Connect with us

Massachusetts

Massachusetts House approves funding for emergency shelters amid migrant crisis – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

Published

on

Massachusetts House approves funding for emergency shelters amid migrant crisis – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News


The House made the first legislative foray into the state’s slow-burning emergency shelter system crisis Wednesday, approving $250 million and a list of specific requirements for the Healey administration as part of a larger budget bill that also addresses a slew of Beacon Hill loose ends and completes the accounting for the budget year that ended in June.

The long-awaited supplemental budget bill was adopted after little debate on a roll call vote of 133-25 just before 6 p.m. Senate leaders said that branch will take up its own version of the bill in “short order,” and then House and Senate Democrats will have to iron out any differences before sending a final version to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk.

“This $2.8 billion supplemental budget will close the books on the fiscal year 2023. With a net cost to the commonwealth of $1.69 billion, this legislation will allow us to end FY23 in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. A majority of the items contained in here are deficiencies that we need to pay or reauthorizations of past appropriations,” House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz said. “But the area that has received the most attention over the past few weeks is the request from the governor to make further appropriations to our emergency family shelter system.”

The House bill (H 4167) would authorize the $250 million infusion into the shelter system that Healey requested nearly two months ago, before the governor announced that she was capping the emergency shelter system at 7,500 families.

Advertisement

The House bill establishes requirements on how the additional appropriation can be used.

“We are proposing to provide the governor with her request of $250 million, but it is no blank check,” Michlewitz said.

Of greatest note is the House requirement that $50 million of the $250 million to go toward “the identification, acquisition and operationalization of a state funded overflow emergency shelter site or sites” for families placed on a shelter waitlist.

Out of the remaining $200 million for emergency assistance shelters, the House bill would direct $75 million toward reimbursing school districts for the costs of enrolling new students who recently arrived, $18 million for temporary shelters, $12 million for clinical and wraparound services, $10 million for resettlement agencies, $6 million for municipal support, $6 million for shelter staffing needs, $5 million for workforce authorization programming and $3 million for family welcome centers, according to a bill summary.

“While we wait for Washington to get its act together, we must confront the issues that are on the ground. And that is a shelter system that is being asked to house significantly more families than it was designed for,” Michlewitz said.

Advertisement

He added, “Our municipalities and school districts are taking the brunt of the day-to-day life of housing these families and providing children with the education and the needs that come with that. And that has left us in the Legislature, as well as many in the public, struggling to get answers on what is going on each and every day in our own communities. Despite these questions and frustrations, we have always provided the resources needed to manage the crisis.”

The House budget chief said he expects the $250 million outlay will get the state’s shelter system through the next winter months and into the spring. An initial $325 million allocation for shelter costs is expected to run out in January.

“To be clear,” he said, “we face some hard decisions and choices ahead for 2024 and beyond.”

During his introductory speech on the House floor Wednesday, Michlewitz asked fellow representatives to center their debate “around the facts that are before us today, and not misinformation that has casually been thrown around recently.”

“These families who have come to the commonwealth are [legally] here while their asylum process is underway,” he said.

Advertisement

Debate was fairly limited Wednesday afternoon. After Michlewitz’s intro, the House went into a lengthy recess as leadership chose which of the 61 amendments would be adopted as part of two consolidated mega-amendments. The first of those bundles, made available after 4 p.m., dispensed with 36 amendments but did not necessarily incorporate them into the supplemental budget. The second consolidated took care of what was left.

Rep. Paul Frost put one of his amendments up for consideration on its own after it was slated to be rejected in the first consolidated package. The Auburn Republican’s amendment would require that a family or pregnant person live in Massachusetts for at least one year before becoming eligible for emergency shelter. It included exceptions for domestic violence situations, natural disasters and more.

“I think that’s a fair amount of time to say that you’ve been here, that you’ve been participating in the community and that if you do need emergency shelter, then you could have it,” Frost said. “And if you want to discuss or further amend or debate lowering that figure to six months or whatever, I’m willing to talk. But the fact is it can’t be 45 minutes, it can’t be a day, because it won’t stop. They’ll continue to come and be sent here. And it’s not their fault, I understand that. They’re going where they’re told, they’re going where other groups are sending them because they’re told they will be taken care of.”

Rep. Alice Peisch of Wellesley argued against Frost’s amendment, telling representatives that she does not think it would survive a court challenge or that it would actually staunch the flow of migrants to Massachusetts.

“I certainly appreciate the concern that gives rise to this amendment. However, the better approach, I believe, is that that has been proposed by the Ways and Means Committee with respect to requiring that the administration set up an overflow site or sites within 30 days and, if they do not, then the cap will not go into effect,” Peisch, the House’s assistant majority leader, said. “It seems to me that that is the better approach. And I think that that is one that we have put forward due to, unfortunately, the lack of clarity that we have been given to date by the administration with respect to what happens when families start to arrive once that 7,500-family cap has been reached.”

Advertisement

Frost’s amendment was rejected on a 28-126 vote that broke mostly along party lines. Democrat Reps. David Robertson of Tewksbury, Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner and Colleen Garry of Dracut voted with the Republican caucus.

Though the shelter funding got the bulk of the attention, most of the money in the budget bill — about $2.1 billion — would go toward MassHealth for “caseload adjustments.” It also includes nearly $300 million for a reserve to fund collective bargaining agreements with state employees and $10 million in additional flood relief for municipalities hit by severe rain events this summer.

House budget writers also picked up the loose ends of a July supplemental budget — including $100 million for pension obligations related to an early retirement program, $75 million for special education reimbursements and $60 million for a DTA caseworker reserve — that didn’t already make it across the finish line.

A House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson said the bill would authorize spending from both the state’s general fund and a “transitional escrow fund” full of one-time relief dollars. The legislation empowers the administration to decide how much money to draw from each source, the spokesperson said.

House Speaker Ron Mariano previously said Michlewitz and Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Michael Rodrigues were negotiating the terms of the final supplemental budget before it emerged in either branch, but Michlewitz downplayed that notion this week.

Advertisement

“We had some discussions, but this is — I don’t want to speak for the Senate. This is the House’s version of what we think is the right step to be taken,” he said of his private talks with Rodrigues.

Senate President Karen Spilka pledged Monday that her branch will take up the supplemental budget in “short order” following discussions with lawmakers. There’s no Senate formal session scheduled this week, though Senate Democrats plan to meet in a closed-door caucus on Thursday morning.

Both branches must conclude formal lawmaking sessions for the year by Nov. 15 under legislative rules, though the possibility exists that the supplemental budget could move during informal sessions that any single member could derail.

(Copyright (c) 2023 State House News Service.

Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts court weighs whether all prostitution is sex trafficking

Published

on

Massachusetts court weighs whether all prostitution is sex trafficking


“So every John is a sex trafficker?” asked Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Scott L. Kafker in the courtroom last week.

“Yes, your honor,” replied Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Julianne Campbell.

The case—Commonwealth v. Garafalo—represents the latest assault on civil liberties and basic language to be carried out in the name of stopping sex trafficking.

Victimizing ‘A Fictitious Individual Created by Law Enforcement’

It’s long been a goal of certain radical feminists to define all sex work as sex trafficking. If you completely remove agency and free will from the equation—at least for women—then anyone who accepts money for sexual activity can be a victim and anyone who makes or facilitates this payment a criminal.

This paradigm is the basis for the “Nordic Model” of regulating prostitution, in which paying for sex is illegal but the basic act of offering sex for money is not. The Nordic model is established in many European countries, was adopted last year in Maine, and is gaining ground in the U.S. (where it’s sometimes, confusingly, called the Equality Model).

In keeping with this paternalistic mindset, some places have also started to raise penalties for prostitution customers, even elevating solicitation from a misdemeanor to a felony. Meanwhile, at the federal level, trying to pay for sex with someone under age 18 counts as sex trafficking even when the solicitor does not know the minor’s actual age.

Advertisement

Massachusetts may take these ideas one step further and declare anyone who tries to pay for sex at all to be a sex trafficker, thereby defining all prostitution, even between consenting adults, to be a form of sex trafficking.

A case that came before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) last week involves a prostitution sting conducted by Massachusetts state cops in 2021. The officers, posing as adult sex workers, posted ads online and arrested people who responded to the ads and attempted to meet up for paid sexual activity.

Regrettably, this type of sting is incredibly common in the U.S. It typically results in solicitation charges—still a misdemeanor in most places—for those ensnared. But in this case the state indicted those who responded to the sham ads on sex trafficking charges.

Massachusetts law says that anyone who “subjects, or attempts to subject, or recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides or obtains by any means, or attempts to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide or obtain by any means, another person to engage in commercial sexual activity, a sexually-explicit performance or the production of unlawful pornography” is guilty of trafficking of persons for sexual servitude—a.k.a. sex trafficking. The crime is a felony, punishable by at least 5 years in prison (without eligibility for probation, parole, or work release) and a possible 20 years, plus a potential fine of up to $25,000.

The five defendants in Garafalo, arrested in the 2021 sting and charged with trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, pushed back against the charges, filing a motion to dismiss them in 2022.

Advertisement

State Judge Maynard Kirpalani agreed to dismiss the charges. “The grand jury heard no evidence that there were any actual victims in the cases involving any of the Defendants, as the woman in the advertisements was a fictitious individual created by law enforcement, and there was no money and/or sexual services exchanged,” wrote Kirpalani. “Consequently, there was no evidence that any of the Defendants knowingly enabled or caused, or attempted to enable or cause, another person to engage in commercial sexual activity.”

‘We’re Going To Take Tvery Single John…and Put Them in Prison for Five Years?’

The state appealed, but the Appeals Court judge also sided with the defendants. So the state appealed again.

The Massachusetts high court heard oral arguments for the case on January 6.

Massachusetts’ position is that the state’s sexual servitude statute clearly captures paying for sex among its prohibited activities. It comes down to the word “obtain,” the state argued.

But at the same time the state legislature enacted a sex trafficking statute in 2011, it also raised the penalty for “soliciting a prostitute,” making this misdemeanor crime punishable by “a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000” and up to two and a half years in jail.

Advertisement

“We’re going to take every single John, charge them with sex trafficking, and put them in prison for five years? I don’t think that was the intent,” defense attorney Patrick Noonan told Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices last week. It would make the misdemeanor offense completely redundant.

It’s unclear when a decision will be issued, but “SJC cases are typically decided within 130 days,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Dangers of Exploitation Creep

This is an important case to watch for folks concerned with the inflation of human trafficking and sex trafficking—concepts that have undergone a massive case of what sometimes called “exploitation creep.” In recent decades, we’ve seen a series of attempts to expand the parameters of these crimes from truly heinous and coercive acts to much less serious offenses.

In many cases, this has involved roping in third parties—drivers, websites, hotels, social media platforms, sales software companies, etc—into liability for coercive or violent acts that did take place but of which they had only the most tangential and unwitting involvement. Another element of this impulse involves defining consenting adult sex workers as prima facie victims and anyone who pays them as a victimizer or trafficker.

If Massachusetts’ high court justices side with the state, it obviously won’t bind other states to similar interpretations of their own sex trafficking statutes. But plenty of police agencies and prosecutors across the country already refer to plain old prostitution stings as “sex trafficking operations” and the arrest of potential prostitution customers as a “human trafficking bust,” even when the only charges brought are misdemeanor solicitation charges. The authorities in many states would clearly welcome the opportunity to include attempting to pay for sex under the official rubric of sex trafficking.

Advertisement

If Massachusetts’ top court greenlights the state’s attempt to charge sex-work customers as sex traffickers, you can bet it will encourage authorities in other states to play faster and looser with their own definitions. If the court sides with the state here, I think we’ll be looking at a major escalation of an already dangerous trend.

Labeling people who want to pay a willing adult for sex as sex traffickers is certainly unfair to those people, and not just because they can be imprisoned for so much longer. It’s one thing to have a misdemeanor arrest on your record or to have to disclose a solicitation conviction; it’s quite another to have a felony record and have to tell people you’re a convicted sex trafficker.

And the negative consequences of this shift don’t stop with those convicted. Defining all prostitution as sex trafficking threatens to drive the industry further underground and to make customers less likely to engage in screening protocols and other safety measures, making the work more dangerous for adult sex workers and for adult and minor victims of sexual exploitation alike.

It also takes resources away from fighting crimes where there are actual victims, instead encouraging cops and prosecutors to conduct sure-thing stings where the only “victim” is an undercover cop.

And it does all this while letting authorities ratchet up sex trafficking arrest and conviction numbers, confusing the issue by conflating two very different things in public data. This spike in arrests and convictions can then be used to stoke public fear and build demand for more action. It’s can be used to justify raising police budgets, expanding surveillance power, suppressing online speech, and generally calling for more tough-on-crime policies. It can also be used to call for new regulations on businesses as diverse as massage parlors, hotels, and social media platforms.

Advertisement

Policies like these affect people far beyond sex workers and their clients, and they do nothing to help actual victims of sexual violence, coercion, and abuse. Let’s hope Massachusetts justices see the state’s ploy for what it is and make the right call here.


More Sex & Tech News

Things aren’t looking good for TikTok after a U.S. Supreme Court hearing last week considering a law that would force the platform’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell off its U.S. operations or be banned. Reason‘s Robby Soave has written a rundown of what transpired in court. “The Supreme Court appeared largely—though not entirely—unmoved by arguments that a federal ban on TikTok would violate the First Amendment rights of the app’s millions of American users,” writes Soave:

During oral arguments before the Court on Friday, the justices seemed inclined to agree with the federal government that a national security rationale was sufficient to force the app’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell to an American company…. President-elect Donald Trump opposes the ban and petitioned the Court to delay it until he takes office so that an alternative can be worked out. Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary and billionaire Frank McCourt have offered to buy the app for $20 billion, but ByteDance has insisted that it would sooner comply with the ban than sell the company. Supporters of the ban tend to see this as evidence that the Chinese government deems TikTok too useful for its nefarious propagandistic purposes.

Of course, even if it were true that the app is rife with Chinese propaganda, Americans enjoy the First Amendment right to consume such content. The justices seemed most skeptical of the government’s case to the extent it hinged on this point. Justice Elena Kagan likened the banning of TikTok to the Red Scare, in which the federal government violated the free speech rights of American communists due to their affiliation with the Soviet Union.

“That’s exactly what they thought about Communist Party speech in the 1950s, which was being scripted in large part by international organizations or directly by the Soviet Union,” said Kagan.

Several justices also seemed disturbed by the secretive nature of the government’s case against TikTok. National security experts have posited that TikTok poses a fundamental risk, but the evidence they showed to lawmakers has not been released to the public. Justice Gorsuch objected to “the government’s attempt to lodge secret evidence in this case without providing any mechanism for opposing counsel to review it.”

Advertisement

If it was just a matter of TikTok itself being banned, the justices would probably deem this an impermissible, content-based suppression of speech. Unfortunately, most of the Court seemed sufficiently persuaded that forcing ByteDance—a foreign company that does not itself enjoy First Amendment rights—to sell the app was not necessarily a content-based restriction on speech.

What is Tubi? You might find Tubi tucked away among the apps preloaded on your Smart TV. The free, ad-supported streaming service owned by Fox fields “the kind of movies you might have once found mindlessly flipping through the channels, back before streaming came along and algorithms began crafting our entertainment diets,” writes The Washington Post‘s Travis M. Andrews:

Tubi isn’t only filled with so-bad-they’re-good movies. It’s got a bit of everything. A Criterion movie here. A strange Rob Lowe-hosted game show there. “Bad Boys,” “Dances With Wolves” and every episode of “Columbo” and “The Magic School Bus” are neighbors on the streaming service. It’s like a T.J. Maxx or a Marshall’s: an awful lot of bargain-bin fare, not particularly organized—currently, you’ll find “Despicable Me 3” but not its predecessors—but also packed with diamonds in the rough if you’re willing to spend time sorting through the riffraff.

Today’s Image

Reading, Ohio | 2014 (ENB/Reason)

 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Person sledding injured in collision with tree in Sherborn

Published

on

Person sledding injured in collision with tree in Sherborn


One person was injured while sledding with their family in Sherborn, Massachusetts, on Sunday.

Sherborn Fire and Rescue says they were called to Pine Hill off of Pine Hill Lane for a technical rescue after an adult struck a tree while sledding.

Firefighters were able to rig a hoist system to safely lower the patient down the hill to the field where their UTV was waiting to take them to an ambulance.

The injured person was transported to a local hospital for treatment. There was no immediate update on the extent of their injuries.

Advertisement

Further details were not provided.



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

New Hampshire man plays Mass. lottery, wins $25,000 a year for life prize

Published

on

New Hampshire man plays Mass. lottery, wins ,000 a year for life prize


A New Hampshire man who played the lottery in Massachusetts won $25,000 a year for life.

Joseph DeFeudis, of Pelham, N.H. won $25,000 a year for life during a “Lucky for Life” drawing held on Nov. 16, 2024. The first five numbers on DeFeudis’ ticket matched the drawn numbers.

He bought his winning ticket Ted’s Stateline Mobil at 551 Broadway in Methuen.

DeFeudis claimed his prize on Jan. 2, and chose the cash option to receive a one-time payment of $390,000 before taxes.

Advertisement

The New Hampshire man told the Massachusetts State Lottery officials he plans on retiring with his prize.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending