Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Breaking News The Contributor Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Brentwood
Posted by Stephen George on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM
The Contributor, the $1-a-pop newspaper you can buy on seemingly any street corner in Nashville, is suing the City of Brentwood over alleged civil rights violations.
The federal suit, filed by the ACLU of Tennessee on behalf of the newspaper, comes after Brentwood officials cited vendors seven times in a two-month period for violating a city law that prohibits the selling of merchandise in public rights-of-way.
From Jeff Woods at The City Paper:
“This newspaper is all about the entrepreneurial spirit that makes this country great,” said Calvin Hart, one of the newspaper’s vendors who was ticketed in Brentwood and joined the lawsuit as one plaintiff. “The selling of this newspaper is important because it allows the people in the community to directly help the less fortunate. It’s a win-win situation.”
The newspaper, which is printed by a nonprofit, works with close to 400 vendors and claims to have sold some 117,000 copies of this month's issue, Woods writes. It has also helped some formerly homeless people earn enough to afford housing.
Comments (48)
Showing 1-48 of 48
Brentwood is very consistent and does not allow any non conforming activity in those areas (the construction zone on the ramp or the 18 inch wide concrete median), whether they be commercial or panhandling. I do not see much of a case here.
like
dislike
@Moost:
Apparently, you see exactly what you want to see. I see the city of Brentwood blatantly violating the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, and of peaceful assembly. The Contributor has a good case here.
lets face it.. there are limits to the first amendment.. we all want free commerce and free sell of newspapers and the media, but these homeless do nothing but annoy and make the homeless problem worse....
@hardrightdel -
I don't know where you are getting your information. "These homeless" do not harass, annoy or try to pressure anyone to buy their papers. I have never seen traffic hold-ups because of them. The newspaper vendors stand politely on the corners - most offering a smile, wave, or a "good day" to people as they pass - whether they buy from them or not.
That's been my experience, as well, let them be.
So, would this city law also prohibit kids from promoting a car wash fundraiser by standing on the sidewalk and waving a sign?
Ingleweird,
Not even the power-mad Warren Court could find that interpretation of the First Amendment. Well, maybe the Warren Court could.
'Freedom of the press' in the First Amendment is about the right to print opinions not to force people to buy them. You cannot stand on a Brentwood street corner and sell copies of 'Atlas Shrugged' for a dollar either. As long as there are places to sell the Contributor in Brentwood, there is no case.
"force people to buy them"? Only in Brentwood is the mere sight of a homeless individual standing in public-- actually visible-- an inherently coercive or threatening act.
I have found that they are very respectful, humble, and grateful if you buy them.
There's little if any real difference between giving a homeless guy a buck in exchange for a nearly worthless newspaper, and just giving him a buck. He's still on the street corner (except in Brentwood) asking for money. Most people wouldn't read that paper if it were given to them for free, which makes the whole enterprise kind of shady.
May as well have them sell Kroger sale flyers for a buck. Probably more worth in those than what they're now peddling.
"While many street newspapers aim to provide coverage of social issues and educate the public about homelessness, this goal is often secondary: many people who buy street newspapers do so to support and express solidarity with the homeless vendor, rather than to read the paper."
"Some newspapers sell well but may not be widely read, as many people will donate to vendors without buying, or buy the newspaper and then throw it away."
Wikipedia: Street Newspaper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_newspaper
"Most people wouldn't read that paper if it were given to them for free, which makes the whole enterprise kind of shady."
Except that people are obviously buying it, because the program is quite successful.
So, the real question is: why do you care?
"Paul sleeps under the stars in Ravenna Park, but until recently was living with O'Donnell. He says he felt guilty selling Real Change, knowing his buyers assumed he was homeless. "I'm out there now, though, and I feel considerably less guilty," he says.
But Paul says he still wrestles with his conscience when someone pays him more than a dollar for a paper. "There's a panhandling aspect to this," he says. "I'm not asking for $10 for a paper. I'm asking for $1. It's panhandling-lite."
McClain cops to having no problem with taking more than the suggested donation. "I don't care why you give me $5," he says. "I don't care if you give me $500. I'll take every free penny you give me. My first paper today, I sold for $20. You can bet if she came back for some change, she wasn't getting it, no sir. It's mine."
Not All the Peddlers of Seattle's Homeless Paper Are Homeless ( http://tinyurl.com/homelesspaper )
I care because it isn't helping these people stop panhandling and get off the streets. In fact, it seems to be aiding them to stay on the streets and keep panhandling.
The program is successful because well-meaning people are buying the paper in order to 'help' the homeless. The same way they can help them by simply giving them a dollar. Except, as I understand it, even homeless advocates don't recommend giving money to panhandlers. So this newspaper situation is merely a work-around and makes giving money to panhandlers seem legitimate.
They have a 35% success rate, so far (success being judged by placing someone in housing), which isn't a bad figure.
The difference between buying a paper for a dollar may seem negligible, but i don't think so. Consider:
* There's a big boost in pride/self-respect that comes with selling something instead of asking for a handout. It may seem like nothing to you, but it can mean a great deal to someone forced to sacrifice their pride on a daily basis.
* It's in a vendor's best interest to be clean and approachable -- the same as it does in any sales position -- and so it behooves them to not get a few bucks and go get fucked up. Anyone that takes the proceeds from sales and spends it on alcohol or drugs will likely not last a great deal longer in this program than they would in any other job. The difference is that the contributor will have them, where other employers will not. It's a good stepping stone to real employment and real housing.
* By virtue of the fact that the vendors have to check in regularly (obviously) to buy new papers, it provides an avenue for encouragement,
er, that is, provides an avenue for encouragement, and direction towards any required resources (including drug/alcohol treatment)
Selling something of value would indeed be better than asking for a handout. The key words being "something of value." Not just "something." Maybe they should grab a handful of Scenes and sell those. Sure you can get a Scene for free, but if you're buying The Contributor mainly to help the seller, why not give him a buck for a Scene? But then that would basically be just giving him a buck, which is what you're doing now when you buy one of the papers. Which is fine if that's what you want to do. Let's just not pretend it's something it's not.
It's great if this program is providing an incentive for some to stay off booze and drugs. So that's the reason I'm supposed to buy a paper? Because when I see one of these guys, I'm supposed to think that by virtue of the fact he's selling those papers, that means he's at least temporarily sober and I should reward him by buying one of his wildly-overpriced worthless papers?
Apparently many of the sellers on these papers make enough to afford some sort of housing, but they don't then seek real employment. They just continue to sell the worthless papers that gives panhandling a veneer of respectability. I don't know what the answer is to the homeless problem, but I'm pretty sure it's not giving money to panhandlers, even ones working under a guise.
Read the Seattle Weekly article.
"It's great if this program is providing an incentive for some to stay off booze and drugs. So that's the reason I'm supposed to buy a paper?"
No one's making you do anything.
I know one person downtown who was selling these papers, then got a local business to hire him part-time, then full-time and now has an apartment.
There sure are a lot of un-Christian comments coming from the alleged Bible Belt.
"So, would this city law also prohibit kids from promoting a car wash fundraiser by standing on the sidewalk and waving a sign?"
Depends on the kids skin-color and their parents socio-economic status.
"I care because it isn't helping these people stop panhandling and get off the streets. In fact, it seems to be aiding them to stay on the streets and keep panhandling."
And your superior alternative solution to selling The Contributor is...?
"So, would this city law also prohibit kids from promoting a car wash fundraiser by standing on the sidewalk and waving a sign?"
Depends on the kids skin-color and their parents socio-economic status."
"As long as there are places to sell the Contributor in Brentwood, there is no case."
Great. Maybe city officials will give the Contributor a spot of high traffic and visibility to sell the paper. Based on the first quote above though I highly doubt it.
As to the Newspaper. I buy the paper a couple times a week and so far I have not been forced to buy it. I read it. I also look through it with my 10 year old son. He needs to understand that not everyone has not only the stuff but the opportunity to accumulate the stuff he does. He also needs to further develop compassion for other human beings and understand they are people just like he is. There is a big difference in panhandling and giving something of value. When you buy a Contributor you get original articles written (mostly) by former homeless people. Maybe you find no value in that but that doesnt make it "nearly worthless" I enjoy having the opportunity to purchase the paper, I find the information and opinions expressed in it to be valuable as (most of the time) other newpapers in the area do not report of homelessness and their issues. If the contributor is not allowed to sell the paper in Brentwood I will not have any opportunity to buy the paper elsewhere as I work outside the core area of Nashville and usually buy it on my way home from the office.
I am not a fan of the ACLU. I have never given them a dime and quiet frankly a little bit more of Jesus in society would probably not be a such a bad thing. I am white, Conservative on most issues and my wife and I have been blessed financially. This is not a political issue. Its a reflection of what kind of city Brentwood wants to be. The problem is that many people for years have suspected what kind of city Brentwood is and the city's actions against the Contributor are confirmation to many of those suspicions.
Min, I'll repeat what I said earlier: I don't know what the answer is to the homeless problem, but I'm pretty sure it's not giving money to panhandlers, even ones working under a guise.
Also, regarding the stats of the alleged success rate of this program and also the number of papers that are allegedly sold, has anyone - say, a newspaper reporter - attempted to verify those stats, or is everyone - reporters included - just taking their word for it? Because there's no way they would fudge those numbers, right?
Why does the paper have to show it has a success rate? Does the Tennesseean or the Scence or ANY other paper have to show a success rate?
The vendors buy the papers for 25 cents apiece. At 117,000 copies a month - the figure they claim is sold monthly - that's nearly $30, 000. I have no idea of the financials of printing newspapers, but does it cost thirty thousand a month?
Here's a link to a website a reporter might find interesting. He/she could register and then found out some useful information. You know, if he/she wanted to.
http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/37-1551739/contributor.aspx#
Marvin:
Actually, their 990 for 2009 is available publicly:
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990se…)
It clearly outlines their expenses, grant amounts, and employee salaries (amounting to a whopping $0/year -- ohhhh, the scandal!).
So, until you have something more than vague insinuations of corruption, I'm afraid you are relegated to the ranks of "retard on the internet".
What seems to me to be going on here: Contributor vs. Brentwood, civil rights, ACLU et al, looks just like good ole' fashioned class conflict. Brentwood doesn't have homeless. Brentwood doesn't want homeless. And Brentwood won't have homeless if they can do anything about it. Ergo, sic the cops on 'em.
It would be funny if it weren't so unfortunate. Human nature will serve itself though, and erudition be damned. We really haven't progressed much since climbing down out of the trees, except to gather money, things and power to ourselves. And to hell with the have-nots.
I'll watch this business with interest. And try to laugh.
Marvin:
Do you hate capitalism? Homeless people are a byproduct of capitalism. These vendors? They are entrepreneurs on a micro level. Brentwood can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, but it doesn't mean they are legally defensible.
"quiet frankly a little bit more of Jesus in society would probably not be a such a bad thing."
Going on and on about what a good person you are and then suggesting that we could be like you if we adopt your imaginary best friend? Yep, typical religious perspective showing up where it was neither needed nor necessary.
Burrito,
I never said I was a good person although I appreciate you associating my support for the Contributor as a good thing (I think) I also never said I was a Christian. You dont have to be a Christian to acknowledge that Jesus had some pretty good ideas. And quiet frankly Christianity as a whole seems to have veered away from much of Jesus' teachings. Over the years there have been some pretty good ideas advanced by numerous individuals with connections to religion; including Jesus. If more people lived as he did I personaly think the world would be a better place. I could have said the same about Ghandi but the ACLU doesnt make the front page attacking Hindus now do they? What I did say is that I am not a fan of the ACLU and yes part of that is due the legal positions they have taken over the years regarding religion in general and Christianity in particular. But if you are going to attack religion in America then you have to go after Christianity as there seems to be more of them than anyone else. At least for now. I hear those Mulslims are on the rise... just ask Murfreesboro.
What I did say was that the Contributor has validity other than as a homeless project. If they are going to win their suit they will have to establish that fact.
I forgot the part about being like me.
Please be like me if you will give money to the Contributor and support them during their fight. They really do a good thing for the city.
Chris,
Financial info from 2009 is irrelevant, when they had at most 65 vendors. They currently have 1 full-time employee and 4 part-time employees. Their salaries are not listed. From Guidestar:
1. In the past 12 months, The Contributor has increased our number of active newspaper vendors from 65 in January of 2010 to more than 450 served in December of 2010. All vendors of The Contributor have experienced homelessness and are given the opportunity to create an income through newspaper sales.
2. In the past 12 months, The Contributor has increased newspaper circulation by from monthly sales of less than 12,000 issues in January of 2010 to more than 100,000 issues sold in December of 2010. Each issue sold becomes an estimated $2 in the pockets of a homeless or formerly homeless vendor. We estimate that a print-run of 100,000 issues brings $200,000 directly to our vendors.
3. In December of 2009, The Contributor launched a its first fund raising campaign which resulted in bringing in enough money to begin to, in March of 2010, hire founder Tasha French as its full-time executive director.
And this from the 2010 Annual Report:
Needs Statement
1. To increase vendor support. The Contributor plans to hire a director of vending who will be dedicated to working directly with homeless and formerly homeless vendors to improve their sales and their relationships with the community. The director of vending will also work to resolve conflicts that arise between vendors and their community. We also plan to increase volunteer support for our vendors. Estimated Director of Vendor salary: $30,000/year.
2. To increase newspaper content quality and begin to pay writers 5¢ per word and freelance feature writers $200 per story. Estimated cost: $1000/month.
3. Regular workshops to offer vendors opportunities to improve skills in writing and in managing personal finances. Secure worthy computer for vendor use. Estimated cost: $2000.
4. Secure a contract grant writer. Estimated cost $3,000.
Again, at 25 cents apiece, vendors are buying nearly $30,000 worth of papers monthly (according to their figures). Where is all that that money going? What is Ms. French's salary? Maybe it's all perfectly appropriate and above board. But without the pertinent info, we just don't know for sure.
By the way, do make a habit of calling people 'retards'? Do you call people niggers and faggots also?
Oh, and have you read the Seattle Weekly article? If so, what are your thoughts? Or do you think the writer is just some retard?
I do make a habit of calling people 'retards', yes. It's hilarious. I don't make a habit of calling people niggers and faggots. Unless it's hilarious, of course.
Financial information from 2009 is relevant insofar as it provides a convenient baseline on which to extrapolate some best guess as to current financials.
So, until you have something more than vague insinuations of corruption, I'm afraid you are relegated to the ranks of "retard on the internet".
As for the seattle weekly article, this is my favorite part:
"The top three sellers each month can buy their papers for 30 cents instead of the regular 35 cents. "How different is that from giving tax breaks to the rich?" wonders Paul."
It's my favorite because it is also hilarious.
For the record, Tasha French's annual salary is $42,500.00. Among other employees, all part-time, The Director of Vending makes over $31,000 yearly and the office manager makes over $26,000 yearly. The Editor makes over $18,000 for a 20 hour week. All of which is slightly more than "a whopping $0/year."
For comparison, simplyhired.com says "According to government data, the average salary for jobs in Nashville, Tennessee is $30,386"
http://givingmatters.guidestar.org/
Nope. And whether those salaries are excessive is for people to decide for themselves. Which they can if they actually have the information. My guess is that most people would be quite surprised at French's salary, but that's only my guess.
Still think that 2009 info - with the salaries of "a whopping $0/year" is relevant to the current situation?
Please explain how learning that the Executive Director makes 42 thousand a year somehow reinforces your point. This should be good.
"Financial information from 2009 is relevant insofar as it provides a convenient baseline on which to extrapolate some best guess as to current financials."
So, salaries in 2009 of "a whopping $0/year" gave you good baseline to extrapolate that people in 2011 would be making 42 thousand, 31 thousand, and 26 thousand (in addition to others). Again, please explain your thinking.
Also, if Ms. French were making, say, a hundred thousand a year, would you find that excessive? Apparently you don't find 42 thousand a year to be excessive for running a tax-exempt, not-for-profit homeless newspaper, so I'm wondering where you draw the line. 50 thousand? 75 thousand?
Why stop there? What if she was making a BILLION dollars a year? What then?
Gosh, then you'd really have me there.
Or, maybe -- just maybe, I'd measure the salaries paid to the employees of this nonprofit like any other and consider for myself whether or not I considered it commensurate with the cost of living in the area and what they are contributing to the non-profit.
So, before I bail on this useless dead horse of a thread entirely: do you have an actual criticism of the program? I am hoping "these former volunteers are being paid now haw haw" wasn't your magnum opus.
Except I didn't say anything about a billion, because it's ridiculous. You bring up that absurd figure in order to avoid answering the question. 50, 75, or even 100 thousand - which of those, if any, would be excessive in your opinion? It's a simple question.
Do I have an actual criticism of the program? Yes. Those were explained in my earlier comments here. You know, the ones you've been replying to. They're all right up there for you to re-read to refresh your failing memory.
I can certainly understand why you feel the need to bail on this discussion. I'm providing pertinent facts (not useless 2009 data) and asking legitimate questions, while you're calling names and throwing out absurd scenarios in order to avoid a logical discussion.
"I am hoping "these former volunteers are being paid now haw haw" wasn't your magnum opus."
As I clearly stated before, I don't object to employees of not-for-profits being paid, as your statement implies. As anyone - even you - should know, the question is how much they're being paid, and if it's excessive. Which brings us back to French's salary. Tell me how much you think would be too much. Or would literally any amount she could reasonably manage to get be okay with you? (I'm assuming - you should too - that it wouldn't be a billion.)
And once again, please explain how learning that the Executive Director makes 42 thousand a year somehow reinforces your point, as you claimed earlier. You say, "look, the employees are making zero. ohhhh, the scandal!", which you obviously considered to be such a slam-dunk that it prompted you to call me a 'retard.' (Which is something you call people because it's "hilarious." Also sometimes "nigger" and "faggot.") But when I discover that's not the case currently and that substantial - some might argue excessive - salaries are being paid, you claim that somehow enhances your argument. The same argument you bolstered before with the evidence of no salaries being paid. Please explain.
Municipalities have the authority to regulate this kind of commerce. Brentwood has higher standards. They have the right to say what goes on in their community. This homeless paper is touted as a solution to a problem, but it is actually a symptom of the decline in the manufacturing sector. People cannot possibly better themselves doing this. The publishers of this paper are making money off of people's misfortune, and using your tax dollars to subsidize it.
GOD is good.
Brentwood residences have made a decision that they are NOT going to obey laws and the corrupt poLICE are going to continue to violate the laws until someone decides to do something about it. It seems like "The Contributor," decided to take a stand against the criminals of Brentwood. The Bible states that it is a sin to make a difference when someone is dressed in goodly clothing opposed to someone dressed in "vile" raiment; therefore, "Brentwood," actually has lower standards. Brentwood, Tennessee citizens are a bunch of liars attempting to hide their prejudice against the poor and homeless by regulating who can and cannot come into their city limits. They are lying about the issue. It is not about traffic issues, etc. It is about discrimination. Also, JESUS CHRIST said that he came to preach the Gospel to the "poor." Also, in the book of Matthew Chapter 25, it states that if you don't help the poor (to paraphrase), JESUS will place you in hell. Brentwood residents' hate the poor and the homeless even to the point of breaking Federal laws which states that the people have the right to their Freedom of Speech and Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws. The streets belong to the general public and NOT just to Brentwood residence.
-Prophetess Glynis Bethel
God is not good. He is God. If He were good He would not be God. (From Reinhold Niebuhr.)
Was printed in a magazine article. I may not have quoted it exactly - couldn't find it on google either, so didn't use quotation marks. Think I ran onto it in Time Magazine.
