From CNN a short video (apparently a series of reports) on violence as experienced by teens in High School. Violence is about surviving where you live as well as surviving the traditional jockeying for position on the high school totem pole. This view of their reality suggests that until that reality is adjusted, they will continue to fight, represent, and avoid being punked. In this Chicago school, leadership training seems to be having an effect on individual responses, but not on the reality of having to carry a weapon.
Airick Leonard West recently conducted a 3 day session on leadership to deter bullying at one of the local KCMSD schools. He worked with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at one school to change the dynamics of the pecking order and improve communications and options when faced with an escalating situation.
But as the CNN piece suggests, when kids come from poor neighborhoods where there is no strong future of prosperity, where adults are not modeling supportive behavior, and where survival is a daily concern, we can expect that kids will do whatever they are inclined to believe they have to do. They may be making incorrect assumptions, based on a perspective from outside their environment. But from the inside, to them, it seems reasonable, plausible, and defensible. You play be the rules of the environment in which you live. If you do not go beyond the boundaries of that place, if you are challenged when you do go beyond those boundaries, if you are unwelcome outside those boundaries, then you will continue to live by the rules of your boundaries.
Then check out this other CNN story about a teacher that cuts off the braid of a 6 year old girl in front of the class because she kept twirling it. The teacher appologized later and said she was "frustrated." The school declined to take the teacher out of the classroom. Those are rules of an environment in which these kids are learning to engage.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Self-Responsibility, Caring, and Responses
I haven't seen the movie Precious yet, but I have read reviews and media coverage. I feel I should go see it, but it seems so depressing. Do I really want to spend two hours watching in full color what I already know exists? Has anyone else seen it? I stumbled upon a discussion board at IMDB about the movie and the thread was a discussion of whether the protagonist, Precious, had properly acknowledged her obesity and many commenters questioned why she didn't add getting healthy and thin to her litany of improvements. Some stated they didn't feel sympathy for the character because she was so fat - that she was unworthy of their concern because she wasn't concerned for herself.
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
dress codes and missionaries
I haven't been posting lately. I've been busy and nothing has captured my attention. I read two different articles today that really got me thinking...and so I am sharing.
In the Camden Courier Post today, I read a feature story about a group called Urban Promise. They are a christian-based organization who's mission is to help urban, poor kids in Camden and other cities around the world. They have two private schools, after school programs, summer camp, internships, and lots of ways to reach out to urban kids for education, guidance, and spirituality. I don't care that they have a religious agenda. If it works for some kids, great. What took me by surprise was the literal "missionary" approach they take to fundraising from suburban white people. For just $2500 a year, you can "sponsor" a child. Just like on the late night infomercials, your dollars will go to "your child" who will write to you at least 3 times a year. You can write back because children prefer hand written notes. Huh? You cannot see them, email them, or otherwise be in contact. You cannot give gifts (except to the entire school class of your child), money, or see them outside of the classroom. I understand that a charity has liability limitations and is not wanting well-intentioned white folks to be played for cash. But think about how this positions these kids in the minds of those "sponsors." That's the crux of my issue with their approach. We instill in the minds of white people that their dollars will "save" these kids and that to have any real contact is dangerous. I believe this does more harm than good because it keeps a fixed and probably incorrect image of these kids in the white donor's mind. But then the Urban Promise people need that image so the dollars will continue to roll in. It's a strategy, but one that I think hurts the kids in the long run by perpetuating the stereotype in the donor's mind.
The second article I read was about Kansas City's Power and Light District, the downtown entertainment district built by a corporate developer with public money. Cordish Company has been criticized everywhere they build (I posted on this months ago because Philly has been considering building with this company). They install a dress code that enables them to discriminate overtly and covertly against blacks. They outlaw "thug" wear - any sports jersey's, bandanas, low slung pants, long shorts, long white t-shirts. This is a male oriented dress code to keep out gang bangers, urban roughians, and anyone who wears a fashion that says urban. They would probably outlaw tats, but too many white guys have them too.
The city Human Relations office did a black/white test of the dress code, sending in identically dressed blacks and whites to see if discrimination existed. Surprise! Not. More blacks than whites were denied entrance. The black community in KC has been claiming this for some time, and now it is documented. Several prominent black ministers have spoken out and they led a picket line downtown yesterday to protest the "discretion" used in applying the dress code. I think they have every right to expend their political and social capital any way they choose and if this issue is important, then go for it.
What I am concerned about is the avalanche of white privildege that is on parade in the comment section of the article. The general tone consists of - if you don't like it, don't try to patronize the establishment (my country, love it or leave it comes to mind...).
The criticisms include -
When whites feel threatened, they play the race card by belittleing the protests and demands made by people of color who feel discrimination. Dress codes set up a white environment. Conform and we don't have a problem. Don't conform and we won't let you play with us. When the nonconformists, or rather those who have a different identity, protest that they pay taxes too and should be allowed into this publicly funded area, their identity is scoffed at, their demands are refused, and the white people play the superior victim role of safety. Do we not understand that the continual playing of the white race card serves only to deepen the wedge between races and encourage everyone to play their "role"?????
I was on a local train in south Jersey last night and it has an honor system for tickets. Now and again a security officer gets on the train and asks to see tickets. If you don't have a valid ticket you can be fined or usually, put off at the next station. So three young men (junior high age) were on the train as we sat at the station, got poached for having no tickets, and were told by the security guard to go buy tickets - they did, and got back on the train. All three had baggy pants and/or hoodies, 2 were black and one latino. The security cop was black. I've seen it go down in a much uglier fashion when the security cop is white. The kids tried to get away with something. They got caught and made a decision to pay and ride or not. As the train ride went along they bantered with each other, n***** this and that, cursing, and lots of other testosterone laden bravado. When their stop came, they got off. I'm thinking my observation and interpretation is quite different than most white people's - thug kids trying to get away without paying - typical hoodrats and their language is so threatening. I was afraid I would get mugged.
This is why the missionary approach of Urban Promise is so detrimental. It allows white people to maintain their stereotypes about poor urban kids while feeling good about how they are "helping." The problem is that it means that nothing changes in perception and as long as you look and act like me, we don't have a problem. People of color will continue to "rebel" because of this. We each get backed into our respective corners and harden our positions.
If whites were constantly told that their dress was inappropriate, that they were nothing but suburb-rats, that they were threatening because they are different, then white people would resent it, withdraw, be isolated, and be violent. If you were told you needed to be "saved" and you wanted to preserve some dignity, wouldn't you do what you have to, to make cash and be an outlaw? I guess the original white gangsters are just romantic anti-heroes...
In the Camden Courier Post today, I read a feature story about a group called Urban Promise. They are a christian-based organization who's mission is to help urban, poor kids in Camden and other cities around the world. They have two private schools, after school programs, summer camp, internships, and lots of ways to reach out to urban kids for education, guidance, and spirituality. I don't care that they have a religious agenda. If it works for some kids, great. What took me by surprise was the literal "missionary" approach they take to fundraising from suburban white people. For just $2500 a year, you can "sponsor" a child. Just like on the late night infomercials, your dollars will go to "your child" who will write to you at least 3 times a year. You can write back because children prefer hand written notes. Huh? You cannot see them, email them, or otherwise be in contact. You cannot give gifts (except to the entire school class of your child), money, or see them outside of the classroom. I understand that a charity has liability limitations and is not wanting well-intentioned white folks to be played for cash. But think about how this positions these kids in the minds of those "sponsors." That's the crux of my issue with their approach. We instill in the minds of white people that their dollars will "save" these kids and that to have any real contact is dangerous. I believe this does more harm than good because it keeps a fixed and probably incorrect image of these kids in the white donor's mind. But then the Urban Promise people need that image so the dollars will continue to roll in. It's a strategy, but one that I think hurts the kids in the long run by perpetuating the stereotype in the donor's mind.
The second article I read was about Kansas City's Power and Light District, the downtown entertainment district built by a corporate developer with public money. Cordish Company has been criticized everywhere they build (I posted on this months ago because Philly has been considering building with this company). They install a dress code that enables them to discriminate overtly and covertly against blacks. They outlaw "thug" wear - any sports jersey's, bandanas, low slung pants, long shorts, long white t-shirts. This is a male oriented dress code to keep out gang bangers, urban roughians, and anyone who wears a fashion that says urban. They would probably outlaw tats, but too many white guys have them too.
The city Human Relations office did a black/white test of the dress code, sending in identically dressed blacks and whites to see if discrimination existed. Surprise! Not. More blacks than whites were denied entrance. The black community in KC has been claiming this for some time, and now it is documented. Several prominent black ministers have spoken out and they led a picket line downtown yesterday to protest the "discretion" used in applying the dress code. I think they have every right to expend their political and social capital any way they choose and if this issue is important, then go for it.
What I am concerned about is the avalanche of white privildege that is on parade in the comment section of the article. The general tone consists of - if you don't like it, don't try to patronize the establishment (my country, love it or leave it comes to mind...).
The criticisms include -
- dress like a thug, get treated like a thug (which just oozes the priviledge of my dress is correct and yours is not)
- statistics prove that blacks shoot up nightclubs, so why would a bar owner let them in...just asking for trouble (statistics prove anything don't they? Let's look at the homicide rate at biker bars and redneck taverns...)
- I want to be able to keep my family safe and the minute I see potential trouble, I won't go back (the quinticential my dollars are more valuable than yours position, so don't piss me off)
- blacks always claim "racism" when something happens they don't like. This isn't racism, it's a dress code (that says white people's clothes are ok and black urban clothes are not).
- black preachers always "protest" - where are Rev. Jessie and Rev. Al - and then they will demand money! Where do the reparations end (considering there have never been any reparations paid...)
- why do blacks always feel "entitled" to something (because they are discriminated against?)
When whites feel threatened, they play the race card by belittleing the protests and demands made by people of color who feel discrimination. Dress codes set up a white environment. Conform and we don't have a problem. Don't conform and we won't let you play with us. When the nonconformists, or rather those who have a different identity, protest that they pay taxes too and should be allowed into this publicly funded area, their identity is scoffed at, their demands are refused, and the white people play the superior victim role of safety. Do we not understand that the continual playing of the white race card serves only to deepen the wedge between races and encourage everyone to play their "role"?????
I was on a local train in south Jersey last night and it has an honor system for tickets. Now and again a security officer gets on the train and asks to see tickets. If you don't have a valid ticket you can be fined or usually, put off at the next station. So three young men (junior high age) were on the train as we sat at the station, got poached for having no tickets, and were told by the security guard to go buy tickets - they did, and got back on the train. All three had baggy pants and/or hoodies, 2 were black and one latino. The security cop was black. I've seen it go down in a much uglier fashion when the security cop is white. The kids tried to get away with something. They got caught and made a decision to pay and ride or not. As the train ride went along they bantered with each other, n***** this and that, cursing, and lots of other testosterone laden bravado. When their stop came, they got off. I'm thinking my observation and interpretation is quite different than most white people's - thug kids trying to get away without paying - typical hoodrats and their language is so threatening. I was afraid I would get mugged.
This is why the missionary approach of Urban Promise is so detrimental. It allows white people to maintain their stereotypes about poor urban kids while feeling good about how they are "helping." The problem is that it means that nothing changes in perception and as long as you look and act like me, we don't have a problem. People of color will continue to "rebel" because of this. We each get backed into our respective corners and harden our positions.
If whites were constantly told that their dress was inappropriate, that they were nothing but suburb-rats, that they were threatening because they are different, then white people would resent it, withdraw, be isolated, and be violent. If you were told you needed to be "saved" and you wanted to preserve some dignity, wouldn't you do what you have to, to make cash and be an outlaw? I guess the original white gangsters are just romantic anti-heroes...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Teach, your parents well...
Great old song by CSNY. If you are too young to get the reference, sorry you missed some of the greatest music ever made. Actually, the title line is Teach, your children well. But the point of the song is otherwise.
The lesson of the song rings true today as the conservative world spins on a new axis of Obama hating and does contortions to not say what they must really want to say. I don't know what that is, but the tongue twisting of "what was the committee thinking" and "Obama should refuse the award" is double speak for we really don't like Obama. These people wouldn't know how to speak truth to power if they were given a script and coached with "line!"
I thought the Prez was gracious in his acceptance and unifying when he put the Prize into a "call to action." That's our community organizer! Just makes my heart sing. But I get it that others are not willing to heed that call. But let the rest of us have a chance to do so. That's what the right can't stand - is that for every step taken by Obama, they see their forward progress eroding. Despite our best efforts to play winners and losers with elections, politics is NOT a zero sum game. This notion that if I give in to you it hurts me (like the my marriage is threatened if gay couples are allowed to marry) is so closeminded that there will never be a solution. It is like a Jihad...I keep fighting you until I beat you or I die trying. This is not what politics is supposed to be and every day we take more steps down that slippery slope. Have you noticed the rhetoric is bolder in terms of calling out the President on things that aren't even real - he's a communist, he's a socialist. These are not just pejorative slanders. Many's the time I called Bush a moron. These comments are meant to incite fear and resistance to a mythical enemy. I guess if the cold war is over, we should turn on our President? How did we get here? Go read the NYTimes. There have been so many good columns about this topic, I can't even keep up with it here.
I want to call your attention to a writer that I read regularly. Her blog can be found here and it is called "My World." It is artistic, it is savy, it is plainly spoken - in the vernacular of a young urban person. What I like most is that it is HONEST. There is no attempt to bring fear or to threaten. There is no hiding behind a bunch of b.s. It speaks honestly of what the world is like as seen through her eyes. There are others that write better than this, but it doesn't matter, because this young woman is from Camden. She's not hiding out in some suburban bunker lashing out at a world that does not fit her wishes. She's writing about the real life she leads and how it affects her. Of all the people in this country, she has the right to call politics a zero-sum game, and she doesn't. That's truth to power.
Teach, your parents well....
The lesson of the song rings true today as the conservative world spins on a new axis of Obama hating and does contortions to not say what they must really want to say. I don't know what that is, but the tongue twisting of "what was the committee thinking" and "Obama should refuse the award" is double speak for we really don't like Obama. These people wouldn't know how to speak truth to power if they were given a script and coached with "line!"
I thought the Prez was gracious in his acceptance and unifying when he put the Prize into a "call to action." That's our community organizer! Just makes my heart sing. But I get it that others are not willing to heed that call. But let the rest of us have a chance to do so. That's what the right can't stand - is that for every step taken by Obama, they see their forward progress eroding. Despite our best efforts to play winners and losers with elections, politics is NOT a zero sum game. This notion that if I give in to you it hurts me (like the my marriage is threatened if gay couples are allowed to marry) is so closeminded that there will never be a solution. It is like a Jihad...I keep fighting you until I beat you or I die trying. This is not what politics is supposed to be and every day we take more steps down that slippery slope. Have you noticed the rhetoric is bolder in terms of calling out the President on things that aren't even real - he's a communist, he's a socialist. These are not just pejorative slanders. Many's the time I called Bush a moron. These comments are meant to incite fear and resistance to a mythical enemy. I guess if the cold war is over, we should turn on our President? How did we get here? Go read the NYTimes. There have been so many good columns about this topic, I can't even keep up with it here.
I want to call your attention to a writer that I read regularly. Her blog can be found here and it is called "My World." It is artistic, it is savy, it is plainly spoken - in the vernacular of a young urban person. What I like most is that it is HONEST. There is no attempt to bring fear or to threaten. There is no hiding behind a bunch of b.s. It speaks honestly of what the world is like as seen through her eyes. There are others that write better than this, but it doesn't matter, because this young woman is from Camden. She's not hiding out in some suburban bunker lashing out at a world that does not fit her wishes. She's writing about the real life she leads and how it affects her. Of all the people in this country, she has the right to call politics a zero-sum game, and she doesn't. That's truth to power.
Teach, your parents well....
Friday, October 2, 2009
Obama haters
Don't be a hater.
Apparently the message has gone right past some people. That would be the people that are Obama haters. Check out this pic at Tony's Kansas City . Not since the 1960s when the South was littered with "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards, have we seen such political vitriol on the big boards. (If you don't know who Earl Warren is, google him).
I also read a good post at Stuff White People Do discussing why people call Obama "arrogant."
And by now you have heard about the "Should Obama Be Killed" quiz that made an appearance on Facebook.
The haters are merely a reflection of what is seen every day at the personal level all across the country. People who think electing Obama President is an indication of a post-racial society are mistaken. White America may be more tolerant and the willingness to vote for a black President would not have happened 50 or 60 years ago. But for some reason, the racism that often remains isolated at the local level has now moved to the national stage. Perhaps it is the incivility of Congress that is emboldening haters. Or maybe loud haters are emboldening Congressional bad behavior. Maybe FOX news is giving voice to the voiceless - haters that could only reach a local audience, now being celebrated on this broadcast network. I'm not so naive to think that racism and priviledge will ever be gone, but I am hoping we have made strides. One indication of progress would be that people stand up to this type of hatred.
Some readers will say that the billboard has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. They will insist that the billboard is merely use of free speech by those who disagree with the President's agenda. To that I say, really? Are you so resistant to acknowledging that racism exists that you refuse to see what is obvious? I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, because that would be ridiculous. I don't agree with Obama on everything. But when you resort to a billboard with a hammer and sycle and you proclaim "live free or die" you have to think about the racial implications.
I support healthy political debate and encourage viewpoints to be vigorously discussed, challenged, and argued. But I believe that hate, as expressed in this billboard, is connected to racism. I realize that the right also had it out for President Clinton. But you didn't see people bringing guns to Clinton speeches or calling him a commie or throwing around the "live free or die" rhetoric. There is a qualitative difference with the discord surrounding President Obama. Read Tom Friedman's column in the NYTimes. Here's the money quote: "We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable."
I can only hope that people take this on and challenge the wingnuts, haters, and extremists. Vigorous debate - don't just ignore it.
Monday, September 28, 2009
We're Electing a Mayor in Camden!!
Tonight I attended a mayoral candidate forum with 4 candidates running to be the leader of Camden. The Democratic party pretty much runs Camden and has selected its candidate, Dana Redd. The other 3 are running independently or at least not as Democrats. Only one actually identified as an independent. The 90 minute event was headed by CCOP as an informational forum for voters to hear these candidates answer questions. The candidates had the questions ahead of time (I believe that is usually the CCOP practice) and each had a minute and a half to answer each question. There were timekeepers to keep them to schedule. The questions were very thoughtful and pointed. The candidates answered some directly and some not so directly. I give a rundown below (CCOP will have a full summaries out soon). This is my take on the evening and I am not a reporter :)
Candidates: Angel Cordero, Roberto Feliz, Danna Redd and Mujima Parker
Notable characteristics and ideas -
Cordero: passionate about residents, respect, education, and "getting the job done." His biggest idea is to have block captains throughout the city to be eyes and ears on neighborhood services. There weren't too many other specifics, but he is committed to the people.
Feliz: he is a former director of Public Works in Camden and is running on his track record. Apparently at one time the PW department ran well? He brings his experience and administrative experience. He will get better contracts for the city.
Redd: current city council member AND state Senator. She was crisp and knew her facts and figures. However, she didn't really have many specific solutions or actions to take beyond traditional political platitudes.
Parker: running on her expertise as a former state administrator in Economic Development and her training as a public administrator. Her responses reflected an administrative approach to city hall that is more fitting for a City Manager than a Mayor. But since we don't have a Manager, we must rely on the mayor- except that in Camden we have a COO appointed by the Governor.
It was quite interesting to note that only Redd clearly stated that the Mayor should be in charge (Feliz said the mayor should have more oversight). Given that Redd is the odds on favorite, one has to wonder if Corzine is elected if he will end the COO arrangement early, or appoint a titular COO but give the Mayor much more power.
It should go without saying that Camden needs jobs, public safety, public services, education, businesses, tax ratable property, and housing revitalization. When you have only 90 seconds to answer a question, stating the obvious is nothing but filler. We heard a lot of filler.
Cordero had the most interesting idea of the night that was out of the norm. He suggests having block captains throughout the city and to demand a better level of respect of citizens by city employees. Block captains would monitor city services and report info to City Hall, holding the city accountable. They also would be neighborhood watch to ensure that the guilty are caught and punished, rather than the innocent - whom he claimed are too often snatched up by the Police. He also called several times for community policing and community development corporations to be in every neighborhood. No one else said that. For the most part, though, he was more passion than ideas.
Feliz mentioned several times that the city should have a building inventory and assessment to get a handle on conditions and property. He also stressed several times the need to have better city contracts that are competitive and give better results for the money to the city. Trash hauling and street sweeping were mentioned. He also had an idea echoed by others, that the city should stop landbanking property and holding it too long (until the property rots). He was the only candidate to step up and admit that the city had a $56million deficit this year. Though he did not have a particularly strong plan to eliminate it. He did state several times that service at city hall should be the focus and that city hall employees must do a better job of customer service. Others echoed this. He primarily saw the mayor's position through the lens of his former job as Public Works director.
Parker put an emphasis several times on "marketing" Camden to business and potential residents because the city is so well situated on the East coast. In its current condition, I'm not sure if location, location, location will be persuasive. She did make a point that she wants to empower the residents. To do what, she did not say. A crowd pleaser statement, echoed by the other candidates was that city hall department heads must be held accountable. Parker went a step further and said, if a lateral move is not sufficient, an employee should be terminated. Those may be fighting words in Camden. She highlighted her state level experience and contacts she has along with her report reading skills and review skills. It sounded terribly bureaucratic. Like Redd, she knew something about specific programs, legislative opportunities, and sources of potential partnerships and grant funds. However, when she said, "I have grant writing skills" I wondered if she was really going to be that hands on!
Redd was the canidate to beat tonight, simply because she is the organized party candidate and odds on favorite to win. She stayed on message, but didn't say much. That was dissappointing. She did say that she would be a hands on mayor and she regularly drives the streets of Camden to see for herself what is going on. Cordero had the best comeback to that, stating the block captains - not one leader at city hall - should be the eyes and ears of the City. She did put a lot of energy and thought into the need to work with the school district and other educational providers to help kids. She was the only one who pointed out the "youngness" of Camden with 40% of the population under 25 (I think that was the figure). Overall, her answers were informed, but often cautious.
Two questions were of particular interest to me - Economic Development and Abandoned Property. Here are the responses that were on point to the question. I ommit the filler.
Economic Development - how will you handle the challenging fiscal time the city is in right now?
Redd: I am pragmatic. We need an honest dialogue with residents. We need a long term financial recovery plan. Need to keep and bring in business. Need efficient and effective use of city dollars so as not to cut services. City hall needs to be customer and business friendly.
Money quote: I will change the culture at city hall.
Parker: Use tax incentives. Effectively market the city and its location to bring in business. Promote homeownership to bring in tax revenue.
Cordero: I have faith and determination. Just get the work done. We will get dollars from the state and federal politicians (naming Obama). We will do whatever it takes.
My take: this was the most non-answered question from this candidate all night.
Feliz: Deficits increase in Camden every year and the city is currently at $56 million. We can do a better job with the dollars we have through better contracts, more efficiency, and better organization.
My take: it's a good idea, but for him, it was a one-trick pony
Abandoned Property - What would you do in your first year?
Parker: I would work with the city legal department and sell properties to individuals, nonprofits, and for-profit companies to rehab and build.
Cordero: Abandoned property is an opportunity to employ and train residents in the building trades. I would use the abandoned property act. I would work with the Housing Authority. I would create an amnesty program. [not sure if that is amnesty from taxes, code violations or what. I didn't get it down.]
Feliz: The city should stop landbanking because the city holds property for too long and lets it deteriorate to the point it can't be fixed or sold. Need a building assessment of all property. Need to collect taxes. Need to enforce codes, but not too much because too much enforcement leads to vacancies.
My take: he was on point with the landbank issue, but lost me with the vague enforcement idea.
Redd: Abandoned property is the #1 issue I have heard from groups such as CCOP and Camden United. The abandoned property act is available. The issue is funding, we don't have enough. DRPA should use some of the unspent prison razing funds to help the city with this issue.
My take: I wonder if Jeff Nash has heard this?
In the next question on abandoned property the candidates reiterated things they had already said. Redd, however, stepped up the game when she stated: I'll work with nonprofits, implement the Abandoned Property Act, use the Obama urban agenda to our advantage, and I will respect the neighborhood stakeholders in every neighborhood.
My take: this should be of interest to those who think she was on the wrong side of the Cherokee/Cramer Hill development issue.
The rest of questions had the candidates trotting out tried and true ideas - partnerships with the federal and state levels to get revenue for the city; work with business to bring jobs to Camden; better education and after school programs. Redd explicitly said keep the schools and community centers open after hours and on weekends to support kids and families. Cordero made strong points about education and job training for youth and need for community schools.
I have no doubt that all 4 of these candidates want this city to succeed. They each expressed strengths and showed weaknesses. What might be interesting is if whoever is elected (Redd) works to include the other candidates and their constituencies in their administration. You have two experienced adminstrators and all 4 candidates said there needs to be accountability for department heads at city hall. Two new department heads may have been in the room tonight. You have a strong community activist from the Latino community who emphasized respect of citizens, including citizens in a meaningful way with the city, and focus on education (and he has some experience in running or organizing an educational support program). Use these resources, Dana!! Let's not let it be business as usual and circle the wagons. Open up the campfire to EVERY CORNER of the city. That would be novel.
Watch for CCOP's summary of responses to each question. I tried to capture the highlights here.
Candidates: Angel Cordero, Roberto Feliz, Danna Redd and Mujima Parker
Notable characteristics and ideas -
Cordero: passionate about residents, respect, education, and "getting the job done." His biggest idea is to have block captains throughout the city to be eyes and ears on neighborhood services. There weren't too many other specifics, but he is committed to the people.
Feliz: he is a former director of Public Works in Camden and is running on his track record. Apparently at one time the PW department ran well? He brings his experience and administrative experience. He will get better contracts for the city.
Redd: current city council member AND state Senator. She was crisp and knew her facts and figures. However, she didn't really have many specific solutions or actions to take beyond traditional political platitudes.
Parker: running on her expertise as a former state administrator in Economic Development and her training as a public administrator. Her responses reflected an administrative approach to city hall that is more fitting for a City Manager than a Mayor. But since we don't have a Manager, we must rely on the mayor- except that in Camden we have a COO appointed by the Governor.
It was quite interesting to note that only Redd clearly stated that the Mayor should be in charge (Feliz said the mayor should have more oversight). Given that Redd is the odds on favorite, one has to wonder if Corzine is elected if he will end the COO arrangement early, or appoint a titular COO but give the Mayor much more power.
It should go without saying that Camden needs jobs, public safety, public services, education, businesses, tax ratable property, and housing revitalization. When you have only 90 seconds to answer a question, stating the obvious is nothing but filler. We heard a lot of filler.
Cordero had the most interesting idea of the night that was out of the norm. He suggests having block captains throughout the city and to demand a better level of respect of citizens by city employees. Block captains would monitor city services and report info to City Hall, holding the city accountable. They also would be neighborhood watch to ensure that the guilty are caught and punished, rather than the innocent - whom he claimed are too often snatched up by the Police. He also called several times for community policing and community development corporations to be in every neighborhood. No one else said that. For the most part, though, he was more passion than ideas.
Feliz mentioned several times that the city should have a building inventory and assessment to get a handle on conditions and property. He also stressed several times the need to have better city contracts that are competitive and give better results for the money to the city. Trash hauling and street sweeping were mentioned. He also had an idea echoed by others, that the city should stop landbanking property and holding it too long (until the property rots). He was the only candidate to step up and admit that the city had a $56million deficit this year. Though he did not have a particularly strong plan to eliminate it. He did state several times that service at city hall should be the focus and that city hall employees must do a better job of customer service. Others echoed this. He primarily saw the mayor's position through the lens of his former job as Public Works director.
Parker put an emphasis several times on "marketing" Camden to business and potential residents because the city is so well situated on the East coast. In its current condition, I'm not sure if location, location, location will be persuasive. She did make a point that she wants to empower the residents. To do what, she did not say. A crowd pleaser statement, echoed by the other candidates was that city hall department heads must be held accountable. Parker went a step further and said, if a lateral move is not sufficient, an employee should be terminated. Those may be fighting words in Camden. She highlighted her state level experience and contacts she has along with her report reading skills and review skills. It sounded terribly bureaucratic. Like Redd, she knew something about specific programs, legislative opportunities, and sources of potential partnerships and grant funds. However, when she said, "I have grant writing skills" I wondered if she was really going to be that hands on!
Redd was the canidate to beat tonight, simply because she is the organized party candidate and odds on favorite to win. She stayed on message, but didn't say much. That was dissappointing. She did say that she would be a hands on mayor and she regularly drives the streets of Camden to see for herself what is going on. Cordero had the best comeback to that, stating the block captains - not one leader at city hall - should be the eyes and ears of the City. She did put a lot of energy and thought into the need to work with the school district and other educational providers to help kids. She was the only one who pointed out the "youngness" of Camden with 40% of the population under 25 (I think that was the figure). Overall, her answers were informed, but often cautious.
Two questions were of particular interest to me - Economic Development and Abandoned Property. Here are the responses that were on point to the question. I ommit the filler.
Economic Development - how will you handle the challenging fiscal time the city is in right now?
Redd: I am pragmatic. We need an honest dialogue with residents. We need a long term financial recovery plan. Need to keep and bring in business. Need efficient and effective use of city dollars so as not to cut services. City hall needs to be customer and business friendly.
Money quote: I will change the culture at city hall.
Parker: Use tax incentives. Effectively market the city and its location to bring in business. Promote homeownership to bring in tax revenue.
Cordero: I have faith and determination. Just get the work done. We will get dollars from the state and federal politicians (naming Obama). We will do whatever it takes.
My take: this was the most non-answered question from this candidate all night.
Feliz: Deficits increase in Camden every year and the city is currently at $56 million. We can do a better job with the dollars we have through better contracts, more efficiency, and better organization.
My take: it's a good idea, but for him, it was a one-trick pony
Abandoned Property - What would you do in your first year?
Parker: I would work with the city legal department and sell properties to individuals, nonprofits, and for-profit companies to rehab and build.
Cordero: Abandoned property is an opportunity to employ and train residents in the building trades. I would use the abandoned property act. I would work with the Housing Authority. I would create an amnesty program. [not sure if that is amnesty from taxes, code violations or what. I didn't get it down.]
Feliz: The city should stop landbanking because the city holds property for too long and lets it deteriorate to the point it can't be fixed or sold. Need a building assessment of all property. Need to collect taxes. Need to enforce codes, but not too much because too much enforcement leads to vacancies.
My take: he was on point with the landbank issue, but lost me with the vague enforcement idea.
Redd: Abandoned property is the #1 issue I have heard from groups such as CCOP and Camden United. The abandoned property act is available. The issue is funding, we don't have enough. DRPA should use some of the unspent prison razing funds to help the city with this issue.
My take: I wonder if Jeff Nash has heard this?
In the next question on abandoned property the candidates reiterated things they had already said. Redd, however, stepped up the game when she stated: I'll work with nonprofits, implement the Abandoned Property Act, use the Obama urban agenda to our advantage, and I will respect the neighborhood stakeholders in every neighborhood.
My take: this should be of interest to those who think she was on the wrong side of the Cherokee/Cramer Hill development issue.
The rest of questions had the candidates trotting out tried and true ideas - partnerships with the federal and state levels to get revenue for the city; work with business to bring jobs to Camden; better education and after school programs. Redd explicitly said keep the schools and community centers open after hours and on weekends to support kids and families. Cordero made strong points about education and job training for youth and need for community schools.
I have no doubt that all 4 of these candidates want this city to succeed. They each expressed strengths and showed weaknesses. What might be interesting is if whoever is elected (Redd) works to include the other candidates and their constituencies in their administration. You have two experienced adminstrators and all 4 candidates said there needs to be accountability for department heads at city hall. Two new department heads may have been in the room tonight. You have a strong community activist from the Latino community who emphasized respect of citizens, including citizens in a meaningful way with the city, and focus on education (and he has some experience in running or organizing an educational support program). Use these resources, Dana!! Let's not let it be business as usual and circle the wagons. Open up the campfire to EVERY CORNER of the city. That would be novel.
Watch for CCOP's summary of responses to each question. I tried to capture the highlights here.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Race, Racism, Response
So the Joe Wilson frenzy seems to be the media story du jour, giving the Dems something to talk about and the rabid right a new champion. I read a story headline today indicating that calling Obama a socialist or liar was the new vernacular for uppity (thanks to Ian). You can't get away with calling Obama a derisive term related to his race (which is mixed, but that's another issue), but you can call him a liar, a socialist, an ultra-liberal, ad nauseum. The South Carolina reaction mirrored the far right - Joe Wilson is a hero! He spoke truth to power! He put that Obama in his place! Are you getting the picture now?
Newsweek put out an article this week on how children interpret race and how discrimination comes into their psyche. It is a very good read (thanks to Airick). One of the upshots of the article is that kids will make distinctions and if adults sweep racial differences under the rug, we may be making things worse as we leave kids to their own devices. The point made is that adults who try to ignore race, mainly because they think acknowledging race is a de facto discrimination, are making things worse. Better to talk to kids about cultural differences, the fact that people are of different races, and the fact that none of that matters.
We hail Obama as the first African-American President, but we lash out at people who denigrate him because of his race. We can't be colorblind because racial difference is already out there. To ignore it is to confuse kids and leave people to their own interpretations. However, if we suggest that race doesn't matter we run the risk of being callous towards the history of discrimination and vestiges of the most egregious behaviors. These are examples of the confusion that many white people face (see the Newsweek article for the indepth discussion). To this I say, boo - frickin- hoo! Why are white people always whining about confusion with racism? Things like - we don't know what to say, or, black people are so sensitive, or, what am I supposed to do? Watch this video and see a great racism "experiment" in an upscale store and see what I mean (thanks to MILO). At least a few people stood up...
The recent court ruling that vindicated white firefighters who had been passed over for promotion in favor of minorities opened up the entire issue of racial preferences all over again. They claimed that we can't subsidize racial minorities without penalizing whites. Whites in this case declared that at some point the subsidy must stop and the penalizing end. Merit is a fine measure of who should get what job, which promotion, what opportunity. But if the playing field is inherently biased, then should those who are in deficit get better odds to level the playing field? To suggest that whites are penalized is to ignore the imbalance of the starting line. At the end of the day it seems that discrimination begets discrimination - if one group behaves as racists, we attempt to right the wrong. This leads to whites feeling slighted and claiming that minorities are getting more than they deserve if we are "colorblind."
I am sometimes criticized as being an apologist for my race. I don't apologize for my race, I admonish white people to get their act together and live responsibly in a diverse world.
Newsweek put out an article this week on how children interpret race and how discrimination comes into their psyche. It is a very good read (thanks to Airick). One of the upshots of the article is that kids will make distinctions and if adults sweep racial differences under the rug, we may be making things worse as we leave kids to their own devices. The point made is that adults who try to ignore race, mainly because they think acknowledging race is a de facto discrimination, are making things worse. Better to talk to kids about cultural differences, the fact that people are of different races, and the fact that none of that matters.
We hail Obama as the first African-American President, but we lash out at people who denigrate him because of his race. We can't be colorblind because racial difference is already out there. To ignore it is to confuse kids and leave people to their own interpretations. However, if we suggest that race doesn't matter we run the risk of being callous towards the history of discrimination and vestiges of the most egregious behaviors. These are examples of the confusion that many white people face (see the Newsweek article for the indepth discussion). To this I say, boo - frickin- hoo! Why are white people always whining about confusion with racism? Things like - we don't know what to say, or, black people are so sensitive, or, what am I supposed to do? Watch this video and see a great racism "experiment" in an upscale store and see what I mean (thanks to MILO). At least a few people stood up...
The recent court ruling that vindicated white firefighters who had been passed over for promotion in favor of minorities opened up the entire issue of racial preferences all over again. They claimed that we can't subsidize racial minorities without penalizing whites. Whites in this case declared that at some point the subsidy must stop and the penalizing end. Merit is a fine measure of who should get what job, which promotion, what opportunity. But if the playing field is inherently biased, then should those who are in deficit get better odds to level the playing field? To suggest that whites are penalized is to ignore the imbalance of the starting line. At the end of the day it seems that discrimination begets discrimination - if one group behaves as racists, we attempt to right the wrong. This leads to whites feeling slighted and claiming that minorities are getting more than they deserve if we are "colorblind."
I am sometimes criticized as being an apologist for my race. I don't apologize for my race, I admonish white people to get their act together and live responsibly in a diverse world.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Politics and politics
Apparently State Speaker Joe Roberts (Camden) has decided not to run for re-election in November. And presto...Don Norcross, brother of reputed S. Jersey political kingpin George Norcross, will be the party nominee and promptly added to the ballot. Politics here is so efficient. No deliberations are needed, no asking the party members, just leave it to the back room guys and they will handle it. No primary, no muss, no fuss. We will decide who you can vote for. I know this was terribly popular pre-1972. Heck, I come from Chicago where Mayor Daily would out Norcross, Norcross sleeping in his hammock on Sunday afternoon! But the D party changed and demanded primaries. Apparently NJ did not get the memo.
We also have a number of municipal positions open. I know who is running for mayor on the D ticket and the independents. But who is running for the open city council seat that Fuentes is leaving? I thought Redd's seat was open too, but not sure. I just read that she is not giving up her Senate seat until she wins the Mayor's office. Is her seat on council open? Is anyone running? Apparently the local paper of record is not much more than a re-post of press releases. I can't find any information of substance.
I make these remarks not just as an armchair quarterback in Camden observing the sorry state of political affairs. But I sit here knowing that this weekend I will be back in Kansas City helping to deliver a one day campaign school for SCHOOL BOARD!!! Yes, that's right. In our little burg of KCMO, we have done the impossible - raised the awareness and interest in the School District elections to new heights, wherein, over 100 people have signed up to attend the day's event. The event is being sponsored by Kansas Citians United for Educational Achievement (www.kcu4ea.org), a grassroots group that supported the most recently elected school board member; the first school board member to be elected in a contested race on the ballot in many years; in a district that is no better than Camden and to whom the voting public had completely turned its back. The interest in using the political participation process to address the needs of the students in the district has come about because people believe it makes a difference who you elect. The candidate, now school board member, has taken it upon himself to be accountable, to seek unity on the school board to accomplish what he promised, and to honor the unity coalition that elected him.
Kansas City is a racially and ethnically divided city with a long history of segregation. The city is large in size and has 14 school districts. The central district - KCMO - is predominantly black, poor, and shrinking due to white flight to private and charter schools. Yet it was possible to reach across the racial and ethnic divides and create a unity coalition - not to win, but to unify. Winning came naturally out of that. It is the difference between a hack political town like Camden and a success story such as this one.
What does it take to overcome the political malaise of Camden and hold politicians accountable, force transparency, and provide for a unified public where benefits go where needed, not just wanted?
1. it takes committed candidates who seek unity first, accountability first, transparency first, and winning second. Compromising now to "get into office" is a path of ruin. If you compromise to get into office, what makes you think you can possibly be effective? Doesn't mean you have to be righteous and inflexible, but you must have something on which you can be held to account.
2. it takes a point around which the voters will rally - Obama did it with Change, Yes We Can. I don't mean jingoism. I mean a real central point that defines the candidacy. In KC it was Unity for Educational Achievement and the campaign lived that every day and in every strategy. Unity was more important than winning. Obama said many times - if I win, it is because people agree with my principles and ideas. If they don't agree, I won't win and I can live with that.
3. it requires that there be outlets for people to have discourse and dialogue about politics. The paper of record in Camden is short on journalism and long on a bunch of racists who populate the comment pages. In KC the blogosphere is huge, credible, and powerful because it gives people a voice. Where in Camden do people have a voice that is heard and is preserved? Go to a meeting and it is just so much wind blown and gone. Post on a blog or comment on a blog and you have a record that people can go back to and be inspired, incensed, or bored. I post Camden blogs on my blog list here, but the bloggers have to keep posting!! And people have to read and comment to sustain a dialogue!!
That's my Labor Day rant. I'm off to KC to do 2 sessions at our training day on running a local campaign. Should be fun. I hope someday there is a need to do the same thing here in Camden!
We also have a number of municipal positions open. I know who is running for mayor on the D ticket and the independents. But who is running for the open city council seat that Fuentes is leaving? I thought Redd's seat was open too, but not sure. I just read that she is not giving up her Senate seat until she wins the Mayor's office. Is her seat on council open? Is anyone running? Apparently the local paper of record is not much more than a re-post of press releases. I can't find any information of substance.
I make these remarks not just as an armchair quarterback in Camden observing the sorry state of political affairs. But I sit here knowing that this weekend I will be back in Kansas City helping to deliver a one day campaign school for SCHOOL BOARD!!! Yes, that's right. In our little burg of KCMO, we have done the impossible - raised the awareness and interest in the School District elections to new heights, wherein, over 100 people have signed up to attend the day's event. The event is being sponsored by Kansas Citians United for Educational Achievement (www.kcu4ea.org), a grassroots group that supported the most recently elected school board member; the first school board member to be elected in a contested race on the ballot in many years; in a district that is no better than Camden and to whom the voting public had completely turned its back. The interest in using the political participation process to address the needs of the students in the district has come about because people believe it makes a difference who you elect. The candidate, now school board member, has taken it upon himself to be accountable, to seek unity on the school board to accomplish what he promised, and to honor the unity coalition that elected him.
Kansas City is a racially and ethnically divided city with a long history of segregation. The city is large in size and has 14 school districts. The central district - KCMO - is predominantly black, poor, and shrinking due to white flight to private and charter schools. Yet it was possible to reach across the racial and ethnic divides and create a unity coalition - not to win, but to unify. Winning came naturally out of that. It is the difference between a hack political town like Camden and a success story such as this one.
What does it take to overcome the political malaise of Camden and hold politicians accountable, force transparency, and provide for a unified public where benefits go where needed, not just wanted?
1. it takes committed candidates who seek unity first, accountability first, transparency first, and winning second. Compromising now to "get into office" is a path of ruin. If you compromise to get into office, what makes you think you can possibly be effective? Doesn't mean you have to be righteous and inflexible, but you must have something on which you can be held to account.
2. it takes a point around which the voters will rally - Obama did it with Change, Yes We Can. I don't mean jingoism. I mean a real central point that defines the candidacy. In KC it was Unity for Educational Achievement and the campaign lived that every day and in every strategy. Unity was more important than winning. Obama said many times - if I win, it is because people agree with my principles and ideas. If they don't agree, I won't win and I can live with that.
3. it requires that there be outlets for people to have discourse and dialogue about politics. The paper of record in Camden is short on journalism and long on a bunch of racists who populate the comment pages. In KC the blogosphere is huge, credible, and powerful because it gives people a voice. Where in Camden do people have a voice that is heard and is preserved? Go to a meeting and it is just so much wind blown and gone. Post on a blog or comment on a blog and you have a record that people can go back to and be inspired, incensed, or bored. I post Camden blogs on my blog list here, but the bloggers have to keep posting!! And people have to read and comment to sustain a dialogue!!
That's my Labor Day rant. I'm off to KC to do 2 sessions at our training day on running a local campaign. Should be fun. I hope someday there is a need to do the same thing here in Camden!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Camden is Shifting, I hope
Power loves a vacuum and you can call Camden "Hooverville" right now. It's a game of musical chairs in our fair city and here are the changes.
1. We will have a new mayor in the fall, most likely - Dana Redd (giving up her state Senate seat and City Council seat. FYI she replaced a Senator who entered Federal prison today :P)
2. We will have a new President of the City Council - Angel Fuentes is running for State Rep.
3. We will have 2 new city council members - Fuentes and Redd are running for new offices
4. We will have a new state appointed COO - Judge Davis leaves this week
5. We will have a new Public Safety Director - Vega resigned last week
6. We will have a new State Rep - open seat
7. We will have a new State Senator - open seat
8. We will have a new CEO of Cooper's Ferry Development Corp., nonprofit developer of the Camden waterfront - Tom Corcoran left for a similar job in Philly and the V.P. will move up.
9. We have a new Chancellor at RU-C - Wendell Pritchett came over from U Penn
10. And we will have a Gubernatorial election in November, which may or may not give us a new Gov.
You have lame ducks running for a different office, you have vacancies, you have higher-ups running for re-election, and most politicos are paying attention to the election - not governing.
Two things happen when there is this much tumult.
One is that people hunker down and try to keep everything at status quo until new people arrive and the situation can be assessed.
Two is that people proceed into the void and hope to shape the landscape before new people are in place. This is the more likely scenario. People take advantage of the fact that eyes are elsewhere and there is opportunity to act. In Camden, this may be a good thing. If the regular cast of elected officials is looking at the election, there is room to maneuver and actually make some headway in this town where every pol puts their thumb on the City's neck!
The city is in the midst of trying to apply for as much Federal stimulus money as it can. This was not a good time for the COO to walk out.
The city is in the midst of reshaping the police force and getting officers on the street instead of behind the wheel or a desk. This has not been easy. Not a good time for the PS Dir. to quit.
The city needs jobs, jobs, jobs. Not a good time for 2 key City Council people to leave to campaign.
I don't know that it matters if the State Rep and State Senator change. The state legislature is still a bit of a mystery to me.
It is a great time for a new Chancellor at Rutgers, Camden - the academy does not move well with interim place-holders, no matter how good they are.
It is a great time for new leadership to take on the development issues of waterfront neighborhoods. Tom did his job well and was a great champion for Camden. But even he needs to move on to a new challenge and let his successor take a run. Young blood can be a game changer.
Stay tuned. It should be a very interesting Fall season!
1. We will have a new mayor in the fall, most likely - Dana Redd (giving up her state Senate seat and City Council seat. FYI she replaced a Senator who entered Federal prison today :P)
2. We will have a new President of the City Council - Angel Fuentes is running for State Rep.
3. We will have 2 new city council members - Fuentes and Redd are running for new offices
4. We will have a new state appointed COO - Judge Davis leaves this week
5. We will have a new Public Safety Director - Vega resigned last week
6. We will have a new State Rep - open seat
7. We will have a new State Senator - open seat
8. We will have a new CEO of Cooper's Ferry Development Corp., nonprofit developer of the Camden waterfront - Tom Corcoran left for a similar job in Philly and the V.P. will move up.
9. We have a new Chancellor at RU-C - Wendell Pritchett came over from U Penn
10. And we will have a Gubernatorial election in November, which may or may not give us a new Gov.
You have lame ducks running for a different office, you have vacancies, you have higher-ups running for re-election, and most politicos are paying attention to the election - not governing.
Two things happen when there is this much tumult.
One is that people hunker down and try to keep everything at status quo until new people arrive and the situation can be assessed.
Two is that people proceed into the void and hope to shape the landscape before new people are in place. This is the more likely scenario. People take advantage of the fact that eyes are elsewhere and there is opportunity to act. In Camden, this may be a good thing. If the regular cast of elected officials is looking at the election, there is room to maneuver and actually make some headway in this town where every pol puts their thumb on the City's neck!
The city is in the midst of trying to apply for as much Federal stimulus money as it can. This was not a good time for the COO to walk out.
The city is in the midst of reshaping the police force and getting officers on the street instead of behind the wheel or a desk. This has not been easy. Not a good time for the PS Dir. to quit.
The city needs jobs, jobs, jobs. Not a good time for 2 key City Council people to leave to campaign.
I don't know that it matters if the State Rep and State Senator change. The state legislature is still a bit of a mystery to me.
It is a great time for a new Chancellor at Rutgers, Camden - the academy does not move well with interim place-holders, no matter how good they are.
It is a great time for new leadership to take on the development issues of waterfront neighborhoods. Tom did his job well and was a great champion for Camden. But even he needs to move on to a new challenge and let his successor take a run. Young blood can be a game changer.
Stay tuned. It should be a very interesting Fall season!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Camden Waterfront Development 101
So two headlines in Camden caught my attention today.
Headline one is that the June unemployment rate in Camden is at 18%. Of course the actual rate is probably closer to 30% given the way the rate is figured.
Headline two is that a Union County Senator in NJ is trying a last minute block of the demolition of the state prison in Camden that is built on PRIME Delaware River waterfront land with fabu views of the Philly skyline.
Some of the more vitriolic commenters in Camden have used their flawless logic to suggest that if unemployment is high, the prison should stay open because it provides jobs. How many of those jobs are held by Camden residents has not been reported (our hometown newspaper is not exactly an investigative powerhouse). Let's say 20% of the prison staff are Camden residents and there are 500 employees (I'm taking a wild guess here). That would mean 100 jobs for Camden residents. That is a number worth talking about if it is valid. Did I mention that it has been reported that all the guards and staff were redistributed in the NJ Corrections system. So no jobs have been lost, just moved. The value of this land far surpasses its current use. The neighborhood is organized, but very poor and suffers from regular drug dealing, drug users, gun violence, etc. It also has a large share of social service agencies located there.
So the Senator's question is why is the state demolishing a relatively new facility whose lifespan is not yet up? Maybe the question should be, will Camden generate more tax money from a taxpaying development (as opposed to a state building that pays no taxes) and generate more stability in the neighborhood, thus costing the state less in the funding it pays to "take care of" Camden?
I doubt that any analysis has been done on this property, what its value is, what its future use value is, tax revenue expected, or how it will affect the neighborhood's revenue production. Compared to its current tax status (0) and the negative impact on the neighborhood - would you like to buy a home with a lovely view of the prison?-, any development would likely provide a net revenue gain. If something is to be built on the prison site, would there be jobs for residents in construction and in whatever the development becomes? Would it be a net gain to the city in jobs (remember the prison staff got transferred)?
It is amazing to me, no, outragous to me, no, more like incomprehensible to me that there is no jobs plan for Camden. None. Nada. And now a state Senator is going to say - you know - the state may need that prison, so let's not be so hasty to tear it down. Senator - you want a prison so badly - move it to your county.
What would you like to see on that site? I have heard that the neighborhood would like a park. Nice, but there is a waterfront park on the other side of that neighborhood. Do we need another? How about if this land makes some money? Luxury condos? - doubtful. Casino and hotel? - I've heard that idea - we could steal revenue from all the Pennsylvania people. But given how badly Atlantic City is doing, I doubt that will be allowed to happen. How about a grocery store? It would be tucked back into a corner of Camden, but it is easily accessible by residents. Being tucked back means it is much less likely to be robbed - no easy getaway. Make it a waterfront grocery with a full service deli (like they have at Wegmans) and people could eat there, enjoying the waterfront views. Don't taxpaying residents deserve a waterfront view like the prisoners had? Since it is state property or DRPA property or City property - it should be able to be sold for a $1. Then there would be no need for TIF or other incentives. Just build your business and open it. Pay taxes like everyone else. Or lease the land for 25 years. Anything you build there right now will have a shelf life of maybe 30 years. A 20 year run as a grocery would be nice. Give the neighborhood some stability and an anchor.
A grocery would provide some jobs. It would provide nutritious food which is in short supply in Camden, but it won't provide much tax revenue, especially if the land is leased (though a PILOT could be part of the lease). What if condos were built? They would pay residential property taxes, but there would be no jobs. And a bunch of rich people who buy condos in a rough neighborhood will demand lots of services from the city, costing more than they contribute. Not a good bargain.
The point of riverfront space is to make it revenue producing AND accessible to residents so they can enjoy some nice manicured space too. There is an expectation that once the prison is gone, the riverfront walkway on the south side of the BF bridge will extend north to this land. That would enable north Camden residents to easily use the riverwalk.
So can we find a use that fulfills all our needs? First, lets make sure the prison goes away.
Headline one is that the June unemployment rate in Camden is at 18%. Of course the actual rate is probably closer to 30% given the way the rate is figured.
Headline two is that a Union County Senator in NJ is trying a last minute block of the demolition of the state prison in Camden that is built on PRIME Delaware River waterfront land with fabu views of the Philly skyline.
Some of the more vitriolic commenters in Camden have used their flawless logic to suggest that if unemployment is high, the prison should stay open because it provides jobs. How many of those jobs are held by Camden residents has not been reported (our hometown newspaper is not exactly an investigative powerhouse). Let's say 20% of the prison staff are Camden residents and there are 500 employees (I'm taking a wild guess here). That would mean 100 jobs for Camden residents. That is a number worth talking about if it is valid. Did I mention that it has been reported that all the guards and staff were redistributed in the NJ Corrections system. So no jobs have been lost, just moved. The value of this land far surpasses its current use. The neighborhood is organized, but very poor and suffers from regular drug dealing, drug users, gun violence, etc. It also has a large share of social service agencies located there.
So the Senator's question is why is the state demolishing a relatively new facility whose lifespan is not yet up? Maybe the question should be, will Camden generate more tax money from a taxpaying development (as opposed to a state building that pays no taxes) and generate more stability in the neighborhood, thus costing the state less in the funding it pays to "take care of" Camden?
I doubt that any analysis has been done on this property, what its value is, what its future use value is, tax revenue expected, or how it will affect the neighborhood's revenue production. Compared to its current tax status (0) and the negative impact on the neighborhood - would you like to buy a home with a lovely view of the prison?-, any development would likely provide a net revenue gain. If something is to be built on the prison site, would there be jobs for residents in construction and in whatever the development becomes? Would it be a net gain to the city in jobs (remember the prison staff got transferred)?
It is amazing to me, no, outragous to me, no, more like incomprehensible to me that there is no jobs plan for Camden. None. Nada. And now a state Senator is going to say - you know - the state may need that prison, so let's not be so hasty to tear it down. Senator - you want a prison so badly - move it to your county.
What would you like to see on that site? I have heard that the neighborhood would like a park. Nice, but there is a waterfront park on the other side of that neighborhood. Do we need another? How about if this land makes some money? Luxury condos? - doubtful. Casino and hotel? - I've heard that idea - we could steal revenue from all the Pennsylvania people. But given how badly Atlantic City is doing, I doubt that will be allowed to happen. How about a grocery store? It would be tucked back into a corner of Camden, but it is easily accessible by residents. Being tucked back means it is much less likely to be robbed - no easy getaway. Make it a waterfront grocery with a full service deli (like they have at Wegmans) and people could eat there, enjoying the waterfront views. Don't taxpaying residents deserve a waterfront view like the prisoners had? Since it is state property or DRPA property or City property - it should be able to be sold for a $1. Then there would be no need for TIF or other incentives. Just build your business and open it. Pay taxes like everyone else. Or lease the land for 25 years. Anything you build there right now will have a shelf life of maybe 30 years. A 20 year run as a grocery would be nice. Give the neighborhood some stability and an anchor.
A grocery would provide some jobs. It would provide nutritious food which is in short supply in Camden, but it won't provide much tax revenue, especially if the land is leased (though a PILOT could be part of the lease). What if condos were built? They would pay residential property taxes, but there would be no jobs. And a bunch of rich people who buy condos in a rough neighborhood will demand lots of services from the city, costing more than they contribute. Not a good bargain.
The point of riverfront space is to make it revenue producing AND accessible to residents so they can enjoy some nice manicured space too. There is an expectation that once the prison is gone, the riverfront walkway on the south side of the BF bridge will extend north to this land. That would enable north Camden residents to easily use the riverwalk.
So can we find a use that fulfills all our needs? First, lets make sure the prison goes away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
