California Eminent Domain Isn't Government Run Amok
To judge from the disparaging reaction to its plan to use eminent domain to cope with underwater homes, you'd think the city leaders of Richmond, California, had proposed an outrageous and...
To judge from the disparaging reaction to its plan to use eminent domain to cope with underwater homes, you'd think the city leaders of Richmond, California, had proposed an outrageous and unprecedented distortion of state power.
Filing suit against Richmond, BlackRock Inc., Pacific Investment Management Co. and other plaintiffs alleged that the city's proposal amounts to an “unconstitutional application of eminent domain” and a “brazen scheme.” The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced that it was considering ceasingto do business in municipalities that pursue this course. Media coverage generally echoed the plaintiffs’ take. USA Today’s headline summed up the conventional wisdom, declaring that Richmond “runs amok with eminent domain.”
In fact, the city's plan relies not on a novel use of eminent domain but on one endorsed by the conservative Supreme Court of 1935. And although there is a long history of excessive use of eminent domain, Richmond's plan has no place in it. Richmond's plan is to seize 624 mortgages valued at more than the homes for which they were written. Relying on a private intermediary, the city would compensate the investor holding a mortgage at a price reflecting the home's current value rather than an inflated bubble value. The city would then sell a more modest loan to the homeowner. Richmond hopes this will induce residents to remain in their homes and pay their mortgages and property taxes. Proponents of the plan also point out that this probably will lower the risk of default, protecting investors holding the mortgages.
Nonetheless, the big players in the bond markets are angry that they’re being forced to accede to the demands of a small city in California. Before they fight city hall, the plaintiffs should appreciate that use of eminent domain to seize intangible assets like mortgages has a solid history. Federal courts have long sanctioned the taking of everything from shares of stock to contract rights, insurance policies and even hunting rights.
But mortgages? Yes. Consider a famous Supreme Court case from the Great Depression. During that crisis, banks foreclosed on farmers who fell behind on their mortgage payments. In response, Congress passed the Farm Bankruptcy Act granting farmers five years to negotiate a reduction in the principal of their loans. Farmers were entitled to buy the property at the current appraised value, even if it fell short of the value attached to the original mortgage.
Then, as now, banks didn’t like the policy and went to court, arguing that it violated their property rights, as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. In May 1935, the Supreme Court overturned the law in a unanimous decision, the first of several such rulings that made the court into a conservative counterweight to the New Deal. Nevertheless, in the final paragraph of its decision, the court laid out an alternative course for just the kind of remedy the Farm Bankruptcy Act had sought.
Justice Louis Brandeis observed, "If the public interest requires, and permits, the taking of property of individual mortgagees in order to relieve the necessities of individual mortgagors, resort must be had to proceedings by eminent domain.”
In effect, the court stated that if the government wished to modify loans, it could only do so via an eminent domain proceeding of precisely the sort now being contemplated in Richmond. Brandeis didn’t think this a particularly controversial point; he made no effort to defend it or explain his reasoning because it was an established doctrine.
And so it remains today: Intangible assets have again and again been deemed fair game for eminent domain proceedings, so long as “just compensation” is given. In California, the state Supreme Court has taken a similar stance: A decision in 2008, for example, affirmed longstanding precedent that the state’s eminent domain law “authorizes the taking of intangible property.”
None of this is to suggest that eminent domain hasn’t been abused. In the postwar era, however, its victims have not been investors but poor, black, inner city residents.
The case that opened the door to mass evictions and confiscations was Berman v. Parker, decided by the Supreme Court in 1954. In it, a black department store owner in the District of Columbia sued to stop an eminent domain proceeding against his profitable business, which had the misfortune of being situated in an area designated as blighted.
The court rejected Berman’s protest, defining eminent domain in remarkably broad terms. If the public interest demanded that his property be torn down with less desirable properties to rescue an entire neighborhood from blight, it ruled, there was nothing Berman could do. His store was soon reduced to rubble. While many urban planners celebrated the decision, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Haar was more prescient, noting that the ruling “may cause a lot of trouble some day.”
This was an understatement: in the ensuing years, municipalities across the country used and abused their powers to confiscate the property of poor, often black residents, rarely giving “just compensation.” Entire, thriving neighborhoods vanished before the wrecking ball, destroying communities and leaving behind gaping holes in the urban fabric that remain eyesores in many cities today.
This didn’t end with the 1960s. In 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The case grew out of efforts by New London, Connecticut, to use eminent domain to evict working-class residents from a neighborhood in the hopes of handing the land to a private developer who promised to attract more affluent residents with a mixed-use project. The court ruled in favor of the city, vastly expanding the powers of eminent domain. The project foundered during the financial crisis and today remains a series of vacant lots, monuments to an extreme vision of eminent domain.
These are examples of eminent domain “run amok.” Yet to listen to the hysterical denunciations of the Richmond plan, a proposal to bring 624 mortgages in line with market prices is the epitome of eminent domain abuse. History suggests otherwise.
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
‘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.
Kansas City Social Justice Group Says Too Many Are Left Behind in Today’s Economic Growth
Kansas City Star - March 5, 2015, by Diane Stafford - When Andrew Kling dug into an economic research project, he was shocked to find there were more payday loan shops in Missouri than there were...
Kansas City Star - March 5, 2015, by Diane Stafford - When Andrew Kling dug into an economic research project, he was shocked to find there were more payday loan shops in Missouri than there were Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and Starbucks locations combined.
“In a time when Wall Street is reporting record profits, many low-income people are feeling the pain,” said Kling, communication manager for Communities Creating Opportunity.
His social justice organization, better known as CCO, held a rally Thursday in front of a small strip center at 63rd Street and Troost Avenue that houses a payday loan company and a fast-food restaurant.
“It’s an appropriate site for releasing our report,” he said.
CCO is seeking support for a “covenant for a moral economy” that among other things asks the Federal Reserve to pay attention to those at the bottom of the economic ladder when it considers raising interest rates this year.
Kling said CCO is concerned that the unemployed and underemployed are being victimized by predatory lending practices, and they’re getting no help because of “political gridlock” and employers that have kept “wages dangerously low.”
The Rev. Stan Runnels, rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 11 East 40th St. in Kansas City and a CCO participant, said a moral economy would include “wages that cover the costs of raising a family, where everyone has access to affordable credit in their communities.”
The rally also was planned to focus on racial inequality in the Kansas City area, where unemployment among blacks is 12.6 percent, compared with 5 percent for whites.
Kling said CCO research also found that from 2000 to 2014, the median wage for workers in Kansas was basically flat and the median wage in Missouri declined 2.5 percent.
Source
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article12522674.html#storylink=cpy SourceIt’s Time to Reimagine Safety and Security in Our Communities
It’s Time to Reimagine Safety and Security in Our Communities
The over-policing and mass criminalization of Black and brown people is the moral crisis of our time.
The United States has the world’s largest incarcerated population with approximately 2....
The over-policing and mass criminalization of Black and brown people is the moral crisis of our time.
The United States has the world’s largest incarcerated population with approximately 2.2 million people currently behind prisons and jails (21 percent of the world’s prisoners) while several police departments across the country are under investigation for charges of police brutality, gross misconduct and civil rights violations.
Read the full article here.
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
...
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
Read the full article here.
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
City Council Holds First Hearings Today on "Municipal ID" Program in Council Chambers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 30, 2014
Contact: TJ Helmstetter,...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 30, 2014 Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973) 464-9224; tjhelm@populardemocracy.org Daniel Coates, Make the Road New York(347) 489-7085; daniel.coates@maketheroadny.org
City Council Holds First Hearings Today on "Municipal ID" Program in Council Chambers Advocates: Municipal IDs Will Benefit ALL New Yorkers & Provide Critical Services(NEW YORK) Earlier this year, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito announced plans to make city-issued identification cards available for all New Yorkers, which would particularly help residents who otherwise have limited access to identification documents, including immigrants and homeless New Yorkers. Similar municipal ID programs are in place in ten cities nationwide, as noted in the Center for Popular Democracy's report, "Who We Are: Municipal ID Cards as a Local Strategy to Promote Belonging and Shared Community Identity." Today, the City Council held its first hearings on the bill introduced earlier this month. Advocates attended the hearing in support of the measure, which will improve interactions between residents and law enforcement, make cardholders less vulnerable to crime, and improve quality of life for the most vulnerable New Yorkers. Earlier today, U.S. Representatives Joe Crowley, Grace Meng, Jerry Nadler, and Nydia Velazquez have each signaled their support for the proposal. See below for quotes from advocates in support of the measure. Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy: “Municipal ID cards are an important step toward raising the quality of life for our city's most vulnerable and marginalized residents, including immigrants, and this proposal will make a powerful difference for thousands of New Yorkers. Increasingly, identification requirements gate-keep almost every aspect of daily life. It is imperative that we open more doors to opportunity for all New Yorkers, and this is a step in the right direction.”
Juan Carlos Gomez, member of Make the Road New York: "When I lost my ID I went into the shadows. I couldn't buy medicine for my allergies, couldn't rent an apartment, and was always scared about being stopped by the police. With a NYC ID I know thousands of other undocumented people like me will have more confidence to be a stronger part of this City."
Linda Sarsour, Executive Director, Arab American Association of New York: "All New York City residents regardless of immigration status deserve a government issued ID that gives them access to municipal buildings, bank accounts, and more. Government and the private sector need to come together to ensure that this ID has a broad appeal to ALL New Yorkers. This card should represent our New York City pride and everyone should want to get one." Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition: "The New York Immigration Coalition is proud to stand behind the municipal ID initiative, because a more inclusive New York is a better New York! This inclusive identity card system will help overcome some of the barriers immigrant communities face in their daily lives, and should facilitate access for all New Yorkers to leases, libraries, discounts, municipal services, and more. We look forward to working with the Mayor, City Council, and our diverse Coalition members and allies to make it as useful as possible."
Anya Mukarji-Connolly, Supervising Attorney at NYLAG LGBT Law Project: “The LGBT Law Project at the New York Legal Assistance Group applauds Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-Viverito, and City Council Members Dromm and Menchaca for spearheading this critically important bill that would help ensure that transgender and gender non-conforming New Yorkers have access to valid identification cards that accurately reflect their gender. Access to valid ID is particularly important for transgender communities who face discrimination, harassment, and violence when they don’t have accurate ID. For this opportunity to have the most impact in transgender communities, the process for selecting gender on the Municipal ID card must be one in which applicants can self-identify, without showing burdensome proof of gender through doctor's letters or medical treatment which make accurate ID cards inaccessible to many people.”
Elana Redfield, from the Sylvia Rivera Law Project: "The municipal ID is a great opportunity for transgender communities, especially transgender immigrants, to obtain ID documents that accurately reflect their gender. Mismatched Id is a source of many challenges for transgender community members. Showing a mismatched ID can lead to humiliation, harassment, workplace or housing discrimination, or denial of services. For the ID to be most effective, it must allow for individuals to self-select their gender rather than imposing medical requirements or other obstacles that cannot be met by our most vulnerable community members." Arely Gonzalez, Member of Make the Road New York LGBTQ project: "As an undocumented transgender woman I know how a lack of ID makes me feel. I need an ID that shows my gender and my name. I wouldn't carry around anything else, because we face discrimination from the police, and others as a result. The NYC ID would be very important to many transgender New Yorkers because of that. We should all be able to express our gender identity."
Alisa Wellek, Co-Executive Director, Immigrant Defense Project: "We are grateful for New York City's leadership in creating a municipal ID program that balances accessibility for all New Yorkers while also safeguarding privacy and the right to define one's gender. An ID can prove critical to de-escalating and preventing an arrest, which has particular importance for immigrants who are increasingly at risk of deportation when encountering police.This ID is the right step toward ensuring equal access to services and protections for all New Yorkers."
Jean Rice, Picture the Homeless member: "The status quo needs to create an identification document that is acceptable across all levels of inquiry, including the police department, that is standardized and not discretionary."
Grace Shim, Executive Director of the MinKwon Center for Community Action: "An estimated 180,000 undocumented Asian Americans live in the New York metro area. We are excited by the potential of the Municipal ID card to make our City more inclusive and accessible for all. In order to ensure that the card does not become a proxy for immigration status, however, the City must broadly market the adoption of this card to all New Yorkers. From discounts to cultural institutions and financial service capabilities, the City should explore many creative ideas for integration."
José Calderón, President of the Hispanic Federation: "Hispanic Federation thanks Mayor de Blasio, Councilmembers Dromm and Menchaca for their leadership and making it a top priority for all New Yorkers to have access to proper identification. This municipal ID will not only provide a sense of security for all New Yorkers, but will benefit our city as a whole. All of us - low-income individuals, seniors and undocumented immigrants - deserve easy accessibility to identification, heightening safety and equality in our great city." Jesus Castellanos, Make the Road New York youth member: "When I was assaulted I did not want to tell the police because I was scared to approach them without an ID. It's not right that a young person like me should have to do this. A municipal ID will build trust and create a safer New York for all people." Rev. Omar Almonte, Central Baptist Church: "As a man of faith and a spiritual leader of an immigrant community, I firmly believe that this proposal for a New York City ID to help document the undocumented, would be a just and righteous act, because it would strengthen our community. They and their families live, work, study and are crucial parts of our city now and in the future, and this law would create a fairer, more just place for us all."
Fr. Hoppe Pastor of St. Leo Catholic Church: "As people of faith, we believe that having valid identification for all New Yorkers will offer renewed hope and human dignity to those who have struggled far too long. In my congregation, I witness the daily pain of mothers unable to bring their children to school for fear of being deported. We fully support this initiative to provide a pathway to all New Yorkers to have the same access to economic and civic opportunities in our city.”
Lucia Gomez, La Fuente Executive Director: “This is a very historic time for the city, municipal IDs will serve nearly half a million residents (including immigrants, the homeless, low-income and the elderly). It will protected our value for inclusion and will be consistent with our security needs. We stand committed to work with the city council to see the bill pass implemented in the upcoming months.”
Valeria Treves, executive director NICE: “A NYC municipal ID is a step in right direction to becoming a city that truly recognizes the contributions of all of the city’s residents, including the city’s undocumented workers and families. We must now work to ensure that it's easily accessible to all immigrants and others who face challenges attaining an ID, and work closely with key departments, such as the NYPD, to ensure that officers recognize the card as valid ID and respect the rights and dignity of the card holder.”
Issue committees pump $86M into Colorado election
For some corporations and advocacy groups, Colorado's jam-packed ballot has meant opportunity.
And they don't just care about political candidates. In fact, issue committees — which stand...
For some corporations and advocacy groups, Colorado's jam-packed ballot has meant opportunity.
And they don't just care about political candidates. In fact, issue committees — which stand on the front line of fights over proposed amendments and propositions — have raised more than 10 times the amount of money of Colorado Democrats and Republicans seeking state or local office. These committees have drawn in more than $86 million, a staggering difference when compared to the approximately $7.3 million raised by state and local Democrats and Republicans.
These statewide issue fights — this year races concerning ColoradoCare, the minimum wage and a so-called "right to die" proposition have dominated much of the conversation — can give out-of-state groups a chance to get more bang for their buck and jump into statewide elections, which might affect their bottom line more than federal races, Colorado State University political science professor Bob Duffy said. States like Colorado are less expensive to campaign in than, say, California, which makes it appealing for groups looking to affect legislation without breaking the bank, he said.
ELECTION: Haven't voted yet? Here's what to know
"Typically those elections are cheaper and also low-information elections," he said, pointing out that sometimes people have less information about statewide ballot measures than more high-profile races. "So a little money can go a long way. A big fish can have a much bigger impact in a small pond than they can in a big pond."
In the fight over Amendment 72, for example, the parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris has bankrolled No Blank Checks in the Constitution, a group fighting against the proposed hike in cigarette taxes. Philip Morris is one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, and is known for products including Marlboro cigarettes. It has so far spent more than $16 million on the campaign. That alone is more than Democrats and Republicans running for state and local offices have raised.
"Obviously cigarette sale declines puts a real crimp in their bottom line, and they have an opportunity (to fight it), and it's probably cheaper to do it here than in California, for example," Duffy said.
Oftentimes out-of-state groups will use statewide races as a test case to see how effectively they can influence it — and again, it makes most sense to do that in a less-expensive race than in a large state with lots of media markets — and sometimes it's meant as a warning shot to groups who might be considering similar legislation in other states, Duffy said.
Opponents of the "right to die" proposition have gotten much of their funding from Catholic groups. The Archdiocese of Denver, for example, has contributed more than $100,000 to the campaign fighting Proposition 106, which would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients who met certain criteria so they could end their own lives.
Colorado Families for a Fair Minimum Wage, a group advocating for Amendment 70, which would raise the state's minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, has raised almost $5 million, including more than $1 million from the Center for Popular Democracy Action, a New York-based advocacy group which focuses on several social justice issues. Keep Colorado Working, a group opposing the hike, has raised about $1.7 million, and has also received out-of-state support, including $50,000 from Florida-based Darden, the company that owns Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse, among other brands.
"Especially after 2010, some federal election rulings unleashed some money," Duffy said, referencing a few court decisions on campaign finance, included Citizens United. "The floodgate really opened up."
By Alicia Stice
Source
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
4 days ago
4 days ago