login
mon posted: Mon 2018-02-26 06:18:53 tags: n/a
If I had to give a capsule characterization of the ministries EC's grant programs supported, it'd look like this: food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless services, youth and senior activity programs.

"Homeless shelters" wouldn't be accurate, as true housing services like Family Promise have big exclusionary restrictions. We would have liked to support homeless shelters but political spin and NIMBY entitlement made it hard to pitch to taxpayers or facilitate in the kinds of neighborhoods workers and volunteers would want to go. There was The Lord's Place in WPB and then a big vacuum until you got to Camillus House in Miami. Broward was only just starting to pilot overnight emergency shelter in partnership with St. Laurence Chapel in 2017.

I haven't heard a whole lot from the churches we've visited in NC about homeless sheltering/transitioning programs. There is a Family Promise chapter. Habitat for Humanity is big here. Dorcas Ministries is visible but doesn't specifically address homelessness, more along the lines of "homelessness prevention" by providing rent/mortgage crisis assistance.

Last night before bed I did a little googling about lottery odds, and came across a Patheos blog about NC's lottery. The tl;dr summary is: NC's games like Draw-3 and Draw-4 have much worse ROI than casino games or horse racing; they target the poor; and they are part of a decades-long GOP race to defund vital community institutions. The pitch is it "funds education"; the reality is it has zero net effect on education budgets. As lottery sales produce revenue earmarked for education, tax revenue is shuffled elsewhere. You can decry the lottery as a predatory scam or you can be a good little GOP sycophant fawning over Grover Norquist and his anti-tax policy models... but doing both makes you a hypocrite.

lotteries target the poor
CNN: especially scratch-offs

Studies in resistance: Concentration Ratio (CR) and anti-competitive consolidation in the food industry
take-away: as a general economic principle, IF 40% or more of an industry is controlled by 4 or less players, THEN competitivity is endangered. In the food industry, "Big 4" anticompetitive dynamics are severe, e.g. beef (84%), corn (80%).