?
There is missing information in the article referenced. I gather by inference that the apt. is being payed for by a Section8 voucher but that is not stated for a fact. How is the present guardian paying for the apt.
I don't like "redistributionist" policies, but we have to take care of parentless children no matter what. After all, we're all anteing up enough to keep Goldman Sucks executives in their %40MM houses, and we pay through the nose to subsidize every other sort of optional crap.
FYI
All NorthPoint buildings/apartments are Section 8 subsidized. It is thru a direct contract between HUD and the property owner. This type of subsidized rental property is known as 'Project Based'. HUD sends one check to AIMCO/NorthPoint monthly, covering the government subsidy amount due for all 304 units each month. The residents do not hold individual subsidy vouchers.
Boo. Hoo. Hoo.
I wonder if there is, anywhere in this situation, any working adults with full time jobs.
Keep in mind, taxpayers, that it is you who are paying the rent for these "poor orphans".
Yes, Chip Bagg, we are paying the rent for them and about 26,000 other children in IL alone who don't have parents, or who have parents who can't or won't take care of them.
I'm all for billing non-custodial parents who have lost custody of their kids by abuse or neglect, for the care of these kids, which includes a foster parent or relative guardian, as well as housing, food, and other essentials. Any parent with any kind of income needs to get half his check taken for his kid's support, no matter how small that paycheck is. We have too many people having kids they are not prepared to take responsibility for.
But we are going to be stuck with a bill for abandoned or orphaned children no matter what, and the only alternative to this is to put these kids out on the streets and let them fend for themselves however they can- beg, steal, dumpster-dive, sleep in doorways or wherever. That seems to work just fine for many third world countries. There, kids who are alone and with no parents end up on the streets at the ages of 3,5, 8, or little older, and when they steal from, say, a food stall, the police just gun them down. Or, if they're lucky, they end up being recruited by child prostitution rings.
Do we want to be that kind of country?
If these kids were the only bill the taxpayers had to pay, we'd be in good shape as a country.
It's hard to resent the claims of small, defenseless children who are scarcely old enough to know how to read after we taxpayers just got finished assuring the profits of a very major financial house and paying its employees an average bonus of $600K. The Corporate Welfare structure in this country is unbelievable. Never mind the money extorted from us for pay increases for politicians while the rest of us are seeing our hours and incomes cut, or mortgage assistance to help folks stay in $500K houses, or $500M for an el station that looks like it will never reopen at this point, or tens of billions spent for obsolete industries so they can ship jobs overseas; or we pay for some retard's in vitro fertilization so she can have 8 kids she can't support.
End all the above nonsense, plus thousands more wasteful programs, and we can do what every civilized country does, which is make sure that orphaned and destitute kids get the basic decencies, while actively discouraging adults from giving birth to kids they can't support.
Well said, North Coast.
What Northpoint is pulling on those kids and their guardians is no parts of right.
I've always been against people mindlessly having kids they can't and/or won't provide for properly. I sneer at the so-called "efforts" of a lot of social service organizations. But these are three kids who need a home with a guardian who is willing to step up to the plate and care of them. Why does Northpoint feel the need to play Simon LeGree?
well, a couple posters here are really showing what they are made of. there is a word for somebody who wants to throw orphaned children out into the streets. it is savage.
I am a relative of the petitioners and as such, I am certain that some may perceive my views as being somewhat biased: nothing cuold be further from the truth.
Rather, I present a subjective arguement based mainly on the stipulations of the law when presented with a case regarding legal guardianship vs. human rights issues.
Both in this circumstance, bear strict scrutiny. They deserve to remain within this residence because A) my cousin Erica has demonstrated that she can afford it and B) it is beneficial for the children to remain there.
The fact that some of you argue about your (and my) tax dollars being used in this case sickens me. I rarely hear a complaint when we are taxed regarding felons who are basically receiving 3 hots and a cot. Yes, we PAY for them as well. This situation is VERY far from that.
As I reside in Bloomington, I *just* became aware of this. Please believe that I will do every within my considerable ability to prevent this from occurring.
I have visited my family there many times, and Bosworth makes a very valid point: drug dealers are RAMPANT in this area, yet those with the ability to see that true justice is served would rather focus on the predicament my cousin(s) now face, as opposed to ridding the neighborhood of low-lifes.
If you see this Erica, please give me a call TODAY. I will be contacting you to see what additional help/resources you need. I love you all, fam.
La Monte L. Underwood
RE: North Coast
"Or, if they're lucky, they end up being recruited by child prostitution rings."
Are you telling me these kids could be WORKING?
First of all. The ones on this page who are complaining about your tax dollars are coming out of your packets to pay for these children you must be racist whit middle/upperclass residents of Rogers Park. Shame on you for being greedy. I am a low class underpaid resident and I would gladly give up my tax dollars to support children and people who are on Section 8. it is unfortunate that we live live in an indivigualistic society these days. there are people who are so flat broke that they are starving and have major possibilities of living on the streets. However, those who make enough money to have given to people like this just complain about my money is my money and F you, you can't get none! We as a society need to come together and lift each other up wheather it is helping those who are in this situation. THen there is the second issue. Why do we link drug dealers and users with those who are living in Section 8. The majority of upperclass whites in the city and suburbs are dealing drugs and buying drugs from dealers of whom you speek of. Sounds like we meed to first stop thinking that people who are recieving assistance from Section 8 are automatically on drugs or some sort of dealing drugs. Second we need to first hold the upperclass white communities responsible for their durg use. If they were contained more, there would not be aneed for dealers on the street since most of the revenue comes from white upperclass communities who drive from the segregated suburbs into the areas where dealers are present in the city. So, with all of this said, the government should have the right to tax the upperclass to give to the people who need it. Greed is infact leading people nowhere and greed is right now destroying this country and it's people. These people need help, is what they don't need is a "sorry, I'm not going to give you and help because I want all my money for myself."
Post a Comment