I had the good fortune while in KC to visit with a group of high school students who were gathered to talk about domestic violence and health issues. I sat in on a group of young women who were led by their choir director and teachers on a discussion of the Chris Brown- Rhianna issue. I was the only white person in the room, but most of the girls were middle class - so an interesting mix of perspectives at play.
Most of the young ladies felt that DV is wrong, no matter the circumstance, and that respect for yourself is the crucial component that will lead a girl to safety. But there were interesting undercurrents - should you "abandon" your boyfriend if he hits you or work with him through counseling? Is it your fault he hits you if you provoke him by doing things to egg him on? What would you do if your boyfriend hit you? One girl responded she would tell her daddy and he would whip the boyfriend's butt. Hmmm. I think she is missing the point.
The girls had a spirited discussion and then a young woman came in to give her first hand account of DV in her own life. Jaws dropped as she told her story.
She is 22 with 3 kids. She hooked up with her abuser at 13 and had his baby at 15. Her mother thought she would die at the hand of her abuser.
She clearly and directly walked through how the abuse escalated from verbal, to emotional, to physical abuse. She confirmed Oprah's warning - he WILL hit you again despite all his apologies and promises to do better. The highlight was her total belief in herself - standing up for herself and fleeing the situation. She said it was hard, but necessary. She currently is separated from her husband and father of her other 2 children because he has been verbally abusive. She wants no part of it. Her priorities are to protect herself and to make sure her kids don't have to go through this.
Certainly DV is not limited to the African-American community. DV is an equal opportunity abuse. But the proclivity of poverty in communities of color can put women into a very difficult situation and backs them into a corner. The speaker made one other important point - she said her abuser belittled her to the point that she believed he was the only person who cared for her. She put up with the violence because she came to believe she had no alternative. That scared the high school girls. I think they realized how fragile they are because they are confused and trying to figure out all the things that young adulthood brings. The speaker admonished them to believe in their family, their teachers, and recognize that you are never going to be abandoned by everyone but your boyfriend - don't fall for that!
The high profile celebrity abuse in the hip-hop world is a real conundrum. The lyrics of so many songs demean women to the point of ridicule. Calling them bitches and telling women what sexual favors to perform on their man objectifies them and reduces them to something less than a person. It should not surprise anyone that hitting women would seem to be ok to listeners. That Chris Brown shows no contrition also is no surprise. He sees his world as a place where he has license to do this to a woman.
DV is about power. A culture that says women are subservient bitches that should do whatever their man says is a culture that says women have no power. DV becomes another way for men to dominate women. Let's be clear though. Hitting is NEVER ok. Women should not abuse their boyfriends and husbands verbally, emotionally, or physically - trickery and games are abuse. Men should not abuse their girlfriends and wives. Even if you believe that men are superior to women, abuse is NEVER ok. Violence in the urban core is an everyday occurence and has become a way to exert power. Pulling a gun is a common response to street power squabbles. Pulling a fist becomes an easy response to home power squabbles.
DV happens in every economic class, every race and culture, and every religion in the USA. No one is exempt and no one group is more or less likely to engage in this. But circumstances may make it easier to go to abuse, easier to accept abuse, and easier to believe that it is deserved.
Let's reverse this thinking. Save your mom, your sister, your daughter. Save a woman. Save yourself. Respect yourself - you deserve it.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Lift Every Voice and Sing
I went to an elementary school program for Black History Month to watch my little sis perform. It was a great show with lots of parents and students and proud teachers and staff. The student chorus began the program with Lift Every Voice and Sing, for which everyone was asked to stand. I quietly sang along, as did others, and enjoyed the performance. I had never even known that this song existed until I went to a BHM event at my last University. People sang it with gusto and the song leader rallied the group for another round of the chorus. It was quite moving. I learned the history of the song and why it is so important and now happily share in its singing. Though the tune still throws me a bit as it changes keys and octaves.
I suspect most white people and others who are not African-American have no idea this song exists or what it means to a community of people. I thought it would have been a great choice for the inaugural. But for the most part, this seems to be a cultural element that is kept within the black community. I will leave others to explain its symbolism and meaning and its use.
A friend sent me this link to a Canadian site about race relations. The topic of this particular posting is about White privilege and whether it exists or not. The comments are very insightful, ignorant, passionate, and thought provoking. Just as it should be on this topic. What struck me was the commenter who said anyone bringing up the topic was suffering from brainwashing. Apparently he does not believe it exists and in fact, turned it on its head and called it White Guilt and took to task the now famous piece "Unpacking the Knapsack" linked in that blog and on this site, and poo-pooing the likes of Tim Wise, whose work is linked on this site.
I put these two experiences together and have these thoughts.
1. this country is far from being a post-race society. Electing Obama was great, but doesn't mean the population is at all educated about race issues. I am not sure we can be post-race without having learned those things.
2. the black national anthem or black national hymn flies under the mainstream white radar. Why? Maybe it is celebrated in schools today. I grew up before BHM was created. But I am betting most white people are clueless and if informed, would see it as a evidence of "separatist" sentiments - not unlike one of the commenters on that blog post.
3. the existence of white privilege is why 1 and 2 are sad, but true. WP is not hogwash, it is not guilt, it is the way that whites have constructed society. And we did so quite brutally on the backs of people enslaved to do our labor. We continued it as we kept our white children separate from the presence of black children and deigned to provide only the most meager of educations to them. We foist our WP on everyone every day by classifying people as minorities - never to be part of the majority (except the math is not working as well now) and creating hoops for them to jump through. As if, as if, as if - anyone of colored skin or other race should have to prove their worth.
Lift every voice and sing...let us march on till victory is won.
I suspect most white people and others who are not African-American have no idea this song exists or what it means to a community of people. I thought it would have been a great choice for the inaugural. But for the most part, this seems to be a cultural element that is kept within the black community. I will leave others to explain its symbolism and meaning and its use.
A friend sent me this link to a Canadian site about race relations. The topic of this particular posting is about White privilege and whether it exists or not. The comments are very insightful, ignorant, passionate, and thought provoking. Just as it should be on this topic. What struck me was the commenter who said anyone bringing up the topic was suffering from brainwashing. Apparently he does not believe it exists and in fact, turned it on its head and called it White Guilt and took to task the now famous piece "Unpacking the Knapsack" linked in that blog and on this site, and poo-pooing the likes of Tim Wise, whose work is linked on this site.
I put these two experiences together and have these thoughts.
1. this country is far from being a post-race society. Electing Obama was great, but doesn't mean the population is at all educated about race issues. I am not sure we can be post-race without having learned those things.
2. the black national anthem or black national hymn flies under the mainstream white radar. Why? Maybe it is celebrated in schools today. I grew up before BHM was created. But I am betting most white people are clueless and if informed, would see it as a evidence of "separatist" sentiments - not unlike one of the commenters on that blog post.
3. the existence of white privilege is why 1 and 2 are sad, but true. WP is not hogwash, it is not guilt, it is the way that whites have constructed society. And we did so quite brutally on the backs of people enslaved to do our labor. We continued it as we kept our white children separate from the presence of black children and deigned to provide only the most meager of educations to them. We foist our WP on everyone every day by classifying people as minorities - never to be part of the majority (except the math is not working as well now) and creating hoops for them to jump through. As if, as if, as if - anyone of colored skin or other race should have to prove their worth.
Lift every voice and sing...let us march on till victory is won.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thinking about Land
I have worked on issues of urban land for my entire adult life. Even as a kid I liked to think about how land was used - buildings, parks, houses. Of course, I lived in Chicago and had a fantastic landscape to look at.
I saw this post in the Philly planning blog that is in my blog list on the right. The post is about using vacant urban lots for gardening. Now this is not a new idea - urban gardens have been around since at least the 1970s. But Philly is trying something new - greenhouses for urban farming on city owned vacant lots. First, Philly's redevelopment authority does land banking - they acquire vacant property and hold it in a "land bank" until something can be built there. Usually the city would sell the lot to a nonprofit organization to build affordable housing, or sell a group of lots side by side to a developer to build retail or mixed use to benefit the neighborhood. It often takes quite a while to get those kinds of deals organized and vacant lots often sit vacant for years and years. Some cities are still sitting on vacant land that was cleared during Urban Renewal in the 1960s!
The Philly Redevelopment Authority is going to let farmers use their vacant lots for up to 5 years. They are going with larger sized lots (1/2 acre minimum - about the size of a large suburban house with large yard) to start. Greenhouses are not super expensive, but not cheap either. It might not make sense to put a tiny greenhouse on a tiny lot. Anyway, there are several very good things happening in this project. The city recognizes that a blighted vacant lot is not good for the city, but it can be an opportunity if you do something productive with the land. Because urban land markets are not as quick to turn into valuable land as the suburbs, you sometimes need an interim use. So instead of blight, there is opportunity. Another good thing happening is that the city is encouraging sustainable development - grow local, consume local is a very important part of cutting down on our carbon footprint. Instead of shipping vegetables in from Ohio, you can grow it locally and more cost effectively. The other good thing is that most inner city neighborhoods do not have easy access to good produce. This will promote more healthy eating and still stay within a modest household budget. These greenhouses can grow organically, they can grow a variety of different veggies - imagine 20 different types of peppers! The bonus of a greenhouse is that you can use solar panels to grow in the winter. Plus - a greenhouse means you do not have to worry about contaminated soil - you can grow in boxes above the ground.
This project is a win-win and meets the triple bottom line of sustainability - it is economically sustainable, environmentally sustainable, and socially sustainable. It is innovative and not just a gimmicky thing. This is proven technology, a long standing craft, and definitely needed and usable by the public/consumer.
So, look around Camden. You will see a lot of vacant land. At City Hall the answer is always - we can't do anything about vacant land. Well, look across the river because they have a good idea. Urban farming can provide a commodity that can be traded, bartered, sold, and consumed by the grower. Imagine growing, green, productive activity on Camden's most blighted vacant lots. I like it.
Urban revitalization strategy #5: go green, be innovative when it comes to using urban land!
I saw this post in the Philly planning blog that is in my blog list on the right. The post is about using vacant urban lots for gardening. Now this is not a new idea - urban gardens have been around since at least the 1970s. But Philly is trying something new - greenhouses for urban farming on city owned vacant lots. First, Philly's redevelopment authority does land banking - they acquire vacant property and hold it in a "land bank" until something can be built there. Usually the city would sell the lot to a nonprofit organization to build affordable housing, or sell a group of lots side by side to a developer to build retail or mixed use to benefit the neighborhood. It often takes quite a while to get those kinds of deals organized and vacant lots often sit vacant for years and years. Some cities are still sitting on vacant land that was cleared during Urban Renewal in the 1960s!
The Philly Redevelopment Authority is going to let farmers use their vacant lots for up to 5 years. They are going with larger sized lots (1/2 acre minimum - about the size of a large suburban house with large yard) to start. Greenhouses are not super expensive, but not cheap either. It might not make sense to put a tiny greenhouse on a tiny lot. Anyway, there are several very good things happening in this project. The city recognizes that a blighted vacant lot is not good for the city, but it can be an opportunity if you do something productive with the land. Because urban land markets are not as quick to turn into valuable land as the suburbs, you sometimes need an interim use. So instead of blight, there is opportunity. Another good thing happening is that the city is encouraging sustainable development - grow local, consume local is a very important part of cutting down on our carbon footprint. Instead of shipping vegetables in from Ohio, you can grow it locally and more cost effectively. The other good thing is that most inner city neighborhoods do not have easy access to good produce. This will promote more healthy eating and still stay within a modest household budget. These greenhouses can grow organically, they can grow a variety of different veggies - imagine 20 different types of peppers! The bonus of a greenhouse is that you can use solar panels to grow in the winter. Plus - a greenhouse means you do not have to worry about contaminated soil - you can grow in boxes above the ground.
This project is a win-win and meets the triple bottom line of sustainability - it is economically sustainable, environmentally sustainable, and socially sustainable. It is innovative and not just a gimmicky thing. This is proven technology, a long standing craft, and definitely needed and usable by the public/consumer.
So, look around Camden. You will see a lot of vacant land. At City Hall the answer is always - we can't do anything about vacant land. Well, look across the river because they have a good idea. Urban farming can provide a commodity that can be traded, bartered, sold, and consumed by the grower. Imagine growing, green, productive activity on Camden's most blighted vacant lots. I like it.
Urban revitalization strategy #5: go green, be innovative when it comes to using urban land!
Monday, February 23, 2009
Can You Say Stimulus?
Money is coming down the pike. Get people back to work. Take on infrastructure projects to repair roads and bridges. Build a green energy economy with weatherization of homes, new technology, and more. Our President is serious about getting the economy back on track, helping homeowners, and getting people employed. How will Camden fare?
Camden is the poster city for needed economic recovery. Unemployed - check. Foreclosures and abandoned housing - check. Closed factories - check. Crumbling infrastructure - check (including wooden sewer pipes). Schools that need help - check. We have it all. And we have people that want to work, but don't have skills. We have people that want to open a business, but have no capital. We have students that want to learn, but are in schools that are not educating. We have an abundance of housing - and much of it is crumbling. We have a bit to work with, but need much help to jumpstart new strategies.
It would be fantastic if Camden could become the epicenter for green technology. What better place than Camden - a city that is a brownfield - to go green.
It would be amazing if Camden became a demonstration city for new urban renewal that builds on neighborhoods and residents to bring back community and the economy. Crime would fall.
It would be startling if Camden received stimulus funding and it actually made it to the people in need and wasn't skimmed by law firms, politicians, and others who demand their cut.
What is our COO saying about money coming to Camden? What is the City Council saying and the Mayor saying about stimulus funding? Will the community be brought into the discussion? Who is leading?
Urban revitalization suggestion #4: Camden needs an inclusive strategy to wisely spend the stimulus money to maximize its impact. This approach requires leadership, vision, and an understanding of what will likely succeed based on knowledge of the expectations of the residents and businesses of Camden.
Camden is the poster city for needed economic recovery. Unemployed - check. Foreclosures and abandoned housing - check. Closed factories - check. Crumbling infrastructure - check (including wooden sewer pipes). Schools that need help - check. We have it all. And we have people that want to work, but don't have skills. We have people that want to open a business, but have no capital. We have students that want to learn, but are in schools that are not educating. We have an abundance of housing - and much of it is crumbling. We have a bit to work with, but need much help to jumpstart new strategies.
It would be fantastic if Camden could become the epicenter for green technology. What better place than Camden - a city that is a brownfield - to go green.
It would be amazing if Camden became a demonstration city for new urban renewal that builds on neighborhoods and residents to bring back community and the economy. Crime would fall.
It would be startling if Camden received stimulus funding and it actually made it to the people in need and wasn't skimmed by law firms, politicians, and others who demand their cut.
What is our COO saying about money coming to Camden? What is the City Council saying and the Mayor saying about stimulus funding? Will the community be brought into the discussion? Who is leading?
Urban revitalization suggestion #4: Camden needs an inclusive strategy to wisely spend the stimulus money to maximize its impact. This approach requires leadership, vision, and an understanding of what will likely succeed based on knowledge of the expectations of the residents and businesses of Camden.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Keeping it relevent, recent, and real
Sometimes life just get's crazy. I have neglected this site for a month. I'll chalk it up to the post-inaugural euphoria and having to attend to my job, etc. I have been busy getting the semester started and all that. I have one class working on a project related to commercial development in Camden's "downtown," such as it is.
I realize the economy stinks right now - no, that's not strong enough. The economy has fallen off a cliff - close, but not quite. The economy is barely breathing and this stimulus bill is an emergency inhaler. It might make us ok for a minute, but our economy is very ill. All the more reason to worry about Camden's future. Right now there is no credit and no investment. Several neighborhoods have plans for new development and unless there are $$ in one of the stimulus bills, they may need to put those plans on hold for a minute. I have two interests in this city - commercial/retail development and turning perceived deficits into assets. Most people see Camden's abandoned housing and vacant lots as a detriment that must be erased. I see them as assets waiting to be used. Of course, those assets need resources, resources that are in short supply at the moment. But timing and positioning are everything. If you are ready, then you can take advantage of opportunities when they come. So many cities just sit around documenting all their "problems" and wait for some other government or foundation to "help." Smart cities are always positioning themselves to be ready to take advantage of opportunities big and small. Camden needs positioning. I have no illusions that Camden will be the next Newark or Cherry Hill or Collingswood. But it can be the next iteration of Camden - which may be more appealing than any of those other places.
I gave a little talk to the CamConnect open house event about the potential of retail development. Not surprisingly, there are many people who want more, different, successful, recognizable retail in Camden - but people are very skeptical that it could happen here. Look around. Reality confirms their worst suspicions. We have a revolving door of retail - stores last a little while, then fail, only to be replaced by the next guy. Storefronts sit vacant for long periods. Functioning businesses are often operating on a shoestring and so amenities, inventory, and marketing are absent. The shopping experience in Camden is bleak.
The market for retail is here - it just has to be positioned. Instead of highlighting poverty, you highlight purchasing power in a high density area. It's an alternative strategy to despair. There are any number of development plans for this City and most are not grounded in a realistic vision. They are replica visions that were created by a consultant for some other city - they all look the same. But no one is positioning this city for its success - which requires a vision made by and for Camden.
Suggestion #3 - Camden should be Camden, not a replica of some other city that claims "success." Camden needs a real vision of itself and then should position itself to make it happen as opportunities arise.
I realize the economy stinks right now - no, that's not strong enough. The economy has fallen off a cliff - close, but not quite. The economy is barely breathing and this stimulus bill is an emergency inhaler. It might make us ok for a minute, but our economy is very ill. All the more reason to worry about Camden's future. Right now there is no credit and no investment. Several neighborhoods have plans for new development and unless there are $$ in one of the stimulus bills, they may need to put those plans on hold for a minute. I have two interests in this city - commercial/retail development and turning perceived deficits into assets. Most people see Camden's abandoned housing and vacant lots as a detriment that must be erased. I see them as assets waiting to be used. Of course, those assets need resources, resources that are in short supply at the moment. But timing and positioning are everything. If you are ready, then you can take advantage of opportunities when they come. So many cities just sit around documenting all their "problems" and wait for some other government or foundation to "help." Smart cities are always positioning themselves to be ready to take advantage of opportunities big and small. Camden needs positioning. I have no illusions that Camden will be the next Newark or Cherry Hill or Collingswood. But it can be the next iteration of Camden - which may be more appealing than any of those other places.
I gave a little talk to the CamConnect open house event about the potential of retail development. Not surprisingly, there are many people who want more, different, successful, recognizable retail in Camden - but people are very skeptical that it could happen here. Look around. Reality confirms their worst suspicions. We have a revolving door of retail - stores last a little while, then fail, only to be replaced by the next guy. Storefronts sit vacant for long periods. Functioning businesses are often operating on a shoestring and so amenities, inventory, and marketing are absent. The shopping experience in Camden is bleak.
The market for retail is here - it just has to be positioned. Instead of highlighting poverty, you highlight purchasing power in a high density area. It's an alternative strategy to despair. There are any number of development plans for this City and most are not grounded in a realistic vision. They are replica visions that were created by a consultant for some other city - they all look the same. But no one is positioning this city for its success - which requires a vision made by and for Camden.
Suggestion #3 - Camden should be Camden, not a replica of some other city that claims "success." Camden needs a real vision of itself and then should position itself to make it happen as opportunities arise.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A dreamer, a doer, who's next?
It's amazing isn't it? Everywhere I go, people are talking about politics, public officials, public issues, and hope. I spent time with quite a few friends over the last few days and people are taking time to hope, be optimistic, and set aside their stress while our new President is inaugurated and people celebrate.
I have never known political optimism in this way. I grew up during the VN War, followed by Watergate, WIN, our National Malaise, Just Say No, etc. I grew up with the assumption that at any moment some idiot would press a button and we would all be vaporized. Good thing I was taught to get under a desk or build a bomb shelter in the backyard! I remember seeing JFK's funeral on TV, but didn't understand it. I understood too well what it meant when MLK's funeral was on TV. And I still get teary eyed when I think about Teddy Kennedy eulogizing his brother, RFK, at his funeral.
So, I am awed, inspired, and a little bit overwhelmed at the prospect of being in Washington, DC to see Obama sworn in as President. I want to be part of the euphoria, the optimism, the expectation for the future. Should be fun!
I have never known political optimism in this way. I grew up during the VN War, followed by Watergate, WIN, our National Malaise, Just Say No, etc. I grew up with the assumption that at any moment some idiot would press a button and we would all be vaporized. Good thing I was taught to get under a desk or build a bomb shelter in the backyard! I remember seeing JFK's funeral on TV, but didn't understand it. I understood too well what it meant when MLK's funeral was on TV. And I still get teary eyed when I think about Teddy Kennedy eulogizing his brother, RFK, at his funeral.
So, I am awed, inspired, and a little bit overwhelmed at the prospect of being in Washington, DC to see Obama sworn in as President. I want to be part of the euphoria, the optimism, the expectation for the future. Should be fun!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Missionaries in the hood
A really sad story in the Philly area. read it here
This guy - an ex cop, a former Peace Corps volunteer, and all around good guy, white, brings supplies, delli, and produce to a poor neighborhood that does not have a grocery store. He has a rolling store in a school bus and is welcomed by many of the residents in the neighborhood. He has done this for many years. He is called a good Samaritan. I was touched. The widow's words were wonderful. She and the kids distributed all the remaining inventory in the neighborhood and were greeted by the residents and embraced, promising that they would see to justice. The police have no suspects.
The widow said he was out to save the world. She fought with this missionary to stop spending his time with so little monetary return. The deceased said he felt the need to serve. How could this man be killed? Must be ungrateful thugs. Right?
Well intentioned people make a fatal mistake - I'm doing good and people will be grateful. Wrong. Why? Because that view is only from the missionary perspective. This guy was out to help and serve - and make a small profit. No one would begrudge him that. But he lives outside this neighborhood and has the privilege of entering as frequently or infrequently as he likes. He does not live there and his relationship to the community is as a merchant. He saw himself as a savior - not unlike the Peace Corps work he did. But in the PC, you live 24/7 in your community. You don't commute in. You empower the people of your community - you don't provide them with stuff. You share your knowledge and you teach. So for 18 years this guy brought goods in, sold them, and had a nice relationship with his customers. He was not serving them. If he were, he would have worked with the community to open their own shop. Teach them how to build their inventory, how to make a business plan, how to have a cash flow, and how to sell. Then they would have taken on their own business and flourished on their own. Instead, he kept them dependent on him for 18 years in the name of "service." He never saw it coming. He should have. God bless him for his attitude, but let's learn something from his demise.
Success for urban revitalization #2: Work with the community, not for it. Residents should be subjects of interaction, not objects of care.
This guy - an ex cop, a former Peace Corps volunteer, and all around good guy, white, brings supplies, delli, and produce to a poor neighborhood that does not have a grocery store. He has a rolling store in a school bus and is welcomed by many of the residents in the neighborhood. He has done this for many years. He is called a good Samaritan. I was touched. The widow's words were wonderful. She and the kids distributed all the remaining inventory in the neighborhood and were greeted by the residents and embraced, promising that they would see to justice. The police have no suspects.
The widow said he was out to save the world. She fought with this missionary to stop spending his time with so little monetary return. The deceased said he felt the need to serve. How could this man be killed? Must be ungrateful thugs. Right?
Well intentioned people make a fatal mistake - I'm doing good and people will be grateful. Wrong. Why? Because that view is only from the missionary perspective. This guy was out to help and serve - and make a small profit. No one would begrudge him that. But he lives outside this neighborhood and has the privilege of entering as frequently or infrequently as he likes. He does not live there and his relationship to the community is as a merchant. He saw himself as a savior - not unlike the Peace Corps work he did. But in the PC, you live 24/7 in your community. You don't commute in. You empower the people of your community - you don't provide them with stuff. You share your knowledge and you teach. So for 18 years this guy brought goods in, sold them, and had a nice relationship with his customers. He was not serving them. If he were, he would have worked with the community to open their own shop. Teach them how to build their inventory, how to make a business plan, how to have a cash flow, and how to sell. Then they would have taken on their own business and flourished on their own. Instead, he kept them dependent on him for 18 years in the name of "service." He never saw it coming. He should have. God bless him for his attitude, but let's learn something from his demise.
Success for urban revitalization #2: Work with the community, not for it. Residents should be subjects of interaction, not objects of care.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Crime
A lot of people are getting real apoplectic about a new set of crime reports that suggest rising rates in homicides can be linked to the increasing number of young men of color. The statisticians are hard at work trying to blow holes in each others p values, but that's not the subject of my thoughts today.
The NYT had an interesting piece about the black community's reaction to the New Year's Day killing by police of an unarmed young black man in Oakland. The policeman apparently went for his tazer and instead pulled his gun. Oops. The community took to the streets of Oakland and looted shops and burned cars (not unlike what the fans in Philly did when the baseball team won the world series - no kidding). Here is the NYT article.
What really struck me about all this is the following snippet from the article:
"I wonder about the impact of vicarious trauma. Police officers (and social workers) are secondary witnesses to really hard circumstances everyday. None more so than Oakland Police. I wonder how absorbing trauma everyday impacts professional roles (not to mention personal lives) on the job. I work with social workers who abuse their power and no longer see the individual person. Social workers who refer to real people as useless crack heads. I wonder if they have absorbed too much trauma and do not even realize it. This is the analogy of the frog in the pot… you have heard it. If you dump a frog in boiling water it will jump out. But if you put a frog in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it will cook to death. I have seen social workers and police officers who are boiled frogs and they don’t even know it."
Only an outsider could make such a statement. Police and Social Workers??? What about the people that live there? They absorb trauma every day too and it is worse for them because many of the people know the victim or know someone who knows the victim or went to the same school, etc. It's personal and traumatic. And then you wonder why people who live in the inner city get jaded? Duh. It's one of the things I realized happened to me when I lived in KC. I got used to it. I got jaded. I adjusted. And when a police officer comes in and shoots an unarmed man - yeah, the people are going to get upset. They say enough is enough. Those perceived as outsiders come in and shoot us, like we don't have enough trouble living here as it is. You come in, punch in a shift, and then leave. Call us crack-heads. What do you know about it, really?
Now I know that some people who read this will throw up their hands at the liberal sympathizer, blah, blah, blah. Well here is my solution to this problem and it is one that I have already suggested in Camden. Anyone who works for a government unit should live in that jurisdiction. Cops should live in the city, teachers should live in the city, social workers should live in the city, etc. In Camden (and elsewhere) cities gave up on residency requirements because they felt they couldn't get good people to take jobs if they had to live in the city or that good people would quit if forced to make a choice. Well, I say let them. If you can't live where you work for the taxpayers and residents of the city - you have absolutely no business enforcing laws, rules, or regulations. If a city cannot believe in itself enough to demand its employees live in the jurisdiction, then why should anyone who lives outside the city take the city seriously? I mean really. Why do I want scared suburban people creeping into my city to collect a paycheck and being "traumatized." Live here 24/7 and we can talk. If the police, teachers, and social workers live in the city, 2 things will happen: one they get rid of the us v. them and become a we. two is that they will demand improvement in the city and will work to get it. If they refuse to live there and quit, then those that take their jobs will be subject to those 2 things as well. If existing residents take the jobs, they will find themselves surrounded on the job by their neighbors. A change in residency requirements will produce a cultural transformation in these important public sectors.
So solution #1 to urban revitalization is have all government employees of the city (including police, fire, and teachers), live in the city.
The NYT had an interesting piece about the black community's reaction to the New Year's Day killing by police of an unarmed young black man in Oakland. The policeman apparently went for his tazer and instead pulled his gun. Oops. The community took to the streets of Oakland and looted shops and burned cars (not unlike what the fans in Philly did when the baseball team won the world series - no kidding). Here is the NYT article.
What really struck me about all this is the following snippet from the article:
"I wonder about the impact of vicarious trauma. Police officers (and social workers) are secondary witnesses to really hard circumstances everyday. None more so than Oakland Police. I wonder how absorbing trauma everyday impacts professional roles (not to mention personal lives) on the job. I work with social workers who abuse their power and no longer see the individual person. Social workers who refer to real people as useless crack heads. I wonder if they have absorbed too much trauma and do not even realize it. This is the analogy of the frog in the pot… you have heard it. If you dump a frog in boiling water it will jump out. But if you put a frog in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it will cook to death. I have seen social workers and police officers who are boiled frogs and they don’t even know it."
Only an outsider could make such a statement. Police and Social Workers??? What about the people that live there? They absorb trauma every day too and it is worse for them because many of the people know the victim or know someone who knows the victim or went to the same school, etc. It's personal and traumatic. And then you wonder why people who live in the inner city get jaded? Duh. It's one of the things I realized happened to me when I lived in KC. I got used to it. I got jaded. I adjusted. And when a police officer comes in and shoots an unarmed man - yeah, the people are going to get upset. They say enough is enough. Those perceived as outsiders come in and shoot us, like we don't have enough trouble living here as it is. You come in, punch in a shift, and then leave. Call us crack-heads. What do you know about it, really?
Now I know that some people who read this will throw up their hands at the liberal sympathizer, blah, blah, blah. Well here is my solution to this problem and it is one that I have already suggested in Camden. Anyone who works for a government unit should live in that jurisdiction. Cops should live in the city, teachers should live in the city, social workers should live in the city, etc. In Camden (and elsewhere) cities gave up on residency requirements because they felt they couldn't get good people to take jobs if they had to live in the city or that good people would quit if forced to make a choice. Well, I say let them. If you can't live where you work for the taxpayers and residents of the city - you have absolutely no business enforcing laws, rules, or regulations. If a city cannot believe in itself enough to demand its employees live in the jurisdiction, then why should anyone who lives outside the city take the city seriously? I mean really. Why do I want scared suburban people creeping into my city to collect a paycheck and being "traumatized." Live here 24/7 and we can talk. If the police, teachers, and social workers live in the city, 2 things will happen: one they get rid of the us v. them and become a we. two is that they will demand improvement in the city and will work to get it. If they refuse to live there and quit, then those that take their jobs will be subject to those 2 things as well. If existing residents take the jobs, they will find themselves surrounded on the job by their neighbors. A change in residency requirements will produce a cultural transformation in these important public sectors.
So solution #1 to urban revitalization is have all government employees of the city (including police, fire, and teachers), live in the city.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
New Year - re-direction for this blog
Bret said...
Tony,
There are probably three things that are the biggest problems with the murders on the East side. They're complex problems, with a lot of other moving parts, but if you fixed these three things, a lot of the problems would go away:
1) More police (which takes money from taxpayers)
2) Better Schools
3) More job opportunities or better public transit to the available job opportunities.
Scaring the hell out of people that KCMO is not safe -- causing people and businesses to not want to relocate here - is going to make at least 2, maybe 3, of these problems worse, not better.
It doesn't mean we should try to stop the problem -- but we should just run around waiving our hands that the sky is falling when it is all statistically very predictable.
1/06/2009 09:17:00 AM
Do You See Me? said...
This city was built on fear and continues to feed the suburban growth with the same fear mongering. We reap what we sow and now we don't know how to turn it around because it is out of control. The Eastside will turn around when we get the 3 things Brent identified. But those won't come until fear no longer works to the advantage of the white "haves." The city is exactly as we want it. Want something different? Do something different.
1/06/2009 11:04:00 AM
mainstream said...
Better schools, more police amd more jobs aren't anything near new concepts.
They're meaningless statements, and bullshit platutudes that require no skill or critical thinking.
Now, ideas that will make these three, and other things, happen is another story.
1/06/2009 02:58:00 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This a running commentary on a story posted at Tony’s Kansas City about a blog post at Toellner Tells It concerning the record high murder rate on the Eastside of Kansas City – the poorest, mostly African-American and Latino part of the city. I used to live there. The original post on Toellner is of little interest to me, but the blog’s author, Bret made an amendment to his blog and posted it at TKC (above). I then commented on why things don’t change (Do You See Me?), followed by an acerbic retort from Mainstream (a frequent commenter on KC blogs). This is the kind of political conversation I am used to on a daily basis in Kansas City. I have searched in vain for such dialogue in the blogging community in South Jersey and Philadelphia.
Maybe people in the Philly part of the world are cynical or have given up. In contrast, the Midwest is often optimistic, often opinionated, and sometimes derogatory on its own condition. Kansas City is lamentably referred to as a “cow town” by its own people. Maybe the Philly area is so often the butt of jokes from outside the area that they don’t take themselves seriously? Consider how many “joisey” jokes you’ve ever heard. These two streams of thought – the political commentary about the urban condition and the activism of bloggers in KC and the lack of the same in Camden -- leads me to a couple of thoughts that will redirect my blog for awhile.
1. I learned a heck of a lot while I lived in KC and I continue to keep up with what’s going on there because it is an interesting political place for someone like me who really follows local issues and is dedicated to urban revitalization. So how I can I use what I learned there to affect improvement in Camden?
2. “Mainstream” has a point – we can make platitudes all day about revitalization, but what is the blueprint? I feel like I have worked on that my whole life and yet – what difference have I really made? What are the answers to “mainstream’s” questions and how can I make that a reality in Camden?
My best friend often says, play big or don’t play. I agree. I like to remind myself that if you aren’t in the game, you’re just taking up space on the planet. This is my game and I plan to play big.
In my next post I will have some preliminary thoughts on answering “mainstream’s” questions. I hope that the community of civic minded and thoughtful people in the Camden area will find this blog and begin a dialogue with me as well as bring me into whatever existing dialogues take place that I have yet to find.
Tony,
There are probably three things that are the biggest problems with the murders on the East side. They're complex problems, with a lot of other moving parts, but if you fixed these three things, a lot of the problems would go away:
1) More police (which takes money from taxpayers)
2) Better Schools
3) More job opportunities or better public transit to the available job opportunities.
Scaring the hell out of people that KCMO is not safe -- causing people and businesses to not want to relocate here - is going to make at least 2, maybe 3, of these problems worse, not better.
It doesn't mean we should try to stop the problem -- but we should just run around waiving our hands that the sky is falling when it is all statistically very predictable.
1/06/2009 09:17:00 AM
Do You See Me? said...
This city was built on fear and continues to feed the suburban growth with the same fear mongering. We reap what we sow and now we don't know how to turn it around because it is out of control. The Eastside will turn around when we get the 3 things Brent identified. But those won't come until fear no longer works to the advantage of the white "haves." The city is exactly as we want it. Want something different? Do something different.
1/06/2009 11:04:00 AM
mainstream said...
Better schools, more police amd more jobs aren't anything near new concepts.
They're meaningless statements, and bullshit platutudes that require no skill or critical thinking.
Now, ideas that will make these three, and other things, happen is another story.
1/06/2009 02:58:00 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This a running commentary on a story posted at Tony’s Kansas City about a blog post at Toellner Tells It concerning the record high murder rate on the Eastside of Kansas City – the poorest, mostly African-American and Latino part of the city. I used to live there. The original post on Toellner is of little interest to me, but the blog’s author, Bret made an amendment to his blog and posted it at TKC (above). I then commented on why things don’t change (Do You See Me?), followed by an acerbic retort from Mainstream (a frequent commenter on KC blogs). This is the kind of political conversation I am used to on a daily basis in Kansas City. I have searched in vain for such dialogue in the blogging community in South Jersey and Philadelphia.
Maybe people in the Philly part of the world are cynical or have given up. In contrast, the Midwest is often optimistic, often opinionated, and sometimes derogatory on its own condition. Kansas City is lamentably referred to as a “cow town” by its own people. Maybe the Philly area is so often the butt of jokes from outside the area that they don’t take themselves seriously? Consider how many “joisey” jokes you’ve ever heard. These two streams of thought – the political commentary about the urban condition and the activism of bloggers in KC and the lack of the same in Camden -- leads me to a couple of thoughts that will redirect my blog for awhile.
1. I learned a heck of a lot while I lived in KC and I continue to keep up with what’s going on there because it is an interesting political place for someone like me who really follows local issues and is dedicated to urban revitalization. So how I can I use what I learned there to affect improvement in Camden?
2. “Mainstream” has a point – we can make platitudes all day about revitalization, but what is the blueprint? I feel like I have worked on that my whole life and yet – what difference have I really made? What are the answers to “mainstream’s” questions and how can I make that a reality in Camden?
My best friend often says, play big or don’t play. I agree. I like to remind myself that if you aren’t in the game, you’re just taking up space on the planet. This is my game and I plan to play big.
In my next post I will have some preliminary thoughts on answering “mainstream’s” questions. I hope that the community of civic minded and thoughtful people in the Camden area will find this blog and begin a dialogue with me as well as bring me into whatever existing dialogues take place that I have yet to find.
Friday, January 2, 2009
the end of the southern strategy
Paul Krugman rocks! Woe to the Republicans that just didn't see the transition of this country through its diversity. Their wedge politics of race is over. Read Krugman's column. He states it better than I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
