Campaign News

City Limits – September 4, 2013, by Gail Robinson -

On July 21, five candidates for mayor of New York left their usual beds to spend the night in a public housing project in Harlem. The sleepover made for good photo opportunities and sound bites––Council Speaker Christine Quinn likened the mold she saw in a bathroom to a horror movie––but it also helped signal that the two New Yorks of Fernando Ferrer’s failed mayoral campaigns have returned to center stage in New York politics.

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio’s recent emergence as leader in the polls has confirmed that. “Bill de Blasio’s Surge is All About Inequality,” blared a recent headline in the New Republic.

While de Blasio has made New York’s “tale of two cities” a centerpiece of his campaign, other candidates also have targeted income inequality, and even many moderates and conservatives see the issue as an important one. “It’s a barbell economy. That’s definitely true,” says Nicole Gelinas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Sharp differences exist, however, about how New York should confront this problem and whether anything a New York City mayor can do will make a difference.

Why now

During his first term, it’s said, the word poverty passed through Michael Bloomberg’s lips once or twice. It didn’t seem to hurt him.

Now the problem has emerged as the elephant in the room. Figures released last year found the percentage of New Yorkers living in poverty had increased for three consecutive years, reaching 20.9 percent in 2011. The Economist recently noted that in New York City in 2012 “the richest 1 percent took home close to 39 percent of the income earned in the city, more than double the national figure of 19 percent.” While some of this is due to New York’s status as the home to a lot of really rich people, it also points to a decline in the middle class, as jobs paying less than $35,000 replaced the jobs the recession stripped away.

Given this, income inequality not being an issue in this year’s election “would be like terrorism not being an issue on Sept.12, 2001,” says Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. Areport by the Community Service Society (which owns City Limits) found that 70 percent of all New Yorkers––and 74 percent of those with moderate or high incomes––are somewhat worried or very worried about widening inequality in the city.

Organizing around issues such as the living wage and paid sick leave and the message of Occupy Wall Street also helped push the issue forward, as has Bloomberg’s fading presence. “People are reckoning with what New York has become on his watch, and he’s not spending $100 million to pump out an alternative message,” says Andrew Freidman, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy.

De Blasio and City Comptroller John Liu have been most vocal on the issue. “Addressing the crisis of income inequality isn’t a small task. But if we are to thrive as a city, it must be at the very center of our vision for the next four years,” de Blasio said in the introduction to his position book.

“Economic inequality is ruining our chance for economic recovery,” Liu said in an Aug. 21 debate.

But all the Democratic candidates have acknowledged the problem. “As New York gets more expensive and incomes fail to keep up, millions of New Yorkers are at risk of being pushed out of the city. That’s horrible for them––and it’s bad for all of New York,” former City Comptroller Bill Thompson said in April. While keeping to his 2005 theme of fighting for those in the middle class or “struggling to make it there,” former Rep. Anthony Weiner, now calls for “an oligarch tax.”

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has tried to address the concerns of liberal Democrats concerned about the income gap without forfeiting support from the man many blame for it, in February issued a plan aimed at addressing inequality. “We will keep New York City what it has always been, a place where opportunity is given, not just to those who can afford to buy it, but to those willing to work for it,” she has said.

The discussion has given rise to a cautious optimism among some who would like to see the city government shift direction. “There are a lot of good ideas out there, and I hope some of them make it into the playbook of the eventual winner,” says James Parrott, deputy director and chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute.

“There’s very little that the Democratic candidates have proposed … that I don’t agree with,” says Berg. But, he added, the question is what their priorities turns out to be and whether they can “mobilize the base without scaring off the middle.”

The limits of power

What, though, can the mayor, any mayor, do? Many of the conditions that have contributed to a rising wealth gap in New York––loss of manufacturing jobs, reduced clout for unions, increasing globalization, the rise of technology––affect the entire nation.

“We’ve seen statistics that show that New York is not any different or any worse in equality than what’s happening in the United States of America,” Republican candidate Joe Lhota said in March. In light of that, he said he did not see any short-term, New York City solutions to the problem.

After largely ignoring poverty in his first term, Bloomberg in his second term began shifting gears a bit. In 2006, he established the Center for Economic Opportunity to look at how poverty is measured and to launch programs to fight it. He followed up with an initiative aimed at young black and Latino men in his third term. While some of these efforts have won praise, overall they have not made any real dent in the percentage of New Yorkers at or near poverty.

The mayor––who undoubtedly would take credit if income inequality abated on his watch––has blamed larger forces for the fact that it hasn’t. After the release of income figures in 2012, a spokesperson for him said the “numbers reflect a national challenge: the U.S. economy has shifted and too many people are getting left behind without the skills they need to compete and succeed … That’s why the mayor believes we need a new national approach to job creation and education.”

But many see that as an easy way out. For one thing, they say, Bloomberg could have done less harm. “Some of the Bloomberg policies have been so wrongheaded,” says Parrott, citing the administration’s opposition to living wage measures and its undermining of contracts for school bus drivers and day care workers. “It’s taking what should be good working class jobs and making them poverty jobs.”

Beyond doing no harm, a mayor can advocate for policies to help the poor, much as Bloomberg has done for gun control. And some say that the mayor of New York is so powerful that many specific policy changes fall well with his or her grasp. The mayor controls a $70 billion budget, Friedman points out and so, he says, “I can think of 100 things the mayor could do.”

In Gelinas’ view, the city can help its low income resident by doing what we expect municipal government to do––enforce laws, protect the streets. “No matter how much you make, you have the right to live in a safe, quiet neighborhood,” she says. “That’s more the city’s job than to make sure everyone earns $80,000 a year.”

Tax breaks for some, hikes for others

No plan for dealing with income inequality has attracted as much attention as de Blasio’s proposal to increase taxes on those earning $500,000 or more to fund early childhood and after-school programs. Most of the Democrats, though, have embraced some changes in the tax system. Liu also calls for a tax on high-earning New Yorkers, saying the money would fund a variety of services, including early childhood education, police and housing for the homeless. Weiner has advocated making the transfer tax on home sales more progressive and upping the tax on homes that are not primary residences. Quinn would try to end the tax on low-income New Yorkers getting the earned income tax credit and, has had said that, if she had to raise taxes, she would do so “progressively.”

Certainly taking money from affluent New Yorkers ––a kind of Robin Hood approach––would reduce income equality in an immediate sense. Many of the proposed changes would require state approval, which could prove dicey. Beyond that, experts disagree over the longer-term impact of any tax hikes.

John Tepper Marlin, who served as chief economist with the city comptroller’s office for 14 years, says he believes the tax system is stacked against those in the lower middle class, the people most experts see at risk of slipping into poverty. Yet he thinks the problem would be best addressed on a national level.

“An attempt to tax the rich will fail because they’ll get away. … You can make a lot of mistakes in New York City and not kill the city, but other cities have been killed,” Marlin says. While he does not think the de Blasio tax hike is high enough to scare people away, he fears some will view it as “an opening wedge for a confiscatory tax.”

Others doubt that, noting that federal income tax rates on high earnersinched over 80 percent in 1941 and stayed over 90 percent until the early 1960s. “The national conversation around taxes has become incredibly one-sided,” says Angela Fernandez, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “If we can have a leader that shows some courage and raises taxes, I highly doubt it will affect the flow” of creative energetic people to New York.

Rather than raising taxes, Gelinas says, the city could get money for programs to address the income gap by confronting its long-standing budget problem, particularly the high cost of pensions for many city workers. The Republican candidates have indicated a willingness to do this, she says, and even the Democrats appear to recognize the current system is “not sustainable.”

Where the money goes

The question, though, is not only how to raise money but how to spend it. In targeting the money for early childhood education, de Blasio puts himself squarely alongside education experts who believe early childhood education can have a huge effect on outcomes farther down the road. “For our kids to compete and become the workforce we need, our mantra has to be learning earlier and learning longer,” he said in a speech before the Association for a Better New York.

Berg says the plan would not only provide education but also give poor children two free meals a day under the federal WIC program and help parents with child care. But while Parrot says early childhood education helps “make sure there’s starting gate equality,” he cautions it “is not going to show results right away in terms of reversing income inequality.”

Candidates have proposed other investments in education that they say also will better prepare students for better jobs and incomes. Thompson, who has the endorsement of the teachers union, has called for increased funding of schools and establishing additional pathways for students to graduate from high school prepared for college or careers. He also supports expansion of pre-K.

Quinn envisions “cradle to career” technical education, as well as increased computer training–notably, a technical school for girls in every borough. She would provide more time for high-needs students to learn by extending the school day and launching summer programs, and create so-called community schools that provide an array of social and health services as well as classroom teaching.

Lhota sees education as one of the few areas where the city can make a difference. “The city’s responsibility toward educating its children is the first and foremost thing that we need to do to make sure that inequality goes in a different direction,” he has said. “Our children need to be properly trained so they can work in a global economy.”

Lhota’s Republican rival, John Catsimatidis, has proposed a plan that would create stronger links between vocational education programs and corporations. It would include tax credits and incentives for those companies that invest in career training programs.

But while no one disputes the need for quality education, some question whether increased investment in schools will affect the income gap. After all, they note, Bloomberg already has dramatically hiked spending on schools.

Berg says that Bloomberg has put forth a contradictory narrative, saying on the one hand that education is the best cure for poverty and, on the other hand, that his many education changes have been a success. “Either he’s wrong about education being the only answer” or he’s wrong in saying his education programs worked, Berg adds.

The key, others say, would be in the type of investment in education and the quality of the programs. Fernandez says training often has been too rudimentary, preparing students for low-level jobs. “There’s been a lack of vision and an underestimation of the young people of our city,” she says. Fernandez would like the city to take money from a small increase in taxes and invest it in education to prepare people for high-end jobs: not home health aide, perhaps, but registered nurse.

Freidman believes investing in immigrants, particularly in English classes for them, would have a big payback.

Raising the floor

After peaking before the recession the average annual wage in New York’s private sector, fell sharply and, at the end of 2011, remained below where its 2007 level. In the state as a whole, low-wage jobs—those paying less than $45,000—accounted for 35.6 percent of all jobs in New York State; by June 2013, lower paying jobs accounted for 38.4 percent of the state total. Meanwhile, living in New York City has gotten more expensive, making it difficult for working families to pay the rent and put food on the table. “People see a job as the road out of poverty into the middle class, and it’s not getting them up there now,” says Nancy Rankin, vice president for policy, research and advocacy at the Community Service Society.

With this in mind, the Democratic candidates have all supported hikes in the minimum wage, including the increase to $9 an hour over three years approved by the state this year. Liu has called for the wage to go up to $11.65.

As to whether such policies might cost cities jobs in the long run, that, says policy consultant John Petro will “be an eternal debate.” Gelinas says higher wages prompt employers to replace workers with technology.

On economic development

The decline of manufacturing has left government across the country looking for other sources of good jobs. Bloomberg has joined the search, trying to diversify the city beyond Wall Street. To some extent he has succeeded, boosting tourism, for one, and working to make New York more of a tech center.

Some think he has not gone far enough. “Everybody is excited about high tech, but we have to remember UPS creates jobs too,” Petro says. He would like the city to invest in the kinds of blue-collar jobs currently at Willets Points but threatened by development there as well as white-collar jobs destined for Hudson Yards.

Billionaire businessman Catsimatidis has said his experience crating jobs would transfer to generating more jobs for the city as mayor, though specifics of his plan are scarce. Quinn offers a particularly detailed plan for branching out, calling for 2,000 new manufacturing jobs in Sunset Park, developing “world-class food markets” to spur food manufacturing in the city, building a green mechanics industry in the South Bronx and so on. In some cases, this effort would involve government subsidies and other incentives.

Some question the idea of subsidies to business. Others say that if the city is to hand out money to businesses and rich institutions, it should get a better return on its investment. “We have had an economic development policy that has really amounted to making the rich filthy rich,” Liu has said.

In particular, Liu and other critics fault the Bloomberg administration for not requiring recipients of city subsidies to pay a so-called living wage. The mayor vetoed and, after the Council overrode him, went to court to block a watered-down living wage bill that passed last year; the measure requires the developers receiving certain kinds of subsidies above a high-dollar threshold pay their own employees a living wage—but does not address the larger workforces of the tenant companies who occupy, say, a city-subsidized mall. Quinn, who brokered the compromise for that legislation, has said she would “work to ensure that more of those publicly funded developments are required to provide workers with a living wage and benefits, so working New Yorkers can pull themselves up to the middle class.” De Blasio says any business receiving a city subsidy would have to have “a clear plan” for providing health care to its workers.

Parrott, for one, says such policies are vital: “They can make a real difference right away.”

Friedman would link economic subsidies to “job quality,” giving preference to businesses that don’t oppose unionizing efforts, for example, or that hire workers on a full-time basis.

Some say the city also needs to get more in return for the aid it and the state provides developers, including tax breaks and favorable zoning. This could help solve one of the major problems facing low-income New Yorkers: the lack of affordable housing.

Quinn has pledged to build 40,000 units of middle-income––though not low-income––housing units over the next 10 years. Thompson has called for 70,000 new units and the preservation of 50,000 new ones. De Blasio is promising an even more ambitious plan.

Beyond housing, the candidates have addressed other issues that impact income inequality, such as transportation, making the city more energy efficient, improving access to broadband and making the city better able to withstand another storm like Sandy. Such projects would both make the city a better place and provide jobs.

Mending the safety net

While much of the discussion in this campaign has involved how to help low-income New Yorkers, the candidates and media couch the discussion as being about income inequality, rather than about poverty. Meanwhile, by all accounts, the systems aimed at helping the poor are weaker than they once were. Parrott has written that, even though the number of unemployed people in New York City essentially doubled from 2008 to 2012, the number receiving Temporary Assistance remained relatively constant.

Despite this, there has been little discussion of welfare and other assistance programs. “People are afraid they’ll be seen as encouraging the public assistance roles to rise for its own sake,” Parrott says.

In the spring, Thompson offered a plan to help reduce poverty that included improved job training and improved access to affordable health care and childcare, as well as effort to fight childhood hunger. De Blasio would improve outreach for various assistance programs and streamline the application process. Friedman thinks such efforts could make a difference. “Having a strong social safety net is a crucial first step” in preventing more people from sliding deeper into poverty,” he says.

Right now, with politicians and media focused on the candidates in the Democratic primary–and the largely liberal voters who will choose between them––New York City seems to have evolved away from prevailing attitudes of the Bloomberg years.

“New Yorkers are not buying the argument that the way to help small business and create jobs is to cut regulation and give tax breaks,” Rankin says. Instead, she continues, they have come to realize that “if you want businesses to thrive, you want people who have money to spend.”

Others think the political winds may shift by November or when a new mayor comes to office. “At the end of the day,” says Petro, “most voters are probably still going to care about taxes, picking up the trash and crime.”

Source

The protesters’ action at the Republican retreat was organized by the Center for Popular Democracy Action, in coordination with local affiliates.

Read the full article here.

As the gears of federal government have ground to a halt, a new energy has been rocking the foundations of our urban centers. From Atlanta to Seattle and points in between, cities have begun seizing the initiative, transforming themselves into laboratories for progressive change. Cities Rising is The Nation’s chronicle of those urban experiments.

Cities are where the action is these days. Progressive action, political action. From paid sick days to universal pre-K, fossil-fuel divestment to anti-fracking ordinances, police reform to immigrant rights, the country’s urban centers are leading the way, far outpacing the federal government in vision and action. Just look at the growing movement for a $15 minimum wage. While Bernie Sanders has been raising minimum-wage consciousness on the campaign trail—introducing a bill in July to raise the federal minimum to $15 and calling for the same during the first Democratic presidential debate—it was local politicians, with names barely known beyond their districts, who first heeded the call of struggling workers and made $15 a reality. Before Bernie, in other words, there was Nick Licata and Kshama Sawant, Ruth Atkins, and the Emeryville City Council.

In recognition of this moment, progressive politicians from cities around the country—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Denver, Philadelphia, and beyond—have joined forces to begin sharing their strategies for creative progressive change. Calling themselves Local Progress, they swap policy solutions to urgent, ongoing injustices like income inequality and police brutality, share model legislation and provide strategic support for legislative campaigns. Kind of like an urban anti-ALEC. Today, just three years after it was formed, more than 400 elected officials from 40 states are part of the effort. And the victories are beginning to add up—from paid parental leave in Boston to paid sick leave in New York City, socially responsible investing in Seattle to the use of eminent domain in Richmond, California, to slash homeowner debt.

This week, Local Progress members from all over the country are meeting in Los Angeles for the group’s fourth national gathering. From October 26 through 28, they aretrading their best ideas and strategies for building progressive local power—and combatting police violence, spreading the Fight for $15, expanding affordable housing, boosting civic engagement, and pushing the fight for LGBTQ rights beyond marriage equality.

Chuy Garcia, who gave Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel a run for his millions in this year’s election, will be on the scene, as will Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Tefere Gebre, and dozens of council members, alderman, and supervisors from around the country. If cities are the incubators of promising progressive ideas, this gathering is a bit like the annual science expo.

The Nation has asked four Local Progress stalwarts to share some of the policy solutions they’ll be discussing at the gathering. New York City Council members Brad Lander and Antonio Reynoso, San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos, and Chicago Alderman Scott Waguespack all weighed in, offering thoughts on everything from humanizing the sharing economy to organizing for police reform, protecting sanctuary cities, and pushing back against privatization and regressive tax policy. Here’s what they said.

 —Lizzy Ratner

PROTECTING WORKERS IN THE ON-DEMAND ECONOMY

By Brad Lander

Rides from Uber. Home cleaning from Handy. Meals from Seamless. Web design from Upwork. Even doctors from Medicast.

There’s no doubt the on-demand economy is convenient. Consumers can arrange for services at the tap of a touchscreen. Workers can choose their hours and earn a little extra cash.

But there’s a very dark side to the “sharing” economy: The benefits aren’t usually shared with the workers.

Working “by-the-gig” rarely provides job security, health insurance, paid sick days or family leave, on-the-job training, or retirement contributions. Workers lack the right to organize a union. And eight in 10 freelance workers report having been cheated out of wages they were owed.

President Obama and Democratic presidential candidates are finally talking about the issue. But the Republican Congress will likely block any progress. Marco Rubio recently called for even further deregulation, leaving workers at the mercy of multibillion-dollar corporations.

So cities are taking the lead in writing new rules, working with Local Progress, the National Employment Law Project, forward-thinking unions, and worker organizations to level the on-demand playing field.

In Seattle, City Council member Mike O’Brien is fighting for a bill that would allow drivers for Uber, Lyft, and other “ridesharing” companies to organize and bargain collectively so that workers have some voice in the terms and conditions of their work.

In New York City, we are working with the Freelancers Union to combat wage theft and late payment. When conventional employees are cheated out of wages, the state labor department can enforce and win double damages. The #FreelanceIsntFree campaign (which recently brought its message to the White House) would provide freelancers with similar protection.

Council Member Corey Johnson and I are working with the New York City Taxi Workers Alliance to mandate a “driver benefits fund” (funded by a small fare surcharge) to provide for-hire drivers with healthcare benefits—a first step toward the “Shared Security Account” that Nick Hanauer and David Rolf called for in a Democracy Journal article this summer. And we’re amending New York City’s human-rights laws to make clear they apply to independent workers. There is no reason Uber should be able to discriminate against drivers based on race or religion.

Meanwhile, from San Francisco to Burlington, cities are establishing offices of labor standards and adopting other innovative approaches (like partnering with community-based organizations) to enforce the laws that protect workers. One task: making sure conventional employees aren’t illegally misclassified as independent workers by employers trying to cheat them out of benefits and protections (a big problem for day laborers and domestic workers). These offices can also make sure that companies who need licenses from the city get and keep them only if they respect local, state, and federal laws.

Ultimately, we’ll need national regulation to match the growing on-demand economy. But for now, progressive cities are bringing worker protections into the 21st century—and some real sharing into the sharing economy.

THE MUNICIPAL BATTLE FOR EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

By Antonio Reynoso

Eric Garner. Michael Brown. Tamir Rice. Sandra Bland. For more than a year, the senseless deaths of young black men and women by police officers or in police custody have dominated headlines and helped fuel a movement. Under the banner of Black Lives Matter, this movement has been gaining ground in cities, towns, and counties across the country, spreading the call to end racist policing and begin enacting serious police reform. Its powerful message has reached all the way to the presidential campaign trail and beyond. But as the public waits for progress at the national level, change is already happening at the local level, thanks to powerful alliances between community activists and hundreds of local politicians.

In New York City, where I am a City Council member representingneighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, there is a desperate need for sensible reforms of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). For all to many New Yorkers, the excessive use of police force is a daily reality. The excessive surveillance of the Muslim community and a racialized stop-and-frisk policy also take their toll.

In response, organizations and progressive politicians have been fighting to improve accountability and transparency after years of racial profiling by the NYPD. The work has been supported by a broad coalition called Communities United for Police Reform, which has driven a strategic, multi-year campaign to knock on doors, organize the public, influence the public discourse, and pass legislation to implement smart reforms.

 Communities want change, and they want to participate in the process of reforming the NYPD. So, working together, we’ve introduced the Right To Know Act as a way to meet their demands. These bills would require NYPD officers not only to identify themselves when stopping civilians but also to explain that the searches are voluntary and may be declined.

This is not the first time we have stood up for the people of our community. In 2013 and 2014, in partnership with Communities United for Police Reform, the City Council passed a series of bills known as the Community Safety Act, which together banned racial profiling by police and made it easier for New Yorkers who have experienced profiling to sue NYPD officers. The act also installed an independent inspector general to oversee the actions of the NYPD.

Of course, New York City is not the only city in our nation where racial profiling, unjust searches, and incidences of police brutality are common occurrences. Nor is it the only city where coalitions of community leaders and elected officials are working to improve the system. In the last year alone, communities have joined together with progressive local legislators to correct the imbalance of justice.

In Los Angeles County, the grassroots organization Dignity and Power Nowwon a transformative campaign, led by formerly incarcerated people and their families, to establish a strong civilian oversight commission for the sheriff’s department, which has an ugly history of violence against civilians on the streets and in county jails.

In Newark, community leaders partnered with Mayor Ras Baraka to create one of strongest civilian complaint review boards in the country, which has both a voice in disciplining police officers and a policy advisory role.

And in Minneapolis, a coalition led by Neighborhoods Organizing for Change succeeded in pressing the City Council to repeal spitting and loitering ordinances that were being disproportionately used to harass and harm black and Latino residents. They also won passage of a data-collection law that will begin to collect and publicize important evidence about the police department’s stop-and-frisk and use-of-force practices.

Members of Local Progress, partnering with community-based allies, have been central to these fights and many more, and we will continue combating such injustices across the United States, fighting for everyone to be treated equally under the law.

 CITIES MUST LEAD THE NATION ON IMMIGRANT JUSTICE

By John Avalos

In the last few years, hundreds of cities across America have disentangled their police departments and jails from the federal immigrant-deportation machine, refusing to honor the Feds’ requests that cities detain immigrants past their release date so they could be picked up and deported. These policies protect immigrant families from the devastation of deportation and from crime, because they foster better relationships between the police and immigrant communities. The movement has been a bright spot for our country’s immigrant-rights movement.

But during the last few months, the policies, and in some cases the very idea, of sanctuary cities has come under attack. The catalyst for these changes was an undocumented immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who allegedly shot and killed a young white woman named Kate Steinle. He claims that the shooting was an accident, but her case has become a cause célèbre among opponents of immigrants because Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times previously, and had recently been released from jail in San Francisco without being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

San Francisco’s Due Process for All Ordinance, the latest update to its Sanctuary City policy, bars the sheriff from detaining people past their release date on behalf of ICE’s Secure Communities, or S-Comm, program. The goal of Due Process for All is to protect immigrants and their families from S-Comm, which created an immigration dragnet, deporting tens of thousands of immigrants and tearing their families apart. Due Process for All also enables immigrants to be integrated into San Francisco’s local law-enforcement efforts by promoting relationships between immigrant communities and the police. San Francisco has been at the leading edge of a national movement: across the nation, over 350 other local governments have recently adopted policies limiting collaboration with federal immigration officials.

But as a result of the widespread effort of local governments to limit coordination with the S-Comm, the federal government has tweaked and renamed its deportation effort the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which calls on local law enforcement to notify Homeland Security of a detainee’s release rather than detaining the individual past his or her release date. Like S-Comm, PEP has the same effect of weakening trust between immigrants and local law enforcement because local law enforcement is seen as an arm of federal immigration efforts.

The politics of race, citizen entitlement, and immigration reform have put San Francisco and other cities’ sanctuary-city policies squarely in the cross hairs of conservative extremists and political opportunists. From the highly polarizing presidential campaign of Donald Trump to the calculated posturing of Hillary Clinton (who supports PEP) to the election-year pandering of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, eager to blame the policy for Steinle’s death, politicians are scapegoating immigrants and undermining the sanctuary city policies that immigrants rely on for their security. Just last week, the US Senate narrowly failed to pass a Republican-backed bill that threatened to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities and increase penalties for undocumented immigrants who reenter the United States after deportation.

Some cities are already working to resist this pressure. On the same day that Senate Republicans sought to punish sanctuary cities, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming our commitment to the Due Process for All Ordinance and urging our sheriff not to comply with the new PEP program.

 Cities around the country should follow suit and adopt a wide array of programs and policies to protect and empower immigrant communities. Like New Haven, they can establish Municipal ID cards to help immigrants navigate daily life; like Chicago, they can ensure that city services are available in multiple languages; like New York, they can provide quality free legal counsel to residents facing deportation; and like Los Angeles, they can conduct outreach programs and offer affordable citizenship preparation courses to help residents naturalize and gain the benefits of citizenship.

This moment is a pivotal one for our nation and the many cities that have sought to protect immigrants against deportation. We either succumb to the rightward push of the politics of race and citizen entitlement or we strengthen our efforts to protect and integrate immigrants and their families in recognition and honor of the contributions they make to our society. Local governments must lead our nation forward.

FIGHT FOR A PROGRESSIVE SOURCE OF REVENUE IN CHICAGO

By Scott Waguespack

The fiscal crisis that’s squeezing cities and towns across this country is perhaps at its most dramatic in Chicago.

Our municipal pension systems are woefully underfunded, the result of decades of failure by city and state governments to pay their share. Our schools are facing an enormous fiscal shortfall that could result in the firing of 5,000 teachers in the middle of the year. And we’re witnessing heartbreaking violence in our communities, the result of an overwhelmed police force and neighborhoods mired in economic hardship.

Simply put, our city has a cash problem.

To his credit, Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged this problem in his recent budget address, railing against the budgeting tricks of previous years and vowing to end the city’s structural deficit. Unfortunately, Mayor Emanuel reached into the same tired bag of tricks in order to solve the problem: regressive tax increases on working families and privatization of public services.

These are tricks we’re all too familiar with here in Chicago. We’ve already been through some of the worst privatization deals in the country, and we know full well from our experiences with parking meters and school janitors that it’s been a fiscal boondoggle resulting in higher costs and worse services for taxpayers. And the mayor’s regressive property-tax proposal is just another way to balance budgets by raising taxes on working families who are already struggling to get by.

Here’s the good news, though: Chicago is one of the wealthiest cities on the planet. There’s an enormous amount of capital flowing through this city every day. Chicago’s City Council Progressive Caucus, which I chair, has been advocating for common-sense tax ideas to direct some of these dollars toward crucial programs and services, easing the burden on working families without selling off public assets.

We’ve advocated for creating a special property-taxing district that covers the skyscrapers in downtown Chicago. Too often, owners of these buildings hire politically connected firms to get enormous discounts on their assessments; a more fair valuation would generate substantial new revenue.

We support reforming the billion-dollar mayoral slush fund called “tax-increment financing.” We support fixing the problems in the infamous parking-meter privatization deal. We introduced an amendment that would tax big-box stores for the undue stress they put on our stormwater system, and have called for expanding the sales tax to include luxury services like pet grooming or portfolio management.

 In short, the Progressive Caucus has progressive revenue ideas that will work for all of Chicago.  We’ve convened a series of town hall meetings across the city, drawing crowds of hundreds of concerned neighbors, and have introduced a series of amendments to move this budget in the right direction.

As progressive leaders who love this city, our caucus knows we need new revenue to educate our children, care for those in need, and provide growth and opportunity in every community. For our city to prosper, those dollars must come from those who can most afford to pay, not from the pockets of working families.

Supporting the workers are Rise Up Retail, the Center for Popular Democracy and the Organization United for Respect.

Read the full article here.