Liberty Hill

Polls Show Sharp Drop in Concern over Climate Change

Throughout California and the nation, there’s been a  steady decline in the concern over climate change, stated Dr. Richard Bernard, Sr. Vice President of Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, during a workshop entitled  “California’s Changing Views on the Environment,”  presented by Liberty Hill and its partner donees Green LA Coalition and Green LA Institute and hosted by the Emmett Center for Climate Change and the Environment, UCLA School of Law.

 
An audience of professionals from the environmental and environmental justice worlds as well as students had gathered at  UCLA to glean information that could have an impact upon their work and the future of California, if not the planet.

Bernard and his firm conduct opinion research and provide public policy analysis for their clients, among them progressive organizations hoping to fund their environmental causes through ballot measures in statewide or local elections. Bernard shared data gathered through polling and focus groups that supported a number of conclusions.  Among his findings and insights:

--There is a sense that the economy is changing people’s ideas about the environment, that there has to be a tradeoff between the economy and the environment.

--In a national survey, when respondents were asked which issues were important to them, 79% stated that the economy and employment were important, 49% identified pollution of lakes and streams and 43% said global warming was important.

--Particularly because of the decline in concern over climate change, it’s critical to link the environment positively with the economy.

--Despite the poor economy in 2008, voters throughout the nation approved 62 of 87 land conservation measures--a success rate of 71%.

--Water issues rate higher with the public than all other environmental issues. Case in point: during the California elections of 2006, Prop. 84, a water bond measure, passed, while Prop. 87, a clean energy measure, lost.

An Update from the HUD Meeting on Public Housing Earlier This Week

POWER send an update on its meeting with HUD deputy Bessy Kong:
 
Good News & Bad News:  Kong committed to "strongly recommend" that Secretary Donovan meet with POWER and other members of National People's Action on November 16 when POWER members are in Washington, DC for our leadership conference. Disappointing, however, that she said doesn't have any power to commit to POWER's request for a moratorium on demolition of public housing units. POWER is a Liberty Hill grantee partner.

Missed the earlier post about POWER's meeting with HUD?

What The New Homeless Number Will Mean On The Streets

Last week, one of our grantee partners indicated to us that the new homeless numbers would result in a significant reduction in federal dollars. Not so, says LAHSA. According to Mike Arnold at L.A. Housing Services Authority, L.A. does not stand to lose federal dollars or any government money as a result of the new homeless numbers.

 

More on What the New Homeless Numbers Mean Or Don't Mean.

Bill Pitkin, who blogs at povertyblog.net, has more to say about yesterday's homeless numbers. Bill is a Sr. Program Officer at the Conrad Hilton Foundation and used to be United Way's numbers cruncher.

Here's an excerpt: When the 2007 numbers came out lower than 2005, a common justification was that the count became more precise as the methodology improved, implying that the earlier count wasn’t as accurate. Having been briefed on this year’s methodology, I agree that the 2009 count is the most reliable we’ve had yet. But, it still begs the question of whether we’re really seeing declines. As one news article characterizes it, “whether the drop was real or the by-product of fuzzy math in previous years, is hard to say.”

Read the whole post.

What Does The New Homeless Number Mean?

Our friend Joel John Roberts, CEO of PATH Partners, pokes at The L.A. Times story today reporting a dramatic drop in L.A.'s homeless population. We thought it was worth re-posting.

I wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times after the official 2005 homeless count in Los Angeles County revealed nearly 90,000 people were homeless. It was called, “The Homeless And the Numbers Game.” I basically wrote that the actual number is not as important as the significance of the problem of homelessness in the region.

Two years later, in 2007, the number magically dropped to about 73,000 people. At the time, I was quoted as saying, “Where did the 17,000 homeless people go, since our region clearly did not build 17,000 housing units for the homeless?”

Today, in 2009, the homeless number is now 48,000 people (for the whole county.) Wow! A 38% drop in homelessness in a region that is still considered the homeless capital of America. How can it be? Is there really less homelessness? Especially, during the worst economy since the depression?