Hearing Rights Pamphlet

Responding to what I received at the bottom as a reponse to my inquiry to Assemblyman Chesbro about receiving the "Hearing Rights" pamphet quarterly for every one in my family.

Dear Ms. Moss,

After reviewing how my representatives voted (Senator Wiggins and Assemblyman Chesbro), I am not to positive they considered other cost saving initiatives that the State of California could do to appropriately use pubic funds.

My original inquiry about the "Hearing Rights" pamphlet mailed out quarterly to individuals receiving Medi-Cal was an attempt to look at a part of waste our Government does every day in doing business.

I understand that this came about because of a lawsuit, referencing "Jackson vs Rank" that required this to all those receiving Medi-Cal.

What I don't understand is why it is sent to every member of a family, even a child that can not read, or even understand what the pamphlet is for. This is a waste, and I can't believe the intent of the lawsuit was that every recipient of Medi-Cal was to get this, especially a child.

On top this, every time an individual visits a social services office you are handed a group of pamphlets with the same information - You visit the office a couple times a month, you get the same information, and then,it is even mailed to your home after you have been approved or denied services.

What is the cost for this?

This is one thing that needs to be reviewed. If our State Government is truly concerned about costs and receiving a valued use of public funds, the "Jackson vs Rank Lawsuit" needs to be revisited.

I hope that my two State Representatives consider this as a goal in actually saving our State money in how business is conducted.

You folks have a great day!

Charles L. Bean

From: "Gail.Moss@asm.ca.gov" To: charles.bean@yahoo.comSent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:00:50 PMSubject: From the office of Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro

Dear Mr. Bean:

I apologize for the delay in obtaining an "official" response with regard to your inquiry regarding the quarterly insert sent on behalf of Medi-Cal.

Below is the "official" response from the Department of Health Care Services:

"Hearing Rights" brochure being sent out: Pursuant to the Jackson v Rank lawsuit, DHCS must send these brochures out to all Medi-Cal beneficiaries quarterly.

Thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices in the future with any comments or inquires.

Sincerely,
Gail Moss, Executive Secretary to Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro
Sonoma County District Office

Support Oberstar's transportation overhaul

I would like to see a transportation bill passed that addressed improvements for all modes of transportation needs. I believe upgrading our current transportation infrastructure will be expensive, but it needs to be started today to create employment, as well as modernize ways Americans travel.

I would support Representative Oberstar's transportation overhaul and expect a large return as that which came from the building of America's transportation system in the 60s.

City housing thoughts - limited

City of Eureka
General Plan
Housing Element Comments

My comments are based on the May, 2004 Housing Element for the City of Eureka General Plan prepared by Joel Canzoneri, Senior Planner, and, in truth just personal thoughts as an individual confined to a wheelchair for nearly 35 years

Population Characteristics:

I believe that the statistics are interesting and basically a guess. Table II-2 demonstrates “Household Projections – Needs By Income Group”. Even though these are projected numbers, I believe statistics should be shown that represents a percentage of individuals with disabilities and elderly within the City of Eureka that fall into the various income groups listed.

I often wonder if the number of individuals with disabilities and elderly are overlooked because they are living in a Care Home or included in the family as a member because of unavailable housing to provide for independent living without family assistance. I have developed this belief from the various contacts I have come across within the City, false or true, it is a thought and may demonstrate a need for housing that meets the true need of the elderly and individuals with disabilities population.

I believe that separating the individuals with disabilities and elderly out from the general population will promote a stronger effort towards meeting heir needs for independent living. I assume that the numbers provided presently include this.

Employment Characteristics:

Though education, health, and social services are mentioned as the largest sectors of employment, I believe that the health and social services industry is going to grow two-fold within the next tens years. Services that allow individuals to live within the community and be involved in social activities will promote a healthier and stronger community. Future housing development might consider how a new development can address the health of the individual, as well as the community it is being built in that promotes self-employment and various services near the vicinity of new housing concerns.

Motels as Residences:

This is an issue that has a few good and bad points to it in my view:

1. A large majority of the motels listed allowing long-term occupancy do not collect the “Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)”, which in turn means less income for the City. The owners of the various motels also probably depend on the long-term occupancy as a firm and continuous income source not possible to receive from visitors to our area looking for more up-to-date accommodations. (I stayed at a few hotels in my time and I was always charged weekly and the TOT – speaking with a few individuals staying in local motels they have been charged the TOT even paying monthly. I wonder of this is something that needs further investigation.)
2. In truth, the motels are providing a service to the City. In most cases, if not allowing the long-term occupancy there would more than likely be more living on the streets than currently visible today. A large number of these individuals are on welfare or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) with very limited incomes.
3. Another view regarding the motels accepting long-term occupancy is the fact they charge anywhere from $600 to $800 per month (A SSI recipient receives $850 per month and are no eligible for Food Stamps.) depending on the room and number of individuals in your family/group. The majority of the rooms do not provide cooking facilities and if they do, they are usually primitive an unsafe. Considering this many individuals still must eat out and on limited incomes appropriate meals are hard to come by.
4. If housing was built to provide for a majority of those living in motels the economic base of the City would be greater because less would go to shelter and more would go towards personal health, education and job training, and possible employment having a permanent residence.

Special Needs:

I find it difficult to understand who plans and approves housing needs for the elderly and individuals with disabilities (Are individuals represented on the Eureka Housing Advisory Board?). Through my personal experience I have visited many sites that are supposedly accessible to the people with disabilities. I have come across entrances with doors that swing out on slopes that if you are using a wheelchair carrying anything entering the building is damn near in possible (Many businesses in Old Town are inaccessible due to slopes and widths of doors and in some cases, just no ramps.).

I have seen housing built and modified for individuals using wheelchair, but rented to a disabled person that had no use of the modifications. Along with these apartments or houses there are also parking spaces along the curb that if you are driving a sedan are not usable (ADA has an example of a better designated parking site along curbs that allows for access from a low vehicle.). I can only imagine what the difficulties of an elderly individual has getting out of a low vehicle at a curb using a walker or chair.

Disabled Persons (change this to: “People with Disabilities”):

I have a concern regarding “group homes” and feel it is almost as if individuals with disabilities are encouraged to be in a “group home” and not living independent as possible. I know that there is a big concern regarding “group homes” and isolating individuals with disabilities from complete participation within various activities of our society. In regards to group homes, I recommend contacting Bobbie McKay at the Redwood Coast Regional Center, 525 Second Street, Suite 300, Eureka. (707) 445-0893, ext. 347. Email: Bmckay@Redwoodcoastrc.org

It is mentioned on page 42 of the old plan, the third paragraph, that “The City has adopted Title 24 Access Regulations that contain universal design elements, and this is implemented in the review of all building permits where required.” I believe this should be added to business permits as well, promoting further access or plans to provide access in the near future to all throughout our society (I know many businesses that claim access is not needed because of the “grandfather myth”.).

In regards to building permits, do you have individuals familiar with individuals with disabilities review them prior to approval? I know that I had an opportunity when I was in Aspen, Colorado and Willow Creek, California to do this and changed a few plans to make the outcome serve the community better and in some cases saved the builder money.

Also on page 42 at the bottom, last paragraph that “Currently, disabled persons in Eureka are served by the Humboldt Access Project…..” This is now “Tri-County Independent Living Center, 2822 Harris Street, Eureka. Chris Jones is the Director of this agency and would be a good contact for concerns surrounding individuals with disabilities, (707) 445-8404.”

I mention the Tri-County Independent Living Center, because at this time they do offer assistance as written, but it is limited. Funds are received from the Redevelopment Department to provide ramps for individuals needing them within City limits. This has been a very good program and hope it is continued serving individuals with limited access in and out of their homes..

I understand that there is a “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” available for rehabilitate various types of homes at low interest or no cost (I may have a misunderstanding here.). From my experience the most difficult part in finding housing is access to the bathroom and cooking facilities. If funds could be made available through grants and such to remodel bathrooms and kitchens to provide reasonable accommodations the need for overall accessible housing may be reduced. I would make these funds available to individuals owning their homes and owners of rentals (I know there are many individuals that can use this can of assistance, especially of they were recently injured and returned home from a hospital not having the ability to afford modifying their place of residence.).

Note: Throughout the document the phrase “disabled persons” is used. I would recommend using the following terms in its place: “People with Disabilities” or “Individuals with Disabilities”. I prefer “individuals with disabilities” while most may prefer the other, no big deal to me (LOL).

I noticed that the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) has much to do with “transitional housing”, “homeless shelters”, and etc. From personal experience from a visit to their office on 9th and G Streets the access to the Housing Assistance Office was very, very limited, though I could sit outside and beat on the stairs and talk to some one when they came outside. Like it or not, individuals with disabilities need assistance in finding housing and even getting treatment for alcohol/drug issues they may have. RCAA needs to provide friendly access to their facilities they sponsor; this should be a requirement by the City for receiving funds.

I also believe that RCAA (Any organization, actually) and the City should seriously consider developing a Homeless/Transitional Center” using the old “Downtowner Motel” at 8th and F Streets. It would be located near the bus line, provide access to many veterans needing assistance in moving forward (After the Iraq/Afghan Wars Veterans with disabilities are going to increase. Why not prepare for it now?).

Require Mail-in Ballots

Thinking about ways that the State of California may save money, having all elections require mail-in ballots may save a few million dollars.

Every year, local Humboldt County media points out the cost of General and Special Elections and how the costs seem to go up every year. I am under the assumption that the State and Federal Government reimburses some of the costs associated with the elections, depending on if they are for the State only, or National.

I also understand that the volunteers working the poll sites receive stipends for their participation. (Kind of changes the meaning of volunteering, yes?)

I read an article from the SFGate dated 10/2008 that over half of voting Californians voted by mail. In some parts of San Francisco and surrounding areas polling Districts are mail-in ballots only, allowing for better service to larger voting Districts.

It seems to me that the State of California would be in a "win- win situation" requiring all voters here to vote by mail. It would save money not having the need for all the polling sites using the equipment and volunters needed. You also would not have the extra cost of making a facility accessible to the various types of disabilities as required (Of course, if you haven't noticed, not all polling sites are accessible. Hopefully, individuals with disabilities wishing to vote are better informed and vote by mail.).

Anyhow, I believe voting by mail as a requirement may save more money than expected and not only saving at the time of an election but also on personal costs needed full-time.

There are those that feel this may have it's troubles, yet the troubles have already been demonstrated in our current system. Required mail-in ballots are coming. Why not start today and incorporate it in our future endeavors so it does not become mandatory as it has for how votes are collected at polling stations?