This Small City Has a Plan to Fight the Silicon Valley Housing Crisis
This Small City Has a Plan to Fight the Silicon Valley Housing Crisis
For more than three months, Gabriela Mercado has crisscrossed Richmond, California, a working-class and immigrant city that sits on the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay. She hits the streets...
For more than three months, Gabriela Mercado has crisscrossed Richmond, California, a working-class and immigrant city that sits on the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay. She hits the streets, talks to strangers, and knocks on doors in support of an old-school solution to towering rents across the region. She is part of a coalition of workers, tenants, and progressive politicians pushing an initiative on the November 8 ballot that would create the first new rent-control law in California in nearly 30 years. Mercado says her commitment to the cause comes from personal crisis.
This article was produced in partnership with Local Progress, a network of progressive local elected officials, to highlight some of the bold efforts unfolding in cities across the country.
In early 2015, the owner of Mercado’s apartment complex increased tenants’ rent by as much as $200. It was frightening, she says. Many of the resident families made only minimum wage and couldn’t absorb the new costs. After an organizing drive and a partial rent strike, the increase was rolled back, but not completely. Mercado, who has worked at Chuck E. Cheese’s and as an office janitor, says she was forced to find additional income. Doing so meant she spent less time with her daughter.
“I am involved because of what we went through,” she says. “Because it is unjust what they did to us.” She wants rent control so her family “won’t have to worry about the rent suddenly going up again.”
At a time when the real-estate market is aflame with speculation, Richmond residents like Mercado are revitalizing tenants’-rights activism in the Bay Area. And they are no anomaly. On November 8, the small cities of Alameda, Mountain View, Burlingame, and San Mateo will also vote on ballot initiatives that could establish rent and eviction controls of varying stringency. Landlords, led by the powerful California Apartment Association (CAA), are determined to snuff out these efforts, and they have spent serious money on a counter-campaign. The initiatives, after all, could be the beginning of something significant. The state’s once-vibrant tenants’ movement, dormant for decades, finally seems ready to return to California politics and put its power on display.
Richmond’s rent-control drive comes in the midst of one of the most crushing affordable-housing crises in Bay Area history—a disaster comprised of cratering post-recession home-ownership rates and rocket-fueled rent increases, suspicious arsons and mass evictions, breakneck gentrification, and sprawling tent encampments huddled under highway overpasses. It started in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, where the tech boom first exploded, and soon seeped into surrounding cities like Oakland, Alameda, and others.
The dry data too suggest major social disruption. Since 2010, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the average asking price of Bay Area rental units has increased by 66 percent, or approximately $1,000, to more than $2,500. San Francisco and San Jose are the two most expensive rental markets in the country, according to Zillow. Rent in Oakland, meanwhile, has spiked 71 percent in little more than three years.
People in Richmond also see the housing crisis coming their way, says Gayle McLaughlin, city councilwoman, former mayor, and Local Progress member. And they are determined to do something about it.
“Our residents are largely working-class, and our community cannot thrive and maintain itself with these kinds of rent increases,” says McLaughlin. “What I have seen happen and what will happen further is that people will be forced out—forced out of our city. They will be homeless, their kids will have to be taken out of schools, families will have to double up.”
McLaughlin’s political party, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), is well-known in the Bay for its bold policies and unlikely victories. It has waged high-profile electoral battles against Chevron, which owns a massive refinery in the city and is deeply involved in local politics. It has pushed for minimum-wage hikes and taxes on sugary drinks. It has vociferously resisted oil-by-rail shipments to regional ports. Now, as part of a broader community coalition, the RPA is fighting for rent control.
The RPA first pressed—and passed—a rent- and eviction-control ordinance in Richmond’s City Council in 2015, but it didn’t live long. The California Apartment Association torpedoed the law after rallying its troops, gathering signatures and using a petitioning procedure to block the ordinance’s implementation. RPA, and its partners, countered: They collected their own batch of signatures and got a rent-control initiative on this year’s ballot.
Because of state law, the initiative is constrained in scope. It will peg annual rent increases on units built before 1995 to the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index, thus linking rent hikes to inflation. Any units built after that year will not be affected. The initiative also seeks to protect tenants from unjust eviction. If it passes, landlords will no longer be able to give tenants an eviction notice without cause. A rent board will be established to oversee enforcement.
Powerful people are opposed to the proposal, of course. Richmond Mayor Tom Butt has come out against it, calling it “poorly drafted.” The California Apartment Association meanwhile, is vigorously resisting the regional initiatives. According to Joshua Howard, a CAA senior vice president, the organization has spent at least $1 million on TV spots, radio ads, and the like to block rent control in the Bay Area.
“We want the voters to understand that we do face a crisis in Northern California and we do need to protect the diversity and character of our communities,” he says. “But these ballot measures do not address the underlying problem.” To truly fix the problem, he adds, more affordable housing must be built.
Gayle McLaughlin agrees with that last sentiment. New housing for “low-income and very low-income people” is desperately needed, she says. In the meantime, she argues that rent control will help clot the hemorrhaging of working-class residents. She also notes that rent regulation would be much more effective if California officials repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act of 1995, a landlord-backed state law that severely limits municipal authority over rent policy. The law bans rent control on buildings built after 1995, and also prohibits vacancy-control measures across the state, among other provisions.
In other words, if activists really want to make change it will have to take place at the state level. That, says Peter Dreier, an urban- and environmental-policy professor at Occidental College, will require a powerful tenants’-rights movement, like the one that thrived across the state in the 1970s.
“There’s a lot of anger and outrage about rising rents all over the state at the grassroots level, and there are a growing number of local groups trying to organize around it,” he says. “I would say the tenants’ movement is the sleeping giant of California politics.”
Thanks to relentless organizing in small cities like Richmond, the giant is starting to stir.
By Jimmy Tobias
Source
Fed Rate Hike Threatens Jobs and Wages
12/16/2015
Statement & Booking Opportunity : Connie Razza, Director of Strategic Research for the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) released...
12/16/2015
Statement & Booking Opportunity : Connie Razza, Director of Strategic Research for the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) released the following statement in advance of the likely interest rate hike this afternoon:
“The presumption underlying the Fed’s decision today is that the economic recovery is nearing completion, a determination wholly at odds with the data on which the Fed is committed to depending. Inflation is well below the Fed’s own target and wages remain stagnant, yet Fed officials voted today to intentionally slow down the economy. Today’s announcement lays the foundation for unnecessary economic obstacles in the way of the tens of millions of working people across the country who deserve higher wages and better jobs, and particularly the Black and Latino communities still mired in a Great Recession. We urge the Federal Reserve to deliberate carefully in considering future increases.” The Fed Up campaign is bringing the voices of working families and communities of color into the national debate about Federal Reserve policy. In the past year, our members have met with 9 of the 12 regional presidents and 4 of the 5 sitting Governors, sharing with them the human realities that underlie the economic numbers. We are urging the Fed to fulfill both sides of its dual mandate and build an economy with genuine full employment, where everybody who wants a good job can find one. In the event that the Federal Reserve does not raise interest rates, you will receive another statement following the Fed’s announcement on Wednesday afternoon.
To schedule interviews with Connie Razza, send an email to ajain@populardemocracy.org
###
www.populardemocracy.org
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Media Contact:
Anita Jain, press@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761
Sofie Tholl, stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558
One Word Could Be Worth a Million Jobs
Supporting a strong job market is a big part of the U.S. Federal Reserve's mandate. Fed officials, though, interpret that goal differently than most observers do. For the economy's sake, Congress...
Supporting a strong job market is a big part of the U.S. Federal Reserve's mandate. Fed officials, though, interpret that goal differently than most observers do. For the economy's sake, Congress should step in to resolve the discrepancy.
Specifically, the Federal Reserve Act instructs the central bank to promote "maximum employment" and "stable prices." Most people understand these instructions as meaning the Fed should seek to generate as much demand for workers as possible without causing an unduly large increase in prices.
The website of the Fed's Board of Governors, however, makes a slight modification to the jobs mandate: "maximum sustainable employment." Innocuous as it may seem, that one word can make a big difference.
How? Well, suppose inflation is running below the Fed's 2 percent target and the unemployment rate is at 5 percent, which officials consider to be its long-run level (pretty much the current situation). They can choose between two monetary policies, which are expected to result in the following paths for the unemployment rate:
Most observers would opt for the second policy. It's more aggressive, so it will get inflation back to target sooner. Even better, the unemployment rate is the same or lower every year, and by a significant amount: One percentage point is worth more than a million jobs.
The word "sustainable," however, means that the Fed views any deviation from the long-run unemployment rate -- up or down -- as undesirable. When officials speak of the economy “overheating” or “running hot” in the absence of inflationary pressures, this is what I think they have in mind. So they would see unemployment as running too low under policy 2.
Some Fed officials worry that “overheating” could trigger a recession. (I don’t understand the precise economic mechanism, but let’s leave that aside.) They think policy 2 might generate the following path for the unemployment rate:
Policy 2: Possible Recession Outcome
In 2019 and 2020, the economy falls into recession. From the Fed’s perspective, this unemployment path is terrible, because the rate is either too low or too high for the next four years.
It's easy to imagine, though, that many people would be willing to trade the risk of recessionary pain in 2019 and 2020 for the near-term gain of 2017 and 2018. They might even believe there's some chance that policy 2 will generate an outstanding outcome -- if, for example, the long-run unemployment rate is actually lower than the Fed thinks it is. Here's how that would look:
This interpretational divide was on full display last month, when Fed officials met with representatives of the pro-employment activist group Fed Up. The activists largely assumed that the central bank was contemplating near-term interest-rate increases to keep inflation in check. But most of the officials downplayed inflation, invoking instead the need to keep the economy from running too hot (which some said could lead to a recession).
I find it hard to believe that the Fed's approach is consistent with Congress's intent as expressed in the Federal Reserve Act. That said, it's really up to legislators to provide an unequivocal answer, which could matter a lot for the economy over the next few years.
By Narayana Kocherlakota
Source
Lange, unregelmäßige Arbeitszeit: Starbucks weiter in der Kritik
Die Kritik vieler Mitarbeiter an den Arbeitsbedingungen bei der Kaffeehauskette Starbucks hat für einen neuen Begriff im Wortschatz vieler US-Amerikaner gesorgt: "Clopening". Für viele...
Die Kritik vieler Mitarbeiter an den Arbeitsbedingungen bei der Kaffeehauskette Starbucks hat für einen neuen Begriff im Wortschatz vieler US-Amerikaner gesorgt: "Clopening". Für viele Mitarbeiter ist das späte Schließen und das morgendliche Öffnen der Filialen durch ein und dieselbe Person eine hohe Belastung. Im vergangenen Jahr gelobte Starbucks Besserung, nachdem die "New York Times" ausführlich über Praktiken wie das "Clopening" berichtet hatte. Die Kritik richtete sich gegen die unregelmäßigen und zum Teil überlangen Arbeitszeiten, die den Mitarbeitern nur sehr kurzfristig mitgeteilt würden.
Hat sich seither etwas gebessert? Nein, schreibt die NGO Center for Popular Democracy in einer ausführlichen Analyse. Zuvor wurden Mitarbeiter befragt. Diese bemängeln nicht nur die weiterhin vorkommenden "Clopenings", sondern auch die Schwierigkeit, bei Krankheit Ersatz zu finden – ein Mitarbeiter bezeichnet es als anstrengender, selbst so lange durchzutelefonieren, bis er einen Springer gefunden hat, als einfach selbst krank zur Arbeit zu gehen. Problematisch sei auch die chronische Unterbesetzung der Filialen, die sich wiederum auf die Arbeitszeit auswirke.
Missstände auch in Europa
Starbucks ist nicht die einzige Kette, die ihren Mitarbeitern einiges abverlangt. Die Kritik findet in den USA deswegen so großes Echo, weil Starbucks seine Mitarbeiter als "Partner" bezeichnet und die Philosophie verfolgt, "den menschlichen Geist zu inspirieren und zu nähren". Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass die sozial und umweltbewusst wirkende Unternehmensphilosophie (Fairtrade, Aktionen gegen Rassismus, bezahlte Ausbildung, Krankenversicherung) auf die Kaffeehauskette zurückfällt.
Beschwerden gab es in den vergangenen Jahren einige – auch außerhalb der USA. 2010 schleuste sich ein ZDF-Reporter in eine Starbucks-Filiale auf dem Frankfurter Flughafen ein und wurde Zeuge eines harten Arbeitsalltags: Abmahnungen gebe es teilweise wegen falscher Sockenfarbe, fiebrige Mitarbeiter durften nicht nach Hause gehen.
Dass sich bei Arbeitszeit und Dienstplänen nichts zum Positiven geändert hat, sieht man in der Führungsebene von Starbucks naturgemäß anders: "Wir sind die Ersten, die zugeben, dass wir viel Arbeit vor uns haben", sagte Unternehmenssprecherin Jaime Riley der "New York Times". Alle Angestellten würden ihre Dienstpläne mittlerweile mindestens zehn Tage im Voraus bekommen. In alle Filialen durchgedrungen sei diese Praxis aber noch nicht, heißt es in der Analyse des Center for Popular Democracy. (lhag, 25.9.2015)
Untersuchung des Center for Popular Democracy zu Dienstplänen
"New York Times"-Enthüllungen 2014
"New York Times"-Status-quo-Bericht 2015
Kooperation zwischen Starbucks und der Arizona State University
Source: derStandard.at
The Tragedy of Janet Yellen
In December 2012, a new Federal Reserve governor and unseasoned monetary policymaker, Jerome Powell, told his colleagues that the risks of continued stimulus likely outweighed the benefits. Vice...
In December 2012, a new Federal Reserve governor and unseasoned monetary policymaker, Jerome Powell, told his colleagues that the risks of continued stimulus likely outweighed the benefits. Vice Chair Janet Yellen, even then one of the most experienced policymakers in the Fed’s 104-year history, acknowledged the concerns but pushed back forcefully. She argued that “slow progress in moving the economy back toward full employment will not only impose immense costs on American families and the economy at large, but may also do permanent damage to the labor market.” In other words, if we don’t take risks now to get more Americans employed, the country might lose the opportunity to ever fully recover from the Great Recession. She reminded her colleagues of the promise they had made: “We communicated that we will at least keep refilling the punch bowl until the guests have all arrived, and will not remove it prematurely before the party is well under way.”
Read the full article here.
What Can Jews Do About Police Violence After Shootings — and Dallas?
What Can Jews Do About Police Violence After Shootings — and Dallas?
Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!”
The ground this week is not East of Eden, where Cain slew Abel; it is St. Paul, Minnesota, where Philando Castile was gunned down...
Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!”
The ground this week is not East of Eden, where Cain slew Abel; it is St. Paul, Minnesota, where Philando Castile was gunned down while reaching for his ID. It is Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Alton Sterling was shot at point-blank range, already immobilized and pinned down by police.
And while you, reader, are not Cain — after all, you did not pull the trigger — neither can any of us object, as he did, “Am I my brother’s keeper?!” We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, as Americans, as mostly-white and mostly-privileged Jews, as participants in a society where so many tragedies become travesties of racial injustice.
But what can we do? What can I do?
First, we must, communally, recognize that this is a real crisis and make it a subject of dinner conversations, rabbinic sermons and communal action. Because in fact, the problem isn’t just the cops; it’s us.
Thanks to the proliferation of recording technologies, the crisis of police violence is now more visible than ever before; Castile was killed live on Facebook. Indeed, as best as we can tell, the rates of violence haven’t risen much; we’re just seeing the evidence of it more.
Yet even in the face of gruesome videos, there is still a great deal of denial among white Americans that the deaths of Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald, Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Rekia Boyd and now Castile and Sterling, are, in fact, a crisis of police violence against people of color. After all, none of the officers were found guilty in a court of law; they had reasons to believe they were in danger; these things happen.
But these things don’t just happen. Yes, most police officers are diligently doing their jobs and keeping us all safe. Painting with a broad brush is not only inaccurate, but leads to tragedies such as the shooting deaths of three police officers at a Dallas protest this week. At the same time, the statistics paint a convincing, terrible picture.
Over 1,000 people are killed by police every year, nearly 60% of whom were either unarmed or should never have been stopped in the first place. Compare that number to other countries. Germany had 6, Britain, 2; Japan, 0. What the hell is wrong with us, as a country?
One problem is how we police. “Quality of life” policing is a gigantic dragnet, ostensibly based on the “broken windows” theory that even petty crime leads to a deterioration of law and order in general. In practice, however, it creates confrontations where none need to exist. And then “these things happen.”
I’ll give you an example that isn’t in the news, and isn’t based on race. Just last week, an acquaintance of mine was relaxing on a beach when his towel slipped off. He wasn’t wearing anything underneath. This was a minor infraction of the law — but my friend was suddenly jumped by five police officers (two in civilian clothes), pinned to the ground and dragged, naked, off the beach while he pleaded for help.
That entire confrontation should never have taken place. At most, he should have been given a citation; really, he should have just been warned. But, presumably because that particular beach is popular with LGBTQ people and with people of color, someone, somewhere, decided that a crackdown was necessary. Thank God my friend didn’t resist arrest; he, too, could have been a statistic.
Now multiply that encounter by ten thousand, maybe a hundred thousand. Even without “stop and frisk,” our nation’s approach to policing creates dangerous situations. Violence becomes inevitable.
“Broken windows” must end. “For-profit policing,” in which cops are given quotas for minor offenses in order to generate revenue and evaluate police performance, must end. Profiling must end. Escalation of minor incidents must end. The philosophy must change.
Another problem is how police are trained and reviewed. In many places, cops are not adequately trained to balance protecting safety (their own and others’) with defusing conflict. They respond, routinely, with overwhelming and often deadly force to situations that could be resolved without it. They are often scared kids, put into stressful situations with inadequate mental resources.
The rules of engagement must be changed at the training level and the legal level. States and cities should adopt international standards for the use of deadly force — both as cops are trained and as their actions are reviewed. Standards of review should be changed.
And of course, cameras should be placed on every cop in America — with strict rules that civilians’ faces be obscured before any recording is released to the public. This should help the vast majority of cops, since recordings help explain and defend appropriate conduct as much as they reveal misconduct. And in addition to holding bad cops accountable, body cameras could help prevent misconduct from happening in the first place.
Yet of the 509 fatal shootings by police that have taken place this year, body cameras were worn in only 64 of them. Who knows how many of the remaining 445 lives might have been saved, or what we would have known about the circumstances of their deaths?
Another problem is weaponization. The last two decades have witnessed a massive militarization of civilian police forces. Town sheriffs are buying tanks, military-grade weaponry — it’s outrageous and dangerous and unwarranted. Arm cops to the teeth, and they will use the tools they’re given.
And then, of course, there’s race.
Of those 509 people fatally shot by police so far this year, 202 were black or Hispanic. Young black men were killed at five times the rate of similarly-aged white men. Even taking into account higher crime rates in communities of color, this has been shown by exhaustive, detailed studies to be disproportionate. According to once such study, correcting for all these and other factors, the probability of being black, unarmed and shot by police is 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed and shot by police.
That’s why we need #blacklivesmatter and not #alllivesmatter: because when it comes to police violence, black lives clearly matter less.
Part of this is demographics: White men are less than one third of the U.S. population, but they are two thirds of police officers. Most of them are not overtly racist. But unconscious bias affects all of us, no matter how well-meaning we are. That’s what white privilege is: precisely that which is often invisible.
And when it comes to cops, we’re talking about life and death. This, too, must change, through recruiting, training and changes in the way our entire society talks about race.
Finally, while I doubt those Forward readers intending to vote for a candidate espousing white supremacy will ever be persuaded by evidence, it’s worth bearing in mind the yawning gap between the presidential candidates, and political parties, on this issue. Hillary Clinton has proposed creating national use-of-force guidelines, ending all forms of racial profiling, and improving training in conflict de-escalation.
Donald Trump has proposed nothing, but has said “We have to give strength and power back to the police.”
And in this regard, most other Republicans are right on board with him, usually refusing to acknowledge that a crisis is taking place or that is has anything to do with race. This, of course, reflects the racialized preferences of their white, conservative base. (The racism Trump’s candidacy has ignited didn’t come from nowhere.) It is also reprehensible.
As on so many other issues — climate change, gun regulation, the wealth gap — the Republican Party is on the wrong side of justice. If Trump is elected, more innocent black people will die. It is that simple. And those #StillBernie lefties still spreading calumnies about Clinton in the name of this or that pet issue should reflect on that.
Now, I didn’t come up with a single solution in this column. They and others are listed, and described in detail, on the websites of Campaign Zero, the Center for Popular Democracy and the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing: ending “broken windows,” limiting use of force, demilitarization, body cameras, oversight, et cetera.
And yet, each time something like this happens, we white people ask ourselves “What can be done?” often throwing up our hands in despair. When in fact, a lot can be done. The problem is that around half the population doesn’t want to do it.
So, ironically, we need to make this crisis worse. Police violence against people of color requires local involvement, pushing for city- and county-level reforms. That gives Jewish communities, and other organized groups, unique leverage to make change — if we care enough to do so. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow privileged Jews aren’t “woke” to the crisis or the ways to address it. While God may hear the cries of our brothers’ blood, we are often deaf to them.
By JAY MICHEALSON
Source
City Council Votes to Increase Oversight of New York Police
The New York Times - June 27, 2013, by J. David Goodman - Over the objections of the mayor and police commissioner, the New York City Council early Thursday morning approved by veto-proof...
The New York Times - June 27, 2013, by J. David Goodman - Over the objections of the mayor and police commissioner, the New York City Council early Thursday morning approved by veto-proof majorities a pair of bills aimed at increasing oversight of the Police Department and expanding New Yorkers’ ability to sue over racial profiling by officers.
The two bills, known together as the Community Safety Act, passed during a late-night meeting of the Council that began after 11 p.m., lasted more than three hours and in which members also voted to pass the city’s budget and override a mayoral veto of a law on paid sick leave.
But it was the two policing bills that for months have stirred a heated public debate between its supporters, who are seeking a legal means to change the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, who have warned that the measures would hamstring police officers and lead to a dangerous spike in crime.
One, known as Intro 1079, would create an independent inspector general to monitor and review police policy, conduct investigations and recommend changes to the department. The monitor would be part of the city’s Investigation Department alongside the inspectors general for other city agencies.
The law would go into effect Jan. 1, 2014, leaving the matter of choosing the monitor to the next mayor.
The other bill, Intro 1080, would expand the definition of bias-based profiling to include age, gender, housing status and sexual orientation. It also would allow individuals to sue the Police Department in state court — not only for individual instances of bias, but also for policies that disproportionately affect people in any protected categories without serving a significant law enforcement goal.
Both measures passed the 51-member Council with the votes needed to override a mayoral veto. As that threshold was passed just after 2:20 a.m., scores of supporters who had filled the chamber’s gallery and waited hours through the debate erupted into cheers.
Mr. Bloomberg, who has promised to veto both measures and this week called his opposition to them a matter of “life and death,” released a statement after the vote. “I will veto this harmful legislation and continue to make our case to Council members over the coming days and weeks,” he said.
An attempt to override his veto would extend the protracted clash between the mayor and the Council over policing. The process could take more than two months, putting the override vote only weeks before the mayoral primary.
The legislation has already been a nettlesome issue in the Democratic race for mayor, especially for Christine C. Quinn, the Council speaker, who has faced a growing challenge to her early front-runner status. She supported the measure creating an independent inspector general for the Police Department, which passed by a vote of 40 to 11, but she opposed the other, on police profiling, which received 34 votes in favor and 17 against.
“I worry about having too much judicial involvement,” she said before casting her vote, explaining that she did not believe the profiling bill would make New Yorkers less safe.
Despite her earlier stated opposition, she allowed both bills to move forward, and on Monday presided over a so-called discharge vote — the first since the current structure of the Council was established in 1989 — to bring the legislation out of committee, where it had stalled.
The two bills were first introduced as a package last year by Councilmen Jumaane D. Williams and Brad Lander.
Mr. Bloomberg has 30 days to veto the bills. If he does so, the City Council then has 30 days from its next full meeting to hold an override vote. The mayor and the Police Department have lobbied hard against the bills in public and behind the scenes, and they appeared likely to keep up the pressure between the veto and the override vote in an effort to change the minds of supporters.
Mr. Kelly sent a letter on Tuesday to each of the Council members, arguing that the profiling bill could be used to force the removal of surveillance cameras and urging them to vote against it. “The bill would allow virtually everyone in New York City to sue the Police Department and individual police officers over the entire range of law enforcement functions they perform,” Mr. Kelly wrote.
Mr. Williams, responding to Mr. Kelly’s letter, said: “If the cameras were put in high crime neighborhoods as a response, that’s good policing. If he put them there because black people live there, that’s a problem.”
At least one Council member received a call from his local police station commander to protest the legislation ahead of the vote.
“They were deeply concerned about 250s and said they would be unable to perform them because of the profiling part of the reform,” said Councilman Daniel Dromm of Queens, referring to the police form used for street stops. “But for me, it’s the teeth of the reform; it’s the needed piece.” He voted for both bills.
In voting against the two measures early Thursday morning, Peter F. Vallone Jr., the chairman of the public safety committee, said, “New Yorkers went to bed a long time ago, safe in their beds. But they are going to wake up in a much more dangerous city.”
Source
Los trabajadores latinos quieren que la Fed les oiga
Lo cierto es que pese a la mejora económica la tasa de desempleo de latinos (6.8%) y negros (9.1%) es más elevada que la de los blancos (4.6%) y asiáticos (4%) y muchos de ellos trabajan por...
Lo cierto es que pese a la mejora económica la tasa de desempleo de latinos (6.8%) y negros (9.1%) es más elevada que la de los blancos (4.6%) y asiáticos (4%) y muchos de ellos trabajan por sueldos muy bajos. Muchos de ellos, como Rubio no sienten la recuperación. “Yo paso por los bares y los veo llenos incluso los lunes pero no todos podemos hacer eso, yo no”, explica.
Su inquietud por los más desfavorecidos le ha llevado a integrarse en la asociación comunitaria Make the Road para ayudar a los trabajadores, muchos de ellos latinos, de forma diferente a como lo hacía en su país. Desde hoy está en Jackson Hole, Wyoming, donde se reunen economistas de todo el mundo y representantes de bancos centrales para hablar de política monetaria. Rubio forma parte de un grupo de trabajadores y asociaciones de base de todo el país, en las que hay representación latina, que quieren convencer a la Reserva Federal de que no suba las tasas de interés. Su argumento es que si se quedan bajas como ahora “ayudarán a mejorar las condiciones laborales y crear más empleo”.
Rubio dice que la recuperación no ha llegado a los trabajadores como ella y que por eso no es momento de empezar a subir unas tasas que reconoce que están históricamente bajas(0%-0.25% desde diciembre de 2008) para estimular el crecimiento durante la reciente Gran Recesión.
“Lo que decide la Fed nos atañe a todos”, explica con convicción Rubio antes de hablar de la fuerte desigualdad laboral que hay y el hecho de que apenas hay inflación, motivo por el que no debería haber prisa por subir tasas o como dicen los economistas, normalizarlas. El programa de Jackson Hole y la lista de asistentes se hace público por el organizador de este encuentro anual, la Reserva Federal de Kansas City, hoy mismo pero ya se sabe que la presidenta de la Fed, Janet Yellen, no va a asistir. Rubio espera estar en algunas reuniones con parte de los asistentes.
“Uno piensa que no les van a ver pero ha veces que hay que pedir y abrir un caminito”, dice.
De hecho, Rubio, junto con otros trabajadores y activistas, ya se reunió este mismo mes con el presidente de la Reserva Federal de Nueva York, William Dudley. Según esta hondureña les dio la razón cuando se planteó la existencia de una desigualdad laboral y que no hay empleo para todos. Dudley dijo que dada la situación económica fuera de las fronteras la necesidad de subir las tasas es ahora “menos imperiosa”.
Ady Barkan, abogado del Centro de Democracia Popular que está impulsando la campaña “Fed Up” y estas peticiones ante la Reserva, explica que es necesario que las autoridades monetarias “presten atención a los trabajadores”.
“La economía no se ha recuperado, hay mucho desempleo entre negros y latinos, subempleo, baja participación en el mercado laboral y apenas hay subidas de salarios”, resume Barkan. Este abogado cree que la economía necesita tasas bajas para que las empresas sigan invirtiendo de forma barata y que haya préstamos asequibles que reactiven el consumo de todos.
Lo cierto es que las empresas tienen cash y algunos tipos de préstamos como los hipotecarios no han remontado lo esperado. “No obstante, si las tasas suben la situación será peor”, explica Barkan, “porque las empresas tendrán más motivos para quedarse sentadas en sus montañas de cash si tienen rendimiento de ellas y por que para invertir necesitan una inflación que no hay, ni habrá si suben tasas”.
“La economía tiene que calentarse un poco más”, dice. Barkan admite que las tasas bajas no son suficientes y que sería bueno que el Congreso hiciera algo además de subir el salario mínimo.
Representantes de la campaña de Fed Up ya se han reunido con Yellen y presidentes de otras reservas como la de Kansas, San Francisco y Atlanta entre otras, miembros de la Federal.
Dean Baker co director del Center for Economic and Policy Research de Washington publicaba recientemente que la subida “reducirá ingresos y oportunidades para quienes menos tienen”, una posición que también comparte el nobel de economía, Joseph Stiglitz.
¿Cuál es la misión de la Reserva Federal?
La Reserva Federal o Fed es uno de los reguladores de la banca y la autoridad que tiene en sus manos la política monetaria, es decir, regula la cantidad de dinero en circulación. ¿Su misión? Asegurarse de que se creen las condiciones de crédito y monetarias para conseguir el máximo empleo, precios estables (ni inflación ni deflación) y tasas de interés a largo plazo moderadas.
¿Cómo funcionan las tasas?
La Reserva Federal sube las tasas de interés a corto plazo, el dinero que se prestan los bancos entre sí, para retirar dinero del mercado y evitar las subidas de precios o inflación. Cuando las baja es porque los precios están bajos y falla el consumo. Al bajarlas se pone más dinero en circulación lo que, en teoría, animando la economía. Estas tasas a corto terminan reflejándose en las de largo plazo que son las que se usan en hipotecas y otros préstamos que se usan para comprar e invertir. Cuanto más se invierte y más crece la economía más y mejor trabajo se crea.
Source: La Raza
‘Our Town’ benefit raises $500,000 for Puerto Rico
A SUPERHERO EFFORT on Monday night at the Fox Theatre raised more than $500,000 for hurricane relief in Puerto Rico.
The event: a starry staged reading of Thornton Wilder’s great American...
A SUPERHERO EFFORT on Monday night at the Fox Theatre raised more than $500,000 for hurricane relief in Puerto Rico.
The event: a starry staged reading of Thornton Wilder’s great American play Our Town, organized by actor Scarlett Johansson and directed by True Colors Theatre’s Kenny Leon.
Read the full article here.
Voting rights: the fight for our democracy
There is a battle under way for our democracy. The choice that lies in front of us: Will we be a country that guarantees every eligible citizen the right to vote and participate? Or will we allow...
There is a battle under way for our democracy. The choice that lies in front of us: Will we be a country that guarantees every eligible citizen the right to vote and participate? Or will we allow states and politicians to twist voting rules and ignore constitutional rights in order to limit access to democracy?
That is the choice in front of us, and it is not an abstract choice.
Read the full article here.
1 day ago
1 day ago