Campaign News

 At the watery edge of Sunset Park, a working-class neighborhood of Chinese, Latino, and Indian immigrants in Brooklyn, lies the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, a vast plot of warehouses and docks managed by New York City’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC). The terminal is part of an ambitious plan to generate new industrial jobs, innovation, and economic development serving local residents and the city more broadly. The plan, which has been a top priority for the administrations of both Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, involves efforts to invest in infrastructure and create incentives for new manufacturing businesses while creating new parks for local community members.

But in early 2015, a brewing dispute over the management of the project threatened to derail it. City Council member Carlos Menchaca, who represents Sunset Park, raised concerns about EDC’s role in managing the land and project, blaming the agency for insufficiently involving the local community in shaping the vision for Sunset Park’s future. This 11th-hour snag led to an unusually public war of words between Menchaca and the EDC. After months of further negotiations, the administration agreed to create a planning-and-jobs task force to engage community members, in addition to reinvesting 5 percent of the site’s revenue into a community fund and improvements to the nearby Bush Terminal Park.

While that task force has engaged local residents in a series of town-hall meetings, private investment has rapidly poured into the area as developers snatch up property for new industrial and commercial uses. The influx has left local residents fearful that, despite the new task force, they are still being left out of the conversations about the neighborhood’s future. While many say they welcome the influx of investment and jobs, they worry that, without a voice in the process, they might be displaced or left out of the economic gains.

In the midst of our national conversation about economic inequality, these questions of local-level economic development are critical. Although easily overlooked in favor of more sweeping policy issues, the reality is that cities have a disproportionate stake in the inequality crisis. Urban areas house more than 80 percent of the US population—and within these urban areas, policy decisions about how to attract investment, development, and jobs play a defining role in who gains from the resulting benefits and who loses, often for years to come.

But, as the debate roiling Sunset Park suggests, the concerns over development go even deeper than job-creation numbers and zoning. Beneath the surface is a new and more persistent anxiety about governance—about who makes decisions and how those decisions get made. If economic policy is to address inequality, it must not only be the right policy; it must also be formulated and driven by the right people.

At the national level, a growing body of scholarship indicates that the economic policies that have helped exacerbate inequality are themselves rooted in political inequalities, as industry, business, and economic-elite interests have continued to sway elections, legislation, and policymaking. As scholars like Larry Bartels, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Nicholas Carnes, and Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have argued, economic policies skew to favor the interests of wealthier citizens, whether as a result of more sophisticated and better resourced interest-group lobbying, the decline of unions, or more subtle forms of social and cultural influence. The implication is that greater democratic accountability may be a necessity to shift economic policies in a more equitable and inclusive direction.

This same diagnosis and prescription applies to cities. In this New Gilded Age, cities are on the front lines of the battle to address economic inequality and declining opportunity. And the way they fight these battles matters. From minimum wages, gentrification, and affordable housing to neighborhood development, job creation, and local hiring, the process by which cities pursue urban economic policy can mean the difference between economic growth that continues to exacerbate inequality, and a more equitable, inclusive form of economic growth. Achieving this more equitable growth requires not only the right policies but also systems to empower stakeholders to hold policymakers, developers, and industry elites accountable to these more equitable goals.

A growing body of scholarship indicates that the economic policies that have helped exacerbate inequality are themselves rooted in political inequalities.

At the same time, by operating at the local level, cities offer real potential for rapidly engaging and empowering a wide range of stakeholders to remedy some of these structural disparities in political power. Cities can pioneer a new mode of democratic governance, where we build processes that include the full range of stakeholders, and provide them with a meaningful voice in shaping and driving economic policy. From New York to California, some of the most exciting innovations in urban development involve pioneering new ways to empower grassroots organizations and citizens—and in so doing, channel the benefits of growth more equitably.

* * *

This is not the first time economic inequality has led to greater efforts at political inclusion. Half a century ago, the War on Poverty took a similar tack. The centerpiece of President Lyndon Johnson’s domestic agenda, the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, created expansive new programs to provide job training, early childhood education (in the form of Head Start), access to legal services, community health services, and more. But the most controversial and radical innovation of this agenda was its focus on grassroots political empowerment as a key to fighting poverty. The act called for local governments to form “community-action agencies” to oversee these programs, and to administer them to local communities of poor and minority constituents. Furthermore, these community-action agencies had a mandate to pursue “maximum feasible participation” of the poor, including through direct representation of poor and minority constituents on the boards administering community-action programs. The theory was that the only way to hold the War on Poverty accountable to its mission was by providing the poor with a role in designing and administering anti-poverty policies.

This influx of money into anti-poverty programs was important, but combined with these institutional forms of empowerment, the War on Poverty helped activate a huge wave of organizing and mobilizing at the local level as civil-rights activists jumped on the opportunity to demand representation on the community-action boards, and accountability for channeling funds and programs to their neighborhoods. As new historical accounts of the grassroots political mobilizations around the War on Poverty suggest, mayors and city officials, alarmed by these newly emboldened grassroots movements of poor and minority constituents, reacted with increasingly harsh measures, first attempting to coopt these movements by appointing representatives they could work with to the community-action boards, and then cracking down on protesters and activists, siphoning off funding for community organizations that were the most active in pressuring local leaders.

Even in Washington, DC, the participation mandate quickly came under fire. Local party officials pressured the Johnson administration to abandon the mandate, while Johnson himself had always been uneasy with the more radical political message of the War on Poverty, viewing the notion of “local action” as encouraging cooperation between Washington and local officials, not as a call for grassroots protest.

Despite these difficulties, the War on Poverty was enormously successful in reducing the poverty rate and creating new models for economic programs. More important, it laid a foundation for greater political empowerment of community groups and the poor as a vehicle for improving economic equity, in the process helping catalyze a wave of community organizing. It also established, or dramatically expanded, initiatives like legal-defense and tenant-advocacy programs to address economic disparities by politically empowering their constituencies.

This is not the first time economic inequality has led to greater efforts at political inclusion. Half a century ago, the War on Poverty took a similar tack.

This participatory aspect of the War on Poverty is compelling today because of how it contrasts with the specter of top-down, heavy-handed urban renewal of the sort championed by Robert Moses to the detriment of many minority and poor communities. Today the concern is somewhat different—not that officials will ram through policies, but that they will skew too far towards privatization and overly friendly collaboration with developers, industry, and the economic elite. By providing representatives of often-overlooked constituencies with a real seat at the table to shape, implement, and monitor economic development policies, grassroots participation offers the hope of a more equitable approach to economic development.

* * *

In a number of cities, efforts to empower stakeholders in economic-development projects have led to a more constructive and collaborative environment, which in turn has helped ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains. From housing to parks to infrastructure development, the economic and geographic environment within cities can undergo radical transformations, driven not by natural “market forces” but by an array of public policies—and by particular coalitions of political actors. These policies are often opaque to most residents. But empowering grassroots stakeholders in the nitty-gritty work of planning neighborhood redevelopment can help ensure that benefits of development are shared more equitably.

Consider the experience of Oakland. Rapid development and gentrification in the East Bay—in part fueled by the dramatic rise of housing prices in San Francisco—are creating both opportunities for economic growth and the threat of displacement of poorer and minority communities.

In 2000, the Oakland City Council designated the public land from the recently closed Oakland Army Base as a major redevelopment site, opening the way for construction of new public infrastructure, and laying the groundwork for new businesses and greater public access to the waterfront. Traditionally, community groups will seek a “community benefits agreement” (CBA) for redevelopment projects of this sort. A CBA is a three-way bargain between government, developers, and community representatives. In exchange for various tax and other incentives from the government, developers are required to provide some investments in neighboring communities, for example by hiring local workers in the construction projects, and setting aside funds for local parks and public spaces. The challenge with CBAs is that they can be time-consuming to negotiate and often lack meaningful grassroots community engagement. Moreover, they are rarely fully enforced, with the benefits failing to materialize long after developers have already cashed in their tax and other incentives.

The Oakland Army Base project, however, has been different. After lengthy negotiations that involved community groups, unions, developers, city government, and other stakeholders, the resulting CBA not only included provisions for local hiring and public investment in community needs such as parks, it also forged a deep collaboration between these different players. This agreement has proved remarkably effective and durable, in large part because of the effort to empower and include community representatives more directly in the negotiations, planning, and monitoring of the project.

In the buildup to the CBA, for example, a number of influential community organizations—from the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE) to the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment to Oakland Rising—formed a broad coalition engaging thousands of voters in the low-income areas to support an inclusive economic development agenda. This grassroots movement helped change the debate around the project to focus more directly on how the redevelopment would serve local residents and the local community. In the end, the campaign brought together city officials and developers around an agreement on the local-hire and public-investment demands now baked into the CBA.

More important, the goals of the CBA are being implemented and monitored through an innovative, inclusive process in which community members are participating not only as sources of input but also as actual partners. To implement the local-hire provisions, the city created the West Oakland Job Resource Center, operating it in close collaboration with EBASE and other community organizations. The CBA requires developers to work with the Job Center to hire local residents; the Job Center helps make this possible by enabling employers to find qualified local workers, while also providing services, support, and referrals to job seekers looking to transform their engagement with the army-base project into longer-term careers.

This collaborative and inclusive process surrounding the Oakland army-base redevelopment is perhaps best exemplified by the Community Jobs Oversight Commission, a new body chartered by the city, which is comprised of representatives of the developers and community organizations. These representatives are appointed by the mayor and charged with the task of overseeing the redevelopment project.

The commission serves as a unique focal point for civic engagement, operating as a forum for airing grievances, a mechanism for ensuring that local-hire and public-investment provisions are in fact being met, and a vital point of leverage for community members to continue to have a voice in the ongoing implementation and development of the army-base project. By providing a public process for monitoring outcomes and airing grievances—and by including representation from all the major stakeholders, including community members—the commission has helped create an extraordinarily effective process; the redevelopment project is not only meeting its local-hire targets but exceeding them, according to members of Revive Oakland.

The Oakland experience is a good example of how a commitment to political inclusion can help drive economic inclusion. But this isn’t just a product of greater advocacy; it required a number of different actors to commit to an inclusive process. Government officials had to create institutions like the Commission and Job Center—and imbue them with real authority. Community leaders had to decide to shift from an advocacy stance to a collaborative one, joining in and investing scarce human and financial resources to make these institutions function. And labor leaders had to see that their interests in winning good jobs on the development projects were aligned with the community groups’ interest in access to those jobs.

Empowering grassroots stakeholders in the nitty-gritty work of planning neighborhood redevelopment can help ensure that benefits of development are shared more equitably.

Similar models of inclusion in planning and implementation can help create a more democratic approach to equitable development. EBASE itself is part of the Partnership for Working Families, a national network of community organizations that is attempting similar strategies in a number of other cities.

On the implementation side, a number of cities are considering more participatory approaches to monitoring and enforcing wage-theft policies. San Francisco’s Department of Labor, for example, provides grants and partnerships with community groups to expand their capacity to monitor and report violations. The national network of progressive local officials, Local Progress, has helped share lessons from this model, as other cities from Seattle to New York are now considering similar approaches.

Beyond their particular urban contexts, these examples indicate a broader potential. Participation and community engagement in these examples involve more than just town-hall meetings or comment periods. Rather, they involve empowering stakeholders to actually shape the strategy and vision for development plans, and to engage in the work of executing, implementing, and monitoring. This deeper engagement helps shapes policies at an early stage to make them equitable. If engaged early and in good faith, these community representatives can become important partners in implementing development policies and project goals.

* * *

These examples echo the War on Poverty attempt to empower a wider range of stakeholders, especially within poor communities and communities of color, by providing them with institutionalized points of leverage. The difference this time is that there is a greater potential for governments themselves to invest in and support this kind of engagement. In Oakland, New York, and elsewhere, the active efforts of city officials to create opportunities for early and active engagement makes participation genuine.

Equitable development is about more than getting the policies right; it is also about empowering stakeholders to outline the vision, implement the strategy, and monitor outcomes. Achieving this requires an ecosystem of actors committed to political inclusion and democratic participation. As a start, it requires government officials to create and manage an inclusive process that provides a meaningful voice to stakeholders, including institutionalized forms of representation or leverage—as with the War on Poverty Community Action Boards, or with the more contemporary efforts at participatory planning and monitoring. Next, it requires civil-society actors and other stakeholders willing to engage not just as advocates but as partners in implementing and enforcing standards. Finally, it also requires transparency and data. Beginning with stated public commitments to goals—such as the local-hire commitments in Oakland’s CBA—and metrics for monitoring compliance and impact through objectively trackable metrics.

We now have all the ingredients to do this; it is up to us to make the most of this opportunity.     

By K. Sabeel Rahman

Source

Amsterdam News - July 17, 2014, by Stephon Johnson - Last week, a new coalition of food delivery workers, low-wage tipped workers and women’s rights leaders across New York called for an end to subminimum wages for tipped workers. This campaign begins right when Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration is preparing to appoint a Wage Board charged with recommending an increase in the minimum wage for tipped workers.

The broad coalition fighting for subminimum wage workers includes Make the Road New York, the Center for Popular Democracy, Fast Food Forward, the Labor-Religion Coalition, the National Employment Law Project, New York Communities for Change, the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Strong for All, United New York and other community groups.

On July 10, Domino’s delivery workers rallied outside of a Manhattan Domino’s restaurant to call for an end to subminimum wages for tipped workers, citing wage theft, and demanding an administrative wage order that requires companies to directly pay tipped workers the state’s minimum wage, with tips as an addition.

“The public might think we do well, but the reality is that many times we don’t even get a tip,” said Alfredo Franco, a tipped Domino’s delivery worker in New York City. “Delivery fees are often confused with a tip for the drivers. We never see a penny of that. Many of us have to work two or three jobs just to get by, sacrificing everything, including time with our families. We need a reliable income. The tipped [sub]minimum wage has to go.”

According to a report released on July 9 by the National Employment Law Project, a wage order eliminating the tipped subminimum wage would benefit close to 229,000 low-wage tipped workers in New York. Women make up more than 70 percent of the low-wage work force. The wage order would benefit working women and, according to the report, make progress in addressing the gender pay gap in New York.

Michael Stewart, executive director of United NY, released a statement championing the NELP’s report. “As New York faces one of the worst economic inequality crises in the nation, it should put an end to the subminimum wage for tipped workers that leaves so many of our neighbors living in extreme poverty,” said Stewart. “The minimum wage is already too low. Allowing employers to pay below it does further damage to workers and our economy.”

As a result of legislation signed by Cuomo last year, New York’s minimum wage is scheduled to go up to $9 an hour by Dec. 31, 2015, and the minimum wage for tipped food service workers is still stuck at $5 an hour, with tipped hotel workers earning slightly more at $5.65 an hour.

Zenaida Mendez, president of the National Organization for Women of New York State, said the gender pay gap needs to close, and no longer allowing the subminimum wage for tipped workers would help it along.

“The poverty rate for waitresses is three times the rate for the American workforce as a whole,” said Mendez. “For this reason, the National Organization for Women is seeking to eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers. This pay inequality must end.”

Source

While the fossil fuel industry and Republican states and senators step up legal and political challenges to Obama's Clean Power Plan, protests have also been flooding in to the EPA's ten regional offices from climate activists - demanding that it cut out dirty biofuels and 'carbon trading' loopholes, and protect vulnerable communities from fossil fuel pollution.

Last week, activists at each of the Environmental Protection Agency's ten regional offices issued their own corrective on the Obama administration'sClean Power Plan.

Days before the end of the federal comment period, theClimate Justice Alliance's Our Power Campaign - comprised of 41 climate and environmental justice organizations - presented its Our Power Plan.

The document identifies "clear and specific strategies for implementing the Clean Power Plan, or CPP, in a way that will truly benefit our families' health and our country's economy."

Introduced last summer, the CPP looks to bring down power plants' carbon emissions by 32% from 2005 levels within 15 years. The plan was made possible by Massachusetts vs. EPA, a 2007 Supreme Court ruling which mandates that the agency regulate greenhouse gases as it has other toxins and pollutants under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

Under the CPP, states are each required to draft their own implementation plans by September of this year, or by 2018 if granted an extension. If they fail to do so, state governments will be placed by default into an interstate carbon trading, or 'Cap and Trade', system to bring down emissions.

After COP21, OPP is the next logical step

Michael Leon Guerrero, the Climate Justice Alliance's interim coordinator, was in Paris for the most recent round of UN climate talks as part of the It Takes Roots Delegation, which brought together over 100 organizers from North American communities on the frontlines of both climate change and fossil fuel extraction.

He sees the Our Power Plan (see goals, below) as a logical next step for the group coming out of COP21, especially as the onus for implementing and improving the Paris agreement now falls to individual nations:

"Fundamentally we need to transform our economy and rebuild our communities. We can't address the climate crisis in a cave without addressing issues of equity."

The Our Power Plan, or OPP, is intended as a blueprint for governments and EPA administrators to address the needs of frontline communities as they draft their state-level plans over the next several months. (People living within three miles of a coal plant have incomes averaging 15% lower than average, and are 8% more likely to be communities of color.)

Included in the OPP are calls to bolster what CJA sees as the CPP's more promising aspects, like renewable energy provisions, while eliminating proposed programs they see as more harmful. The CPP's carbon trading scheme, CJA argues, allows polluters to buy 'permissions to pollute', or carbon credits, rather than actually stemming emissions.

The OPP further outlines ways that the EPA can ensure a "just transition" away from fossil fuels, encouraging states to invest in job creation, conduct equity analyses and "work with frontlines communities to develop definitions, indicators, and tracking and response systems that really account for impacts like health, energy use, cost of energy, climate vulnerability [and] cumulative risk."

The all-too predictable fightback

Lacking support from Congress, the Obama administration has relied on executive action to push through everything from environmental action to comprehensive immigration reform. The Clean Power Plan was central to the package Obama brought to Paris. Also central to COP21 was US negotiators' insistence on keeping its results non-binding, citing Republican lawmakers' unwillingness to pass legislation.

Predictably, the CPP has faced legal challenges from the same forces, who decry the president for having overstepped the bounds of his authority. Republican state governments, utility companies, and fossil fuel industry groups have all filed suit against the CPP, with many asking for expedited hearings.

Leading up the anti-CPP charge in Congress has been Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has called the plan a "regulatory assault", pitting fossil fuel industry workers against the EPA. "Here's what is lost in this administration's crusade for ideological purity", he wrote in a November statement, "the livelihoods of our coal miners and their families."

Organizers of last Tuesday's actions, however, were quick to point out that the Our Power Plan is aimed at strengthening - not defeating - the CPP as it stands. Denise Abdul-Rahman, of NAACP Indiana, helped organize an OPP delivery at the EPA's Region 5 headquarters in Chicago, bringing out representatives from Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, National People's Action and National Nurses United.

"We appreciate the integrity of the Clean Power Plan", she said. "However, we believe it needs to be improved - from eliminating carbon trading to ensuring that there's equity. We want to improve CPP by adding our voices and our plan, and we encourage the EPA to make it better." Four of the six states in that region - which includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin - are suing the EPA.

Endorsed by the National Domestic Workers' Alliance, Greenpeace and the Center for Popular Democracy, among other organizations, the national day of action on the EPA came as new details emerged in Flint, Michigan's ongoing water crisis - along with calls for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's resignation and arrest.

The EPA has also admitted fault for its slow response to Flint residents' complaints, writing in a statement this week that "necessary [EPA] actions were not taken as quickly as they should have been." Abdul-Rahman connected the water crisis with the need for a justly-implemented CPP:

"The Flint government let their community down by not protecting our most precious asset, which is water. The same is true of air: we need the highest standard of protecting human beings' air, water, land."

Source: The Ecologist

Economic Policy Institute Blog - March 4, 2015, by Josh Bivens - Update: Binyamin Appelbaum has made a useful change to his article that I comment on below, noting that Black workers do indeed stand to benefit disproportionately from any demand boost that keeps overall unemployment rates falling in coming years. Again, however, I think that while he makes an important point, it still doesn’t strike me as right to frame it as about the limits of monetary policy. His point (as I read it) is that the gap in unemployment rates between Black and White workers is an economic problem that policymakers should seek to end, but this end-goal of no racial unemployment gap at all cannot be achieved with any single policy lever. 

But while an expansionary monetary policy is not a sufficient condition to erase the racial unemployment gap, it is a necessary condition. That is, the first step towards tearing down racial bias in hiring is to rob employers of the economic power they can use to indulge this bias. And the best way to rob them of this economic power is to have tight labor markets that force employers to compete to hire workers. So, macroeconomic policy (which is dominated by the Federal Reserve) is just crucial to meeting the long-run goal of ending racial unemployment gaps. 

Finally, while the existence of a racial unemployment gap in both good and bad times is a terrible problem, it’s an even bigger problem when the respective White and Black unemployment rates are 5.3 and 11.3 percent (like they were in 2014) than when they are 3.5 and 7.6 percent (like they were in 2000). So while ending the racial unemployment gap entirely should be the long-game, we also need to be keenly aware of what can alleviate economic pain in the short run. And that short-run is just dominated by what the Fed decides to do. 

Simply put, the most effective policy lever to reduce the black unemployment rate in the next few years is for the Fed to keep its foot off the economic brakes by keeping short-term interest rates low until we see real signs of healthy wage growth for American workers.

Binyamin Appelbaum gets one deeply wrong in the New York Times, riffing off a report released by the Center for Popular Democracy with (full disclosure) data assistance from EPI and concludes with a version of the old saying that the Fed’s “hammer” can’t effectively address non-nail problems like excessive unemployment.

Appelbaum notes that the report shows that Black unemployment rates are significantly higher than White (or overall) unemployment rates in both recessions and recoveries. Fair enough. And if his conclusions had simply been that because the gap persists in both booms and busts that monetary policy alone cannot completely erase these unemployment gaps, that would also have been fair enough.

But instead he pushed this idea way too far, and ended getting something completely wrong. In his words (brackets and emphasis added by me):

“The same factors [that keep unemployment rates higher for Black workers in both good times and bad] help to explain why black workers are quicker to lose jobs and slower to return to work. Any given level of economic stimulus, as a result, helps black workers less than it helps white workers.”

This is totally backwards. Because Black unemployment is almost exactly double White unemployment in both recessions and booms, this means that Black workers are indeed “quicker to lose jobs” during recoveries, but they are actually faster, not “slower” to return to work. And any given level of economic stimulus reduces Black unemployment by twice as many percentage points as it reduces White unemployment, helping Black workers more than it helps White workers. In short, as the CPD report shows, the stakes regarding at what pace the economy improves and overall unemployment falls are highest for Black workers. And this means that the stakes regarding Fed decisions are highest for Black workers.

He also notes, “And it follows that the level of stimulus necessary to reduce excessive black unemployment may well be excessive for the economy as a whole.”

Maybe, though lots depends on both instances of “excessive” in that sentence. Regarding current debates over the Fed (ie, what they do in the next 6-12 months) we know that current Black unemployment is indeed “excessive” and we also know that it will be significantly reduced (at twice the pace of the overall rate!) the longer the Fed allows the recovery to proceed without braking it by raising interest rates.

And worries about “excessive” overall aggregate demand growth and monetary stimulus are still completely theoretical. This demand growth can be labeled “excessive” with respect to the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target only when there is a sustained period of wage-growth that is about double its current pace (which really hasn’t picked up since the recession’s trough).

The late 1990s offers a good reminder on both these points. First, when overall unemployment fell far enough to average just over 4 percent for two full years in 1999 and 2000, Black unemployment fell to levels (7.0 percent for a month, and below 8 percent for a majority of months in 1999 and 2000)) far lower than the 11.3 percent it averaged during 2014. And there was no evidence from that earlier period that these levels of overall unemployment and demand-growth were excessive – inflation actually fell in the late 90s, even as wages rose across-the-board.

What CPD and EPI (and others) are calling for when they ask the Fed to keep its foot off of the economic brakes in the name of helping the lot of the most vulnerable workers is precisely to probe the limits of excessive stimulus. That is, the Fed should be much more willing to experiment with very low rates of unemployment even if it risks a period of above-average inflation. If the Fed pursued this it would do more to help the most vulnerable workers than nearly any other single policy. So in this regard, the economic health of minority communities is one problem that the Fed’s policy hammer is very well designed to help.

Source