Interviews for Resistance: New Progressive Coalition Calls for “Millions of Jobs”
Interviews for Resistance: New Progressive Coalition Calls for “Millions of Jobs”
A coalition of unions and other progressive organizations is pushing lawmakers on a jobs and infrastructure bill that would put millions of people to work.
...
A coalition of unions and other progressive organizations is pushing lawmakers on a jobs and infrastructure bill that would put millions of people to work.
Read the full article here.
2 Women Who Confronted Jeff Flake About Kavanaugh Vote in an Elevator Credited for 1 Week Delay
2 Women Who Confronted Jeff Flake About Kavanaugh Vote in an Elevator Credited for 1 Week Delay
Before Sen. Jeff Flake reversed his guarantee of a “yes” vote for Brett Kavanaugh and demanded an FBI investigation into the allegations, he was confronted by two women who said they were...
Before Sen. Jeff Flake reversed his guarantee of a “yes” vote for Brett Kavanaugh and demanded an FBI investigation into the allegations, he was confronted by two women who said they were survivors of sexual assault.
“Don’t look away from me. Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happened to me, that you will let people like that go into the highest court of the land and tell everyone what they can do to their bodies,” Maria Gallagher angrily told Flake.
Gallagher, 23, was accompanied by activist Ana Maria Archila, who broke through a group of reporters to speak with him in an elevator.
Read the full article here.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market would prove temporary, but she emphasized that the central bank would be...
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market would prove temporary, but she emphasized that the central bank would be cautious in raising interest rates again.
Yellen, testifying before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, acknowledged that hiring has dropped off sharply in recent months, but she also pointed to early signs that wages are beginning to rise after years of stagnation. She said she is "optimistic" that the progress in employment will continue.
"We believe that will turn around, expect it to turn around, but we are taking a cautious approach … to make sure that expectation is borne out," Yellen told lawmakers.
The Fed is responsible for charting the course for the nation’s economy, with the dual mission to keep prices stable and strengthen employment. It does that by adjusting the influential federal funds rate. A higher rate helps curb inflation by making borrowing money more expensive, which discourages spending and investment and reins in economic growth. A lower rate means that money is cheap, stimulating purchases by households and businesses. That helps boost employment and speeds up the economy.
The Fed chief's assessment comes less than a week after the Fed unanimously voted to leave its benchmark interest rate unchanged. The central bank raised rates in December for the first time since the Great Recession but has not done so again amid persistent concerns about the health of the global economy.
Yellen said Tuesday that there is still "considerable uncertainty" over her outlook, with such risks as slow growth at home, turbulence in China and volatility in financial markets.
The most immediate threat comes from across the Atlantic Ocean, where Britain will vote Thursday on whether to remain in the European Union. A decision to exit — popularly known as Brexit — would upend Britain's four-decade partnership with the continent and throw the future of Europe’s open market into doubt.
Already, the British pound has been on a roller coaster as the probability of departure shifts with each poll. International policymakers have warned that a decision to leave would lower economic growth in the country by more than 5 percent over the next three years and potentially ripple across the rest of the world.
"A U.K. vote to exit the European Union could have significant economic repercussions," Yellen said Tuesday.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed slashed its target rate all the way to zero and pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in a bid to bolster the American recovery. More than seven years later, it is finally in the process of withdrawing that support.
The first move was in December, when the Fed nudged its target rate up to a range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. At the time, officials anticipated raising rates four times this year, but the uncertainty in the global economy has forced them to downgrade that projection. Most Fed officials now think only two rate hikes are warranted this year, and a growing number think only one will be necessary.
That shift in thinking at the central bank is evident in Yellen’s own statements. Just last month, she had signaled that the central bank could raise rates "probably in the coming months." But Yellen dropped the reference in a speech early this month, after disappointing government data showed employers added just 38,000 jobs in May. And last week, she told reporters that she is "not comfortable to say it's in the next meeting or two."
On Tuesday, Yellen made the case for caution. Because rates are already so low, the Fed has limited room to reduce them further if the economy were to weaken, she said. Moving gradually also gives the central bank time to assess whether its forecast of continued economic improvement will come true.
"Our cautious approach to adjusting monetary policy remains appropriate," she said.
The Fed has faced criticism from both the left and the right recently over its governance. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Banking Committee, opened the hearing Tuesday by calling on the Fed to follow more stringent rules for setting policy and to explain when it deviates.
"The desire to preserve the Fed’s independence, however, should not preclude consideration of additional measures to increase the transparency of the board’s actions," he said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) focused on diversity within the Fed’s top ranks. Last month, more than 100 lawmakers sent a letter to Yellen arguing for more minority representation among its leadership.
The central bank is led by a board of governors based in Washington and 12 regional bank presidents scattered throughout the country. The governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but regional bank leaders are chosen by local boards of directors.
Those officials tend to be white men. Yellen is the first woman to serve as chair in the central bank’s 101-year history. Only three Fed governors have been African American, and there have been no black regional bank presidents. No one now in the top brass is Hispanic.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
Divest From Prisons, Invest in People—What Justice for Black Lives Really Looks Like
Divest From Prisons, Invest in People—What Justice for Black Lives Really Looks Like
This article is the second part of a series of conversations with contributors to the demands of the Movement for Black Lives. Part One was on reparations.
In July 2015, more than 2,000...
This article is the second part of a series of conversations with contributors to the demands of the Movement for Black Lives. Part One was on reparations.
In July 2015, more than 2,000 members of The Movement for Black Lives—a group composed of more than 50 racial justice organizations—convened in Cleveland to recognize the violence committed against Black people in this country and around the world. At the assembly, participants decided the Movement needed to form a coalition that articulated concrete ways to build a more equitable society. Six legislative platforms emerged that covered issues like economic justice, reparations, political empowerment, and divestment from policing and incarceration. In their Invest-Divest platform, the authors called instead for investment in programming, like restorative justice initiatives, that would decrease incarceration and strengthen communities.
We’ve come to accept policing and incarceration as catch-all solutions.
According to the Brookings Institution, White Americans are equally likely to use and more likely to deal drugs, while African Americans are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced harshly. For U.S. residents born in 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics predicts that 1 in 111 White women will go to prison in her lifetime, while 1 in 18 Black women will. For White men, the likelihood is 1 in 17; for Black men, 1 in 3.
“At the heart of the Invest-Divest demand is the recognition that our city, state, and federal budgets reflect the dehumanization, and the degradation of Black life through lack of investment in anything besides Black incarceration or surveillance,” says Marbre Stahly-Butts, co-author of demands from the Invest-Divest platform that call for reallocating government funds from law enforcement to long-term safety, and decriminalizing drug and prostitution crimes.
Stahly-Butts, a facilitator of the Cleveland convening and deputy director of racial justice at the Center for Popular Democracy, explains that our current criminal justice system is based on a premise of comfort, rather than of safety: Instead of addressing the roots of uncomfortable issues such as drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty, we’ve come to accept policing and incarceration as catch-all solutions. This disproportionally affects African Americans.
Here she discusses why divestment from the prison and military industries is as critical to a just future as investment in public institutions.
The following interview has been lightly edited.
Liza Bayless: How does the Invest-Divest platform play into the Movement for Black Lives?
Marbre Stahly-Butts: The call for Invest-Divest has been at the center of organizing and activism work for at least the last decade, if not more. Since slavery, but especially in the age of mass incarceration in the last 30 or so years, [there has been an] incredible increase in the amount of spending that goes to police departments—to cages, prisons and jails, corrections offices, military equipment, and surveillance equipment. At the same time, [there has been] divestment from the social safety net, from social services and education to affordable housing.
What makes our communities safe is not more guns, more police, or more cages.
What makes our communities safe is not more guns, more police, or more cages, but employment opportunities, safe housing, jobs, education, restorative justice. To live in the world we’re envisioning requires a real investment—both by private parties, but also by public dollars.
Bayless: In August, the Department of Justice announced it would end use of private prisons. How significant is this step?
Stahly-Butts: It’s an important step and in many ways a symbolic step, but I think it’s essential that states follow suit. The caging of our people actually happens on a local level, and so the same week that the Department of Justice made that announcement, I believe in Florida they decided to continue contracts with local prisons and, in fact, expand them.
Most of our people are kept in public facilities, so there’s a real need to decarcerate and not just de-profitize. It would matter a lot if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did it, because that’s, in fact, where most of the [prison] beds are.
A month [after the announcement], the Department of Justice released guidelines around its increased funding of police officers and officers in schools. So it’s important to realize that the criminalization—and the incarceration—of our people really is something that the government has not divested from, and in some ways has actively continued.
There’s a lot of work to be done, but I was pleased about implications of ending those contracts.
Bayless: Usually we hear from organizations about investment more than divestment. What makes the concept of divestment so important to this platform?
Stahly-Butts: I think that we see a general narrative on the left around the need to increase infrastructure and investment. Obama, Clinton, and other progressives constantly affirm their commitment to investment strategies, whether it’s health care, job programs, or educational funding. But the divestment piece is essential to a conversation around the livelihood, wealth, health, and survival of Black, brown, and poor communities.
There has to be a conversation about real solutions to incarceration.
If we continue to lock up and put one of every three Black men under police control; if we continue to incarcerate Black women at the highest-growing rates; and continue surveillance and denying people [driver’s] licenses and housing opportunities when they are out of incarceration, [then] we’re undermining our investments if we’re not also divesting from these systems that have led to this mass criminalization of folks for behaviors that often have nothing to do with public safety.
Bayless: The topic of mass incarceration has been at the forefront of the country’s conversations about racial injustice. Is there something missing from that discussion?
Stahly-Butts: It’s essential that we talk about the entire purview of things that don’t belong under the criminal code, from the way poverty is criminalized to the ways homelessness is criminalized. Even in Florida, wearing saggy pants [has been criminalized].
There has to be a conversation about real solutions to incarceration, and not just changing the practices of putting people in cages, but also changing the entire orientation for communities that criminalize them en masse, that have police in schools, that believe that the only answer to mental health and other issues is cages and handcuffs. There’s a real need for cultural change and a social conversation about the roots of the system, and other ways to deal with these issues that is not state violence.
Bayless: By focusing on decriminalization of certain crimes—in this case, nonviolent ones such as drug and prostitution crimes—as fundamentally different from “violent” crimes, is there a risk people convicted of the latter could end up with harsher sentences?
Stahly-Butts: There’s a false dichotomy between violent and nonviolent crimes. We often talk about it as if there’s some fine line, but in fact every state, every city defines that differently. Whether we’re talking about crimes that hurt people or impact property, or crimes that are about mental health or drug addiction, the idea of investment is key to all of them.
Folks are working locally to realize what it means to build alternative structures to criminal justice.
If we use the money that we’re currently using to cage people, and take the literally trillions of dollars to invest in the well-being of our people—in jobs, education, trauma-informed services, restorative justice—we would see a real addressing of all sorts of social issues, including the ones that make people less safe.
Bayless: Anything else you’d like to add about this platform?
Stahly-Butts: Folks are working locally to realize what it means to build alternative structures to criminal justice, to divest from policing and invest in communities. Despite the past two years—where we’ve seen literally dozens of Black folks be killed on video, and uprisings in communities from Baltimore to Ferguson—we’ve seen incredible movement and energy.
By Liza Bayless
Source
"You Can Save My Life": Traveling on Same Plane, Man With ALS Confronts Sen. Flake Over GOP Tax Bill
"You Can Save My Life": Traveling on Same Plane, Man With ALS Confronts Sen. Flake Over GOP Tax Bill
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) boarded a plane leaving Washington, D.C. on Thursday, less than a week after voting for a tax bill that could result in devastating cuts to disability programs.
...
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) boarded a plane leaving Washington, D.C. on Thursday, less than a week after voting for a tax bill that could result in devastating cuts to disability programs.
Ady Barkan, a 33-year-old father living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), boarded the same flight after spending several days protesting the very legislation Flake helped ram through the Senate.
Read the full article here.
The Federal Reserve Board's Plan to Kill Jobs
Truthout - March 2, 2015, by Dean Baker - There is an enormous amount of political debate over various pieces of legislation...
Truthout - March 2, 2015, by Dean Baker - There is an enormous amount of political debate over various pieces of legislation that are supposed to be massive job killers. For example, Republicans lambasted President Obama’s increase in taxes on the wealthy back in 2013 as a job killer. They endlessly have condemned the Affordable Care Act as a jobs killer. The same is true of proposals to raise the minimum wage.
While there is great concern in Washington over these and other imaginary job killers, the Federal Reserve Board is openly mapping out an actual job killing strategy and drawing almost no attention at all for it. The Fed’s job killing strategy centers on its plan to start raising interest rates, which is generally expected to begin at some point this year.
The Fed’s plans to raise interest rates are rarely spoken of as hurting employment, but job-killing is really at the center of the story. The rationale for raising interest rates is that inflation could begin to pick up and start to exceed the Fed’s current 2.0 percent target, if the Fed doesn’t slow the economy with higher interest rates.
Higher interest rates slow the economy by discouraging people from borrowing to buy homes or cars. They will also have some effect in discouraging businesses from investing. With reduced demand from these sectors, businesses will hire fewer workers. This will weaken the labor market, which means workers have less bargaining power. If workers have less bargaining power, they will be less well-situated to get pay increases. And if wages are not rising there will be less inflationary pressure in the economy.
The potential impact of Fed rate hikes on jobs is large. Suppose the Fed raises interest rates enough to shave 0.2 percentage points off the growth rate, say pushing growth for the year down from 2.4 percent to 2.2 percent. If we assume employment growth drops roughly in proportion to GDP growth, this would imply a reduction in the rate of job growth of almost 10 percent. If the economy would have otherwise created 2.4 million jobs over the course of the year, the Fed’s rate hikes would have cost the economy more than 200,000 jobs in this scenario.
For comparison purposes, we are having a big fight over the Keystone pipeline. The proponents of the pipeline point to the jobs created by building a pipeline as an important justification, even if the oil being pumped through the pipeline may cause enormous damage to the environment. According to the State Department’s analysis, building the pipeline would create 21,000 for two years. This pipeline related jobs gain has been widely touted in the media and is supposed to make it difficult for many members of Congress to go along with President Obama in opposing Keystone.
Yet, the Fed can easily destroy ten times as many jobs with a set of interest rate hikes this year with its actions passing largely unnoticed. In fact, the impact of Fed interest rate hikes on jobs can easily be far larger than this 200,000 number. If the Fed decides that the unemployment rate should not fall below a certain level (5.4 percent is a number is often used), then it could be costing the economy millions of jobs if the economy could actually sustain a considerably lower level of unemployment as it did in the late 1990s.
To be clear, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues on the Fed’s Open Market Committee (FOMC) that determines interest rates are not evil people sitting around figuring out how to ruin the lives of American workers. The Fed has a legal mandate to control inflation, in addition to its mandate to sustain high levels of unemployment. If they raise interest rates it will be because they fear inflationary pressures will build if they let the economy continue to grow and unemployment to fall.
But this is inevitably a judgment call. The call is based on both their assessment of the risk of inflation and also the relative harm from higher rates of inflation as opposed to higher rates of unemployment. It is likely that the members of the FOMC, who largely come from the financial industry, are much more concerned about inflation than the population as a whole. They are also likely to be less concerned about unemployment. These are people who tend to read about unemployment in the data, not to see it themselves or among their friends and family members.
This is why it is important that the public be paying attention to the Fed’s interest rate policies and let them know how they feel about raising interest rates to kill jobs. The Center for Popular Democracy has organized an impressive grassroots campaign around the Fed’s interest rate policies. Those who don’t want to see the government deliberately trying to kill jobs might want to join in.Source
Middlesex County Decides Not to Honor Federal Detainers from ICE for Some Inmates
The Star-Ledger - July 10, 2014 by Sue Epstein - Middlesex County officials are no longer complying with a federal request to hold all immigrants suspected of being undocumented in the county jail...
The Star-Ledger - July 10, 2014 by Sue Epstein - Middlesex County officials are no longer complying with a federal request to hold all immigrants suspected of being undocumented in the county jail for an additional 48 hours after their scheduled release.
In a policy change approved by Middlesex County freeholders last week and put into effect Tuesday, the detainee can be freed unless charged with a first- or second-degree crime, is identified as a known gang member and has been subject to a final order of removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Thomas Kelso, the Middlesex County counsel, said in a statement that people not meeting the serious offense criteria would continue to be released immediately after meeting the legal obligations.
"The policy was established after extensive review and consideration," Freeholder Director Ronald G. Rios said. "We need to be sensitive to the rights of individuals, but must protect our citizens from those with histories of violent crime. We believe that the policy that has been implemented in Middlesex County strikes a fair balance."
Although immigration rights groups applauded the change in policy, they contended that it did not go far enough.
Karina Wilkinson, co-founder of the Middlesex County Coalition for Immigrant Rights, said she wanted the county to stop honoring all 48-hour courtesy detainer requests from federal immigration authorities for county inmates.
"We are pleased to see Middlesex County moving in the right direction in ending their compliance with ICE detainers," Wilkinson said. "The county could still go further to respect the constitutional rights of everyone."
Wilkinson’s group began discussing the proposed policy change with county officials in December.
FIRST IN N.J.Wilkinson and Emily Tucker, an attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group, said Middlesex County was the first county in the state to change its policy, joining more than 115 jurisdictions nationwide that have enacted similar changes. And of those 115, Wilkinson said, 90 have refused to honor any ICE detainers.
Tucker said the policy changes came on the heels of several federal court rulings that detainers are not legally binding, and that a federal court decision in Oregon said that honoring the detainers could open the jurisdiction to lawsuits.
"The courts have said ICE shows no probable cause to hold these inmates," Tucker said. "It is not the business of law enforcement to enforce immigration orders, it is the federal government’s job. The counties should not be holding anyone on behalf of ICE without a warrant."
Wilkinson said that in 2012, when a federal program known as Operation Secure Communities began in New Jersey, there were 330 detainers issued for inmates at the Middlesex County jail, making the county third in the state behind Essex and Hudson counties in the number of requests issued.
Tucker said the coalition of organizations that pushed Middlesex County to change its policy is working with Essex and Hudson counties in an effort to reach a similar outcome.
According to the ICE website, when a suspected undocumented immigrant is arrested the FBI forwards the fingerprints to the Department of Homeland Security to check against its immigration databases.
If the check shows that a person is undocumented or otherwise removable because of a criminal conviction, a 48-hour detainer is issued to the local jurisdiction.
Bryan Cox, a spokesman for ICE, said the agency remained "committed to working with our law enforcement partners and making our communities safer by protection public safety and national security, and the integrity of the immigration.
Source
Connecting The Dots Between Banks and Immigrant Detention
July 26 was the deadline by which the government was ordered by a judge to reunite all immigrant children separated from their parents in Trump's so-called zero-tolerance border policy earlier...
July 26 was the deadline by which the government was ordered by a judge to reunite all immigrant children separated from their parents in Trump's so-called zero-tolerance border policy earlier this year. But of the approximately 2,500 children that were separated 711 still remain without their parents after the deadline, lawyers for the government said. Of those, 431 cases remain where the parents were deported before getting their children back and the rest were "ineligible" to be returned as per the government. Meanwhile protesters across the country have continued confronting ICE offices and other institutions involved in the immigrant crackdown including banks that are financing private prisons for immigrants. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and BlackRock, have been targeted by activists this week after the Center for Popular Democracy released a report called Bankrolling Oppression. Eight people were arrested while protesting outside the home of JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon.
Watch the video here.
This Is Exactly How HIV Activists Disrupted Congress to Save Health Care
This Is Exactly How HIV Activists Disrupted Congress to Save Health Care
Late last month, thousands of Americans with HIV/AIDS -- many of them among the millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid or Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans for their health coverage -- saw the...
Late last month, thousands of Americans with HIV/AIDS -- many of them among the millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid or Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans for their health coverage -- saw the news and breathed yet one more major sigh of relief: GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell announced that, lacking the votes needed to win, the Senate would not go forward on its final effort this year to kill the ACA (aka Obamacare) and take a devastating bite out of Medicaid.
Read the full article here.
The Key to Making Economic Development More Equitable Is Making It More Democratic
The Key to Making Economic Development More Equitable Is Making It More Democratic
At the watery edge of Sunset Park, a working-class neighborhood of Chinese, Latino, and Indian immigrants in Brooklyn, lies the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, a vast plot of warehouses and...
At the watery edge of Sunset Park, a working-class neighborhood of Chinese, Latino, and Indian immigrants in Brooklyn, lies the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, a vast plot of warehouses and docks managed by New York City’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC). The terminal is part of an ambitious plan to generate new industrial jobs, innovation, and economic development serving local residents and the city more broadly. The plan, which has been a top priority for the administrations of both Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, involves efforts to invest in infrastructure and create incentives for new manufacturing businesses while creating new parks for local community members.
But in early 2015, a brewing dispute over the management of the project threatened to derail it. City Council member Carlos Menchaca, who represents Sunset Park, raised concerns about EDC’s role in managing the land and project, blaming the agency for insufficiently involving the local community in shaping the vision for Sunset Park’s future. This 11th-hour snag led to an unusually public war of words between Menchaca and the EDC. After months of further negotiations, the administration agreed to create a planning-and-jobs task force to engage community members, in addition to reinvesting 5 percent of the site’s revenue into a community fund and improvements to the nearby Bush Terminal Park.
While that task force has engaged local residents in a series of town-hall meetings, private investment has rapidly poured into the area as developers snatch up property for new industrial and commercial uses. The influx has left local residents fearful that, despite the new task force, they are still being left out of the conversations about the neighborhood’s future. While many say they welcome the influx of investment and jobs, they worry that, without a voice in the process, they might be displaced or left out of the economic gains.
In the midst of our national conversation about economic inequality, these questions of local-level economic development are critical. Although easily overlooked in favor of more sweeping policy issues, the reality is that cities have a disproportionate stake in the inequality crisis. Urban areas house more than 80 percent of the US population—and within these urban areas, policy decisions about how to attract investment, development, and jobs play a defining role in who gains from the resulting benefits and who loses, often for years to come.
But, as the debate roiling Sunset Park suggests, the concerns over development go even deeper than job-creation numbers and zoning. Beneath the surface is a new and more persistent anxiety about governance—about who makes decisions and how those decisions get made. If economic policy is to address inequality, it must not only be the right policy; it must also be formulated and driven by the right people.
At the national level, a growing body of scholarship indicates that the economic policies that have helped exacerbate inequality are themselves rooted in political inequalities, as industry, business, and economic-elite interests have continued to sway elections, legislation, and policymaking. As scholars like Larry Bartels, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Nicholas Carnes, and Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have argued, economic policies skew to favor the interests of wealthier citizens, whether as a result of more sophisticated and better resourced interest-group lobbying, the decline of unions, or more subtle forms of social and cultural influence. The implication is that greater democratic accountability may be a necessity to shift economic policies in a more equitable and inclusive direction.
This same diagnosis and prescription applies to cities. In this New Gilded Age, cities are on the front lines of the battle to address economic inequality and declining opportunity. And the way they fight these battles matters. From minimum wages, gentrification, and affordable housing to neighborhood development, job creation, and local hiring, the process by which cities pursue urban economic policy can mean the difference between economic growth that continues to exacerbate inequality, and a more equitable, inclusive form of economic growth. Achieving this more equitable growth requires not only the right policies but also systems to empower stakeholders to hold policymakers, developers, and industry elites accountable to these more equitable goals.
A growing body of scholarship indicates that the economic policies that have helped exacerbate inequality are themselves rooted in political inequalities.
At the same time, by operating at the local level, cities offer real potential for rapidly engaging and empowering a wide range of stakeholders to remedy some of these structural disparities in political power. Cities can pioneer a new mode of democratic governance, where we build processes that include the full range of stakeholders, and provide them with a meaningful voice in shaping and driving economic policy. From New York to California, some of the most exciting innovations in urban development involve pioneering new ways to empower grassroots organizations and citizens—and in so doing, channel the benefits of growth more equitably.
* * *
This is not the first time economic inequality has led to greater efforts at political inclusion. Half a century ago, the War on Poverty took a similar tack. The centerpiece of President Lyndon Johnson’s domestic agenda, the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, created expansive new programs to provide job training, early childhood education (in the form of Head Start), access to legal services, community health services, and more. But the most controversial and radical innovation of this agenda was its focus on grassroots political empowerment as a key to fighting poverty. The act called for local governments to form “community-action agencies” to oversee these programs, and to administer them to local communities of poor and minority constituents. Furthermore, these community-action agencies had a mandate to pursue “maximum feasible participation” of the poor, including through direct representation of poor and minority constituents on the boards administering community-action programs. The theory was that the only way to hold the War on Poverty accountable to its mission was by providing the poor with a role in designing and administering anti-poverty policies.
This influx of money into anti-poverty programs was important, but combined with these institutional forms of empowerment, the War on Poverty helped activate a huge wave of organizing and mobilizing at the local level as civil-rights activists jumped on the opportunity to demand representation on the community-action boards, and accountability for channeling funds and programs to their neighborhoods. As new historical accounts of the grassroots political mobilizations around the War on Poverty suggest, mayors and city officials, alarmed by these newly emboldened grassroots movements of poor and minority constituents, reacted with increasingly harsh measures, first attempting to coopt these movements by appointing representatives they could work with to the community-action boards, and then cracking down on protesters and activists, siphoning off funding for community organizations that were the most active in pressuring local leaders.
Even in Washington, DC, the participation mandate quickly came under fire. Local party officials pressured the Johnson administration to abandon the mandate, while Johnson himself had always been uneasy with the more radical political message of the War on Poverty, viewing the notion of “local action” as encouraging cooperation between Washington and local officials, not as a call for grassroots protest.
Despite these difficulties, the War on Poverty was enormously successful in reducing the poverty rate and creating new models for economic programs. More important, it laid a foundation for greater political empowerment of community groups and the poor as a vehicle for improving economic equity, in the process helping catalyze a wave of community organizing. It also established, or dramatically expanded, initiatives like legal-defense and tenant-advocacy programs to address economic disparities by politically empowering their constituencies.
This is not the first time economic inequality has led to greater efforts at political inclusion. Half a century ago, the War on Poverty took a similar tack.
This participatory aspect of the War on Poverty is compelling today because of how it contrasts with the specter of top-down, heavy-handed urban renewal of the sort championed by Robert Moses to the detriment of many minority and poor communities. Today the concern is somewhat different—not that officials will ram through policies, but that they will skew too far towards privatization and overly friendly collaboration with developers, industry, and the economic elite. By providing representatives of often-overlooked constituencies with a real seat at the table to shape, implement, and monitor economic development policies, grassroots participation offers the hope of a more equitable approach to economic development.
* * *
In a number of cities, efforts to empower stakeholders in economic-development projects have led to a more constructive and collaborative environment, which in turn has helped ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains. From housing to parks to infrastructure development, the economic and geographic environment within cities can undergo radical transformations, driven not by natural “market forces” but by an array of public policies—and by particular coalitions of political actors. These policies are often opaque to most residents. But empowering grassroots stakeholders in the nitty-gritty work of planning neighborhood redevelopment can help ensure that benefits of development are shared more equitably.
Consider the experience of Oakland. Rapid development and gentrification in the East Bay—in part fueled by the dramatic rise of housing prices in San Francisco—are creating both opportunities for economic growth and the threat of displacement of poorer and minority communities.
In 2000, the Oakland City Council designated the public land from the recently closed Oakland Army Base as a major redevelopment site, opening the way for construction of new public infrastructure, and laying the groundwork for new businesses and greater public access to the waterfront. Traditionally, community groups will seek a “community benefits agreement” (CBA) for redevelopment projects of this sort. A CBA is a three-way bargain between government, developers, and community representatives. In exchange for various tax and other incentives from the government, developers are required to provide some investments in neighboring communities, for example by hiring local workers in the construction projects, and setting aside funds for local parks and public spaces. The challenge with CBAs is that they can be time-consuming to negotiate and often lack meaningful grassroots community engagement. Moreover, they are rarely fully enforced, with the benefits failing to materialize long after developers have already cashed in their tax and other incentives.
The Oakland Army Base project, however, has been different. After lengthy negotiations that involved community groups, unions, developers, city government, and other stakeholders, the resulting CBA not only included provisions for local hiring and public investment in community needs such as parks, it also forged a deep collaboration between these different players. This agreement has proved remarkably effective and durable, in large part because of the effort to empower and include community representatives more directly in the negotiations, planning, and monitoring of the project.
In the buildup to the CBA, for example, a number of influential community organizations—from the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE) to the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment to Oakland Rising—formed a broad coalition engaging thousands of voters in the low-income areas to support an inclusive economic development agenda. This grassroots movement helped change the debate around the project to focus more directly on how the redevelopment would serve local residents and the local community. In the end, the campaign brought together city officials and developers around an agreement on the local-hire and public-investment demands now baked into the CBA.
More important, the goals of the CBA are being implemented and monitored through an innovative, inclusive process in which community members are participating not only as sources of input but also as actual partners. To implement the local-hire provisions, the city created the West Oakland Job Resource Center, operating it in close collaboration with EBASE and other community organizations. The CBA requires developers to work with the Job Center to hire local residents; the Job Center helps make this possible by enabling employers to find qualified local workers, while also providing services, support, and referrals to job seekers looking to transform their engagement with the army-base project into longer-term careers.
This collaborative and inclusive process surrounding the Oakland army-base redevelopment is perhaps best exemplified by the Community Jobs Oversight Commission, a new body chartered by the city, which is comprised of representatives of the developers and community organizations. These representatives are appointed by the mayor and charged with the task of overseeing the redevelopment project.
The commission serves as a unique focal point for civic engagement, operating as a forum for airing grievances, a mechanism for ensuring that local-hire and public-investment provisions are in fact being met, and a vital point of leverage for community members to continue to have a voice in the ongoing implementation and development of the army-base project. By providing a public process for monitoring outcomes and airing grievances—and by including representation from all the major stakeholders, including community members—the commission has helped create an extraordinarily effective process; the redevelopment project is not only meeting its local-hire targets but exceeding them, according to members of Revive Oakland.
The Oakland experience is a good example of how a commitment to political inclusion can help drive economic inclusion. But this isn’t just a product of greater advocacy; it required a number of different actors to commit to an inclusive process. Government officials had to create institutions like the Commission and Job Center—and imbue them with real authority. Community leaders had to decide to shift from an advocacy stance to a collaborative one, joining in and investing scarce human and financial resources to make these institutions function. And labor leaders had to see that their interests in winning good jobs on the development projects were aligned with the community groups’ interest in access to those jobs.
Empowering grassroots stakeholders in the nitty-gritty work of planning neighborhood redevelopment can help ensure that benefits of development are shared more equitably.
Similar models of inclusion in planning and implementation can help create a more democratic approach to equitable development. EBASE itself is part of the Partnership for Working Families, a national network of community organizations that is attempting similar strategies in a number of other cities.
On the implementation side, a number of cities are considering more participatory approaches to monitoring and enforcing wage-theft policies. San Francisco’s Department of Labor, for example, provides grants and partnerships with community groups to expand their capacity to monitor and report violations. The national network of progressive local officials, Local Progress, has helped share lessons from this model, as other cities from Seattle to New York are now considering similar approaches.
Beyond their particular urban contexts, these examples indicate a broader potential. Participation and community engagement in these examples involve more than just town-hall meetings or comment periods. Rather, they involve empowering stakeholders to actually shape the strategy and vision for development plans, and to engage in the work of executing, implementing, and monitoring. This deeper engagement helps shapes policies at an early stage to make them equitable. If engaged early and in good faith, these community representatives can become important partners in implementing development policies and project goals.
* * *
These examples echo the War on Poverty attempt to empower a wider range of stakeholders, especially within poor communities and communities of color, by providing them with institutionalized points of leverage. The difference this time is that there is a greater potential for governments themselves to invest in and support this kind of engagement. In Oakland, New York, and elsewhere, the active efforts of city officials to create opportunities for early and active engagement makes participation genuine.
Equitable development is about more than getting the policies right; it is also about empowering stakeholders to outline the vision, implement the strategy, and monitor outcomes. Achieving this requires an ecosystem of actors committed to political inclusion and democratic participation. As a start, it requires government officials to create and manage an inclusive process that provides a meaningful voice to stakeholders, including institutionalized forms of representation or leverage—as with the War on Poverty Community Action Boards, or with the more contemporary efforts at participatory planning and monitoring. Next, it requires civil-society actors and other stakeholders willing to engage not just as advocates but as partners in implementing and enforcing standards. Finally, it also requires transparency and data. Beginning with stated public commitments to goals—such as the local-hire commitments in Oakland’s CBA—and metrics for monitoring compliance and impact through objectively trackable metrics.
We now have all the ingredients to do this; it is up to us to make the most of this opportunity.
By K. Sabeel Rahman
Source
13 hours ago
3 days ago