Survey of Day Labor Centers in the West

Mesa Community Action Network, Inc. (MesaCAN) presents this report in response to questions about the operation of and support for labor sites in other locations. MesaCAN has conducted research into other operations and collected data, to the extent that such information is available, and prepared the following report as a survey. The report does not exhaust the possible number of sites and/or the amount of information that might be possible to gather. This report does, however, present a reasonably broad picture of the status and development of community responses to a challenge faced not only in the West but also throughout the nation.

Background

Dr. Abel Valenzuela estimates “that there might be a total of three dozen worker centers spread across the United States.” Valenzuela, Jr., Abel, Ph.D., Day Laborer Program Evaluation, June 2004, page 35, fn. 6. MesaCAN reviewed twelve (12) sites. The information and data collected may be classed in three broad informational categories: low (e.g., Brea, CA), medium (e.g., Concord, CA) and high (e.g., LA, Austin and Glendale, CA). The high information sites may include thorough studies, demographic information and performance data. The medium sites may include actions by the governing bodies over a period of time along with the relevant staff reports and the low information sites may include information taken from websites, for example. Moreover, some information comes from media reports and telephone interviews.

As Dr. Valenzuela explains in a number of reports and scholarly articles, the day labor phenomena is not recent nor is it specific to a particular geography in the nation.[1] Most communities surveyed expressed a significant frustration with the chaos and social costs of an unregulated industry and determined that some kind of facility and regulated location represented a rational response to the circumstances of workers congregating in public spaces.

Indeed, the movement of immigrant labor is a worldwide event. “Powerful economic forces are at work. It is impossible to separate the globalisation [sic] of trade and capital from the global movement of people.” The Economist, November 2, 2002, pages 3-15. Consistently, the recognition of the reality of labor demand, and the resulting supply of workers, is expressed in the communities which have established sites. While some communities evidence frustration about the lack of a coherent and enforced federal policy, most appear to be moving ahead in recognition of the present circumstances of trying to manage populations of workers meeting those communities’ labor demands. In fact, in some regions of the nation, government at the state and local levels has partnered to develop and operate sites. These partnerships are most common in Texas where the Texas Workforce Commission, a state agency, and local governments have developed worker centers in Houston, Garland, Plano and Fort Worth.

Worker centers have been in operation for nearly fifteen years. See, Valenzuela, June 2004, page 35. The sites range from a mere location with minimum support to fully developed programs addressing a variety of services. Consistently, worker centers create some level of community controversy. In New Jersey, for example, at least one small community, Freehold Township, has attempted to ban the creation of a site, and, as a result, the community is engaged in a bitter dispute regarding the competing interests.[2]

In Mesa, workers congregating along the Broadway corridor are nothing new. Many remember workers at the corner of Mesa Drive and Broadway Road for many decades. What is different, of course, is the level of attention given the issue and the sheer increase of the numbers of workers. Accordingly, and presumably with the intent to address the local issue, the City of Mesa convened its Day Labor Task Force in January 2000.

After nearly a year, and meeting often every other week, the City’s Task Force recommended, by a vote of 12 of the 17 members in attendance (18 members signed the Final Report – Day Labor Task Force), that:

“The City of Mesa should create a day labor center available to all workers regardless of their immigration status where workers and employers will be encouraged to go to conduct their employment transactions.”

“The recommendations of the day labor task force together comprise a comprehensive, integrated approach to a complex social issue in our community. For maximum effectiveness in impacting the day labor issue, these recommendations must be considered and implemented as a package.”

Approximately six months after the Task Force reported its recommendations, the Board of Directors of Mesa Community Action Network, Inc. authorized agency staff to proceed with the development of and location for a workers’ site and express the agency’s commitment and intent to the City of Mesa. The early effort included additional street surveys and the preparation of a draft plan outlining the agency’s work to address the possible solutions. At the time, the City of Mesa engaged in the consideration of possible sites; the agency prepared a draft operational plan, identified possible collaborators on the project, hosted a number of meetings and developed a draft budget.

Subsequently and particularly after the economic downturn, the elements of a possible public/private partnership evolved to become less likely. Nonetheless, the Board of Directors of MesaCAN reaffirmed its commitment to the need in the community and that the agency had the capacity to continue to search for a solution. MesaCAN staff, working with the Board of Directors of the MesaCAN Foundation, Inc., an analog private nonprofit corporation supporting the programmatic needs of Mesa Community Action Network, Inc. through its work to acquire and manage the capital investments needed for the operating agency’s growth and development, continued to seek an appropriate site using the parameters suggested in the Task Force Report.[3]

After many months of searching for a site, the MesaCAN Foundation, Inc. entered into a lease/purchase agreement for the 50,000 square foot parcel at 438 South Drew, an M-2 zoned property immediately west of Center Street and south of Broadway Road. Since October of 2004, MesaCAN has leased this property from the MesaCAN Foundation, Inc. and has begun the site improvements. In conjunction with the complete privatization of the project, MesaCAN pledged to the City of Mesa that it would not seek any governmental funding to acquire and/or operate the site. Thus, MesaCAN’s effort to develop a worker center is strictly a private operation based on the generosity of the community and the agency’s ability to derive revenues from operations on the site. The operational elements of the project are thoroughly explained in the agency’s Project Narrative accompanying its application for a Council Use Permit.

While MesaCAN believes that a privately funded and operated facility and program on an M-2 zoned parcel should be embraced as a responsible alternative to the current circumstances, the agency submits this report in recognition of a long standing partnership between the City and the agency most clearly demonstrated by MesaCAN’s East Valley Men’s Center. No one should dispute the obvious controversy surrounding this issue, but, likewise, MesaCAN answered the community need for a facility for homeless men in the face of significant opposition and concern by establishing the East Valley Men’s Center. The same commitment, skill and dedication has been, and will be, applied to MesaCAN’s Comprehensive Community Services Center, the name of the variety of programs to be operated on the site including a day labor/workers’ center.

For the purposes of this report, the following sites and programs were surveyed and included herein: Brea, California; Los Angeles; Phoenix; Glendale, California; Austin, Texas; Fort Worth, Texas; Concord, California; Seattle, Washington; and, CASA Maryland in Maryland.

Other sites either did not have readily accessible websites and/or contacts or information was only available through the collection of newspaper articles. These sites include: Samaritan House Worker Resource Center (San Mateo, CA – nonprofit program operator in City provided building with City operating support of $150,000; anti solicitation ordinance passed; one year pilot program); the California communities of Rancho Cucamonga (recently approved acquisition of a site using CDBG funds), Pomona (Pomona Economic Opportunity Center – on the City’s website - $165,000 city operating support), San Bernardino (considering the example of Rancho Cucamonga and Pomona); Kansas City, MO (Kansas City Police Department planning a center; anti solicitation ordinance passed; collaboration with the local community action agency); Garland, Texas (opened its site in November 2002; City built the site, funds it and operates it in partnership with the Texas Workforce Commission); and, City of McKinney, Texas (approval for a site and allocation of $100,000 for construction). Materials describing the sites not discussed in this report are included as Attachment Ten.

Discussion

Austin Texas – First Workers Day Labor Center [Attachment One]

Opened on August 1, 1993, the City of Austin and Travis County expended $95,000 for the initial site development and $109,375 for 21 month contract with the local Community Action Network. In 1999, the City of Austin organized the “First Workers’ Corporation, Inc.” The Corporation operated until January 2002 when it became a program of the Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department. Employees of Labor Connections are now City of Austin employees. The First Workers Center is now open 6 days each week. Austin’s restructuring followed the Glendale (CA) model. The Austin Police Department played an important organizational role in the restructure. Austin Police Department has a uniformed officer on the site and a motor officer patrols the neighborhood. From information provided by Austin, the May 2004 project budget includes $228,000 from the City of Austin general fund; there are no other donations or funding. In addition to the operational restructuring, Austin enacted an ordinance prohibiting the pick up of workers in the service area. Austin’s ordinance defines geographic areas where the conduct is prohibited. As reported by Austin, during the month of July 2004, 47% of the workers signing in received job placements and worked; year to date, the City reported an average placement of 46% with no better than 50% over the past few years. Austin conducted a study of the worker center in May 2000 that appears to have influenced the transition to a city program.

The City of Fort Worth Day Labor Center [Attachment Two]

As of June 2004, Fort Worth’s center has been in operation for one and a half years. Fort Worth surveyed Texas sites in June 2004. The sites surveyed are operated by cities (Austin, Plano, Garland); Houston’s is operated by nonprofits. According to the Fort Worth survey, San Antonio is also starting a city operated center. As a general note, the Texas Workforce Commission appears to provide some funding for the Texas sites. Moreover, the Fort Worth survey notes all of the Texas cities operating worker centers have passed anti solicitation ordinances except for Houston. The Fort Worth survey also indicates that the City expends $305,600 annually for the operation of its center from the City’s general revenue fund.

From information taken from the City of Fort Worth’s website, the worker center is a 7,200 square foot facility that has served up to 97 workers in one day. Also, Fort Worth provides two morning bus runs from stops in the downtown area and the Salvation Army, and a van operated by Center employees return workers to the morning pick up spots in the afternoon. This transportation is unique among the sites surveyed.

Glendale California – Day Labor Project [Attachment Three]

Distinguished by the significant investment in the project by the Glendale Police Department, Glendale typifies one of the most vigorous responses by local government. In fact, the Police Department reacted to what it described as the “complete failures” of the attempts of the private nonprofit sector to address the problem as the reason for the City of Glendale to pursue a solution. The Department wrote two grants for the capital costs of the site. Glendale also convinced Home Depot to donate construction material and cash for staffing. Glendale considers its site an overwhelming success. A key component of the community’s program, Glendale enacted a “prohibition of solicitation in public right-of-way” ordinance. The ordinance is citywide. The Glendale Police Department reports that according to its statistical information, only 10% of the laborers worked while the curbside situation existed, and now the average is 80 to 100%. Also, the Glendale center offers ESL, immigration and technology classes. Glendale considers this program a signature success of its community policing efforts. This information is taken directly from the City of Glendale, California website.

In addition to the information on the Glendale website, on February 17, 2004, MesaCAN staff talked with a representative of the Glendale Police Department who identified himself as Agent Hopper. Staff asked two questions: how did the City of Glendale handle the issue of federal immigration, and how did the community respond to the City opening a worker site?

Agent Hopper [this is how he answered the telephone] explained that at first, Glendale had a “gentleman’s agreement” with the INS since “INS did not have time to deal with immigration issues at the [city’s] site.” He further stated that since the opening, the [successor federal agency} U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has no time to deal with undocumented immigrants away from the border.”

When asked how the community responded, Agent Hopper said, “initially the community questioned it but now they are pleased with the results of the Day Labor Project. The community recognizes how the Project enhanced the quality of life in the area.” When asked by MesaCAN staff about how the Glendale Police Department measured community acceptance, he explained that

“[t]he Police Department got all of the complaints. We took the stand that the immigrants are here. The Day Labor Project would bring order to the chaos. The laborers basically set up three rules: no fights, no drugs and no alcohol. Eventually it separated the troublemakers from the workers. The troublemakers fell by the wayside. City support was important because these places need money to run. Staff needs to be paid. The business community needs to support centers. [The Department] tries to show the community the benefits of the day labor site.”

Los Angeles (6 sites) – Community Development Department of the City of Los Angeles [Attachment Four]

These are the most thoroughly and extensively analyzed programs with six centers operated by two nonprofits and partially funded by the City. The City of Los Angeles commissioned Professor Abel Valenzuela to study the sites, analyze their effectiveness and evaluate what the sites might need as improvements. Dr. Valenzuela’s study is exhaustive. Dr. Valenzuela also noted that the six sites are leading the evolution of programming taking place in the development of services to day laborers. Los Angeles has been operating these sites for nearly fifteen years.

“Following the requirements provided by the City, all worker centers open from 6:00 a.m. and close at 2:30 p.m., with the exception of the Downtown site which opens at 7:00 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m. All of the sites are closed on Sundays, each has at least two full-time staff members, and each site provides restrooms and shelter from sun and rain. All worker centers provide amenities on a daily basis such as water, coffee, bread, and food donated by churches, residents, and local community based organizations.” Valenzuela, Jr., Abel, Ph.D., Day Laborer Program Evaluation, June 2004, page 13.

“The analysis of the worker centers [the worker and employer activity] was conducted by examining four variables: number of registered day laborers, jobs dispatched, percent finding jobs, and number of new registrants. These four variables provide the hard numbers associated with the work the day laborer sites do but also hints at the difficulties experienced by the worker centers in trying to secure employment in a market that is particularly prone to economic, climatic, and other variations that influence demand (e.g., employers). Id. at 19. Based on the contract provided by the City, for the last year, two of the sites (Hollywood and West Los Angeles) have exceeded the minimum performance threshold set forth by the City. The minimum performance thresholds defined by the City include: number of day laborers registered at each site, average number of day laborers registered at the site per day, and percent of laborers finding jobs. North Hollywood and Harbor City have been struggling the last three years to meet those thresholds. Cypress Park has met two of the thresholds for this past year, but with a continued increase in day laborers it has not been able to meet the minimum percent of day laborers finding jobs. [Information on the minimum performance thresholds was not provided for Downtown, therefore Downtown was not included in this analysis.]” Id. at 22.

“What is the future of worker centers? Nationally, I see worker centers catching up to Los Angeles and then developing into even more sophisticated entities where workers, employers and other forms of community and economic development occur. I see worker centers becoming valuable community assets and geographic spaces where technology training, immigrant worker incorporation, and other forms of human development occur. I see worker centers developing into intermediary sites of human capital development where workers can “apprentice” as day laborers and then move into more stable, permanent employment. The future of worker centers is bright and serves as an alternative, organic model of worker development for men at the extreme margins of employment and unemployment. Foundations have recently become interested in worker centers as models of community development focused on the plight of the working poor. The six Los Angeles worker centers are poised for this transformation and are clearly at the head of the pack with the services, programs, and innovations already developed by a group of staff and administrators dedicated to ensuring that the concept and reality of worker centers works.” Id. at page 35.

The City of Los Angeles provides a range of funding between $100,000 and $150,000 for each site.

Concord California – Monument Labor Works [Attachment Five]

Concord opened its site in August 2000 in leased space in a commercial shopping center. A community of 120,000 plus people, Concord is 29 miles east of San Francisco in Contra Costa County. Concord partnered with a nonprofit to operate the site and provided $120,000 over two years to start the project. The nonprofit also received some private funding support and offset some costs through dues paid by the laborers. At the time of the opening of Monument, Concord also provided some funding to a state operated site that served only documented workers. The Concord elected officials then analyzed which of the two sites would retain City funding support. During the study, the state discontinued its service. Concord also has an anti solicitation ordinance. The anti soliciting ordinance included the impetus to open a day labor site as a response to the recognition that some location would need to be provided if the ordinance were to be enforced. Concord allocated $45,000 during FY02-03.

From an October 22, 2004 report to Concord’s Council, it appears that Monument is evolving away from the hiring hall concept to a more comprehensive services approach.

“Staff believes the evolution of the program into an Economic Development Center has significant potential. However, this concept will also increase the annual cost to operate the program. A preliminary budget for the EDC concept estimates the annual operating budget at over $350,000. The City’s current support for the program is $60,000 and there are no additional funds projected within the updated 10-Year Plan beyond FY 2004-04.” Report, page 3. The staff report goes on to explain that funding opportunities for the EDC may be better since the hiring hall concept had been “rejected because the program’s focus [was] too narrow.” Id. at 4. Moreover, as a part of Concord’s ongoing analysis of the program and its impact on the community, the City assisted the nonprofit in relocating the site. Needless to say, Concord’s staff recommended level funding for the program.

On January 27, 2004, Concord staff recommended additional funding of $50,000 to “avoid suspension of its [Monument Works] operations.” In addition, however, Concord staff also recommended that if the program did not produce significantly improved results by the end of this fiscal year, the recommendation would be the termination of the program. The Concord staff reports enclosed outline more thoroughly the community’s ongoing challenges of creating an effective and sustainable program and site.

City of Brea California Job Center [Attachment Six]

Known to some of the Mesa City Council, the Brea Center is advertised on the City’s website and included in the City’s services to the community. When MesaCAN staff recently attempted to interview an employee at the Brea site, this employee emphasized, “The City of Mesa has already been to the site and knows the programs.” So, MesaCAN summarizes the interview done in 2000 as a part of the materials submitted to the Day Labor Task Force. In this interview, Brea emphasized that it [the City] is not the employer so there is no liability for worker injuries, for the alleged violation of federal law or for any other general liability for which a city might have concern. Judy Campos telephone interview, July 31, 2000, included as a part of Attachment Six. Brea treats its service to workers like any other city service; for example, it does not ask for identification from individuals using its senior center nor does it ask workers for identification at the worker center. Id. The Brea police are very supportive of the center. Id. At the time of the interview, the Brea center had been in operation for ten years, and INS had only come to the site once in that period. Id. “INS isn’t interested in us. They have bigger fish to fry.” Id. Finally, Brea restricts its services to those who can prove their connection to the community. Id.

Seattle Washington – CASA (Centro de Ayuda Solidaria a los Amigos) Latina Worker Center [Attachment Seven]

Opened in July of 1999, CASA Latina averages 150 new registered workers each month with an average placement rate between 230 and 680 placed in worker depending on the season. Operating in a leased facility with a trailer and small buildings on a parking lot, the site is located close to public transportation but does not provide any van transport for the workers. There are three staff members on the site: a coordinator, an organizer and a dispatcher.

CASA Latina, a nonprofit organization, receives funding from the City of Seattle ($137,000 annually), the local United Way and foundations. The site operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 to 11:00 a.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to noon. Workers sign in for a lottery system, have coffee and water available along with ESL and workers’ rights training. CASA Latina’s website indicates that the organization, “collaboratively conceived with the Belltown Business Association and the City of Seattle, successfully negotiate[ed] a piece of city-owned property in which to organize a day laborer dispatch center for over 1000 laborers who wait annually on the surrounding sidewalks.”

Organized by Salvadoran immigrants and the faith community in Montgomery and Prince Georges counties (Maryland) and originally called “Central American Solidarity and Assistance,” CASA of Maryland, Inc. operates its Center for Employment and Training. CASA began this program in 1991 and found a permanent site, in collaboration with the two county governments, in 1993.

From the organization’s website, “during the past five years, more than 6,000 workers have registered at CASA, of whom 50% are women,” a statistic unduplicated anywhere else in the country, at least to the extent to which data is available.

Phoenix – Macehualli Worker Center [Attachment Nine]

Opened in February 2004, a coalition of community based organizations operates the Macehaulli Center. The site is located on property acquired by the City of Phoenix and is zoned C-3. The coalition partners lease the site from the City. Macehualli is among the centers included in Dr. Valenzuela’s national study. Accordingly, Dr. Valenzuela and his research team conducted a site survey in September 2004 and reported those findings in a November 9, 2004 report. The Executive Summary to the report notes:

Valenzuela, Jr., Ph.D., Abel, Findings from the Workers and Worker Center Surveys: Pilot Test of the National Day Labor Study at the Macehualli Worker Center in Phoenix, Arizona, November 9, 2004, pages ii - iii.

The Macehaulli Center is open every day: Monday through Saturday, 5:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and Sundays, 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. City of Phoenix Pilot Work Center Evaluation and Review, February 23, 2004 Staff Report, page 2. The four nonprofit partners “have provided operational funding support in excess of $34,000.” Id. The City of Phoenix describes the creation of the pilot site as a solution to “address on-going safety issues in the Palomino Neighborhood.” Id.

“The city’s [Phoenix] response to this safety issue was neighborhood driven and agreed upon by residents in the area. The pilot was identified as a potential solution by the Palomino neighborhood for the Palomino neighborhood. The proposed solution was consistent with the best practice response by other western cities to this widespread public safety issue involving traffic safety, loitering, harassment and sanitation. Also, consistent with other sites, was the use of Community Development Block Grant to assist in the project. In fact, the Glendale and Oakland, California sites have received Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) ‘Blue Ribbon’ and “Best Practices’ awards and recognition for their centers.” Id.

“The [Phoenix] Police Department developed an education action plan to assist the surrounding resident and business owners to reduce the amount of workers congregating in front of homes and businesses. The goal was to educate the workers on the value of using the center, as well as laws and city ordinances in place that related to this issue.” Id. at page 4.

“While the education efforts encouraged workers to use the center, many of the 100 workers surveyed, indicated that they could get higher pay on the street corners and that it took too long to get a job at the center. Some workers in the center were disappointed that not enough jobs were available on some days and they would spend the entire day at the center without working. However, overall, the majority of the workers surveyed both in and out of the center, reported positive results and was pleased with the creation of the center.” Id. at page 5.

Of particular concern to the City of Phoenix staff report, “[c]rime did not increase in the Palomino area during the twelve-month pilot period after the work center opened. In fact, since the opening of the center, total crimes reported have decreased by approximately 9% when compared to the same period in the previous year. … While crime reduction may not be directly attributable to the work center site and its operations, it does suggest that concerns relating to an increase crime and theft in the area with the opening of the center, did not materialize.” Id. at page 6.

As to the success of the center in facilitating jobs for workers, “[d]uring the pilot’s 12-month period, more than 44,000 workers registered at the center and approximately 21,000 jobs were dispatched; approximately 47% of those registered at the site every day received a job.” Id. at page 8.

“Some of the continued challenges and potential areas for improvement include:

Notwithstanding the generally favorable report, as reported by the operators of the Macehualli Center, the program’s future is uncertain, and the City of Phoenix continues to study the center, its location and operation. Moreover, again reported by one of the operators, the lack of an anti solicitation ordinance is a concern and allows for a continuing number of workers to seek employment outside the center, estimated to be approximately 25% of the workers who could potentially otherwise participate in the program at the center. Part of the controversy is whether an ordinance would create a civil or criminal penalty for a violation, if such an ordinance were implemented. This concern is reflected in the staff report as noted herein.

In summary, two points deserve emphasis. First, the question of federal law and immigration policy, as evidenced by both the governmental partnerships and funding among the wide variety of sites, did not prevent the various governments and nonprofits from opening and operating worker centers. Glendale indicated that it initially had a “gentleman’s agreement with INS [now the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement]” regarding its site. Telephone interview with member of Glendale Police Department staff member, February 17, 2004. Now, Glendale believes that the federal government has too much to do with border enforcement to worry about worker sites. Id. Indeed, the Glendale Police Department took the position that the workers were in the community, would likely remain in the community and something needed to be done to “bring order to the chaos.” Id. Glendale strongly asserts that its worker center “enhanced the quality of life in the area.” Id. Needless to say, from all of the information gathered, and the widespread operation of many centers throughout the nation, many communities have resolved the federal legal issues as at least irrelevant to the question of whether these communities may, in fact, operate or subsidize worker centers where there may or may not be workers without proper documentation.

Second, not only Glendale but also many other communities enacted ordinances prohibiting curbside soliciting by employers. Austin, Concord and all of the Texas cities other than Houston have followed Glendale’s example. Some of the communities not included in the survey but listed among those with websites or centers appear to have enacted anti solicitation ordinances, too. See Attachment Ten. This points to the need for the possible partnership whether a community makes a determination to invest funding in a worker center. In other words, many cities determined that the ordinance was an important element in the creation and operation of a facility and program. As mentioned, from anecdotal information, the City of Phoenix is considering the question of an anti solicitation ordinance now. MesaCAN may, indeed, open a facility with state of the art programs and operating guidelines, but given the lack of participation by the City of Mesa at any level, it may well be that the center will operate in a permissive environment that fails to meet the expectations of surrounding businesses because of the lack of a mechanism to essentially force workers and employers to a site. MesaCAN certainly will employ its best efforts to market the proposed site. The agency cannot, however, be held accountable for an environment that permits outriders to a system based solely on enticements for worker participation. Marketing may only work so well, and time will tell once the day labor component of the Comprehensive Community Services Center is up and running. MesaCAN is highly confident, based on a series of meetings with jornaleros, of their interest in the site. As the Task Force report points out, the success of a program will rely on the ability of workers to find employment, and if employers continue to seek workers in a laissez faire system of street hiring, any center will be marker by the potential for only partial success. MesaCAN is held accountable, and should be held accountable, to the best operational practices employed by other sites. Likewise, the City of Mesa must, at least, recognize the experience and response of other city governments in addressing the circumstances of curbside employment and, as emphasized by the City’s Task Force, the commensurate value of a comprehensive approach to this social problem.

Alternatives

Fiscal Impact

Given the information collected from other communities, continuation of the status quo may result in the continuing degradation of the Broadway corridor, the ongoing costs of enforcement efforts without any legitimate alternative, reduced sales tax revenues and degraded property values. MesaCAN’s proposal requires only the City of Mesa’s consideration of the value of some level of partnership with city departments, not the least of which might include the Mesa Police Department. The agency, however, has not requested, nor does it intend to request, any funding from the City of Mesa.

Concurrence

The City of Mesa’s Planning and Zoning Commission gave unanimous approval to the application for a Council Use Permit. City of Mesa planning staff supported the application in the staff report.

[1] Valenzuela, Jr., Abel, Dispelling the Myths of Day Labor Work, undated article from the National Day Labor Organizing Network website, www.ndlon.org. “Significant numbers of day laborers can be found in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Seattle, and elsewhere throughout the United States.” “In the United States, day laborers can be traced back in this country to at least 1780 when ‘common laborers’ – cart men, scavengers, chimney sweeps, wood cutters, stevedores and dock workers – are said to have sought new jobs each day.” Valenzuela, Findings from the Workers and Worker Center Surveys: Pilot Test of the National Day Labor Study at the Macehualli Worker Center in Phoenix, Arizona, November 9, 2004 (citing Mohl 1971), page 2.

[2] See, e.g., Town at Center of Day Laborer Storm, Newsday, Inc., Howell, Ron, January 4, 2004. “The mayor of Freehold, N.J., is blasting the New York-based Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, contending the group has filed a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit that accuses the borough of discriminating against and harassing Hispanic day laborers. In an angry statement issued late Friday, Mayor Michael Wilson said Freehold will vigorously defend itself against the accusations filed last week in federal court in New Jersey. ‘Bring it on,’ Wilson said in the comments faxed to reporters. Freehold police in November began distributing fliers to immigrant day laborers, threatening to arrest the workers if they continued to gather on a patch of land on Throckmorton Street, as they have for several years, and wait for job offers. … Recent developments show Freehold is emerging as a flashpoint in the national day laborer controversy, which is affecting New York City, Long Island and other places around the country.”

[3] For example, the MesaCAN Foundation, Inc. acquired the parking lot to the immediate west of the 635 East Broadway building occupied by some of MesaCAN’s programs. This lot will be developed for additional parking for agency operations.

Purpose