There is a Facebook page in my community that is labeled as an open discussion page. It was created in response to what was viewed as suppression of speech on the official pages of the different neighborhood associations. The moderators of the neighborhood associations' pages refused to allow certain conversations because certain topics inevitably degraded into ad hominem attacks, racist or otherwise bigoted rants, and generally reduced participation by many members of the community. In some cases, they even blocked participation from individuals who refused to comply with the rules. Some members of our neighborhood saw this as "censorship" and created the open discussion page.
A quick review of the open discussion page finds a lot of complaints about litter, dog poop, double parking, and other standard complaints of urban living. There are your basic questions from newer residents asking for reviews of local merchants or recommendations for local car repair shops. Unsurprisingly, the majority of content is pretty banal.
But mixed in with these are rants from people who can't stand that the immigrant community they just moved into (or in some cases, lived in their entire lives) is full of immigrants. Or there are tirades from people who are just shocked that the only neighborhood they could find a house or condo they could afford actually has low and moderate income people living right next door. Or diatribes from people who wonder why this neighborhood didn't magically turn into a professional, upper-middle income enclave after they moved in. Sometimes these individuals use veiled or coded language. Sometimes they do not.
I believe that the people who use social media to air their views about "those people" are a minority in my community. I believe that they resort to Facebook because the feeling of social distance appears to protect them from the consequences of their words. At the same time, I also believe that these "open discussion" Facebook pages magnifies their views and makes it look like there are more people in this community who are racist, classist bigots than there really are.
I choose not to participate on this page. Occasionally, I see a thread because a friend will comment or like something and it shows up in my feed. I generally ignore it because I don't really need to proof that there are people who don't know how to engage in civil discourse. I don't need further confirmation that some people believe that racism is only about black versus white. I certainly don't need any more evidence that we still have some work to do to foster an inclusive sense of community in my neighborhood.
Those of use who are frequently the targets of intolerance become sensitive to the coded language of prejudice. Those of us who are not often (or ever) discriminated against, but who empathize and are allies in cause of social justice, are similarly alert to the many covert ways biased views are expressed. You are never sure whether a comment or post is intending to be racist, sexist, or classist. It's like when you are a person of color, you are never sure that when you are seated at the back of the restaurant whether it is because that is where the next available table was or whether that's where they always seat the people like you. The constant uncertainty about the intentions of other people can be overwhelming. If you've never lived like this, it may be hard to understand how your words could come to mean anything other than what you believe you intended to say. And the misunderstandings grow to a point that it makes community building difficult or impossible. Once we've all thoroughly offended each other, it is that much harder to trust each other.
I understand the desire for an unmoderated space where neighbors can talk about whatever they want to talk about. However, in diverse communities, there is both diverse communication styles and a lack of common experience. Without a sincere commitment to understanding each other, and without the tools necessary to do so, open discussion pages only appear to amplify retrograde views by the very few bigots in my neighborhood or contribute to the distrust between neighbors.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
Gentrification, environmental justice, and climate change
This was a talk that I gave during a panel discussion as part of the Emancipated Century readings of August Wilson's Plays. The panel was titled: Gentrification and the Urban Plight Chinatown, the
South End, Roxbury, and East Boston.
--
I want to start off by stating that not all revitalization or redevelopment results in displacement. For years, there was a lot of debate in the scholarly community about whether the negative impacts of gentrification do in fact happen. And there was conflicting evidence because displacement seemed to be found in one place but not another. However, recent research suggests not all gentrification is alike. Most importantly, the kind of gentrification that I am most concerned about – the kind that involves displacement – happens most often where there is the kind of large scale developments that we see in Chinatown, Dudley, and also in East Boston. By the way, that’s not to say that the displacement that has happened in South End isn’t real but that there are clearly different mechanisms at work there. Just like you can break your leg by falling off a ladder or by getting into a car accident, there are different ways that displacement can occur.
Now, it just so happens that the same people who are at risk of displacement through “revitalization” or “redevelopment” are also the people who live with and fight against environmental injustice.
Historically, the focus on environmental injustice involved the siting of noxious or polluting facilities – hazardous waste sites, trash transfer stations, power plants, large scale hog farms in rural areas. In this conception of environmental injustice, the injustice occurs through disproportionate environmental exposures of some kind. This way of thinking about environmental injustice allows us to easily see how activities that create pollution and other safety hazards become environmental justice issues.
It is why, for example, residents and business owners in Dudley Square are legitimately concerned about the redevelopment of Ferdinand Building and nearby abandoned properties. Not only does "successful" redevelopment raise the specter of increased car traffic and its attendant pollution and safety risks, but it also raises the risk of gentrification and displacement. Dudley Square residents and small businesses have every reason to be skeptical. These large scale redevelopments, all of which are subsidized by our tax dollars, have rarely resulted in an improvement in the quality of life or opportunity for low income communities or communities of color where these developments are targeted.
However, in the face of climate change, the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards operate a little differently. When we talk about who is vulnerable to the negative impacts to climate change, some people would like to argue that it is everyone. OK, that is technically correct, in the same way that it is technically correct that I am also vulnerable to dying from the flu. Except that the real risk of my dying from the flu is pretty small. And that is because I have really good health insurance, I am wealthy enough to be able to eat a healthy diet, and I am privileged enough to have the time to exercise – which full disclosure since my husband may be in the audience, I really don’t do to the extent I probably should. But I still have great health insurance, which is one form of resilience.
So, when we talk about who is really vulnerable to the storm surge, flooding, and heat waves that we can expect here in Boston as our climate continues to change over the next few decades – it is the people who are least resilient who are really the most vulnerable. It is those who are politically, socially, and economically marginalized and insecure. The people who do not have good health insurance. The people who have to work several jobs to feed and clothe their families. The people who do not have access to fresh food, and even if they did, do not have adequate time to prepare a healthy meal.
How are these things – climate change, environmental justice, and gentrification – connected?
In East Boston, we have a weird thing going. We have a lot of abandoned waterfront land. And our entrepreneurial city government is eyeing that land as the next big redevelopment. Now, to be clear, I have yet to meet anyone in East Boston who doesn’t want something to happen on all of that abandoned land. It is ugly. It is dangerous. And it prevents us from having access to the water. So, of course we want that land developed. But we also want it developed responsibly, we want it developed in a way that does not increase the hazards that residents are already exposed to, and we want it developed in a way that does not displace current residents or make it difficult for the kind of diversity we have now to be maintained in the future.
But, what we see happening is that, the large scale developments, over 900 units of new housing, that are expected to fetch $3000 per month for 2 bedrooms are already impacting the rents. And not a single one of these developments has even been built yet. But, between February 2012 through February 2013, rents have increased 31% in East Boston, faster than any other neighborhood (although North Dorchester comes in close at 29%). And I can tell you stories of people that I know personally – young, college educated people – who have had to move out of the neighborhood to find an affordable place to live.
Now, the fact that the rents increased in this way even before these large scale developments have even rented their first apartment is not the weird part. The weird part is that all of these proposed developments that are pushing up rents are all located in the riskiest location: right on the waterfront. These developments are premised on the economic value of the waterfront; on the waterfront as an environmental amenity. And at the same, we are putting market and luxury rate housing right where sea level rise is happening. Or to put it another way, we are building housing, that is marketed for people who have the greatest ability to leave, in the place of highest risk to storm surge and flooding.
What makes this weird is that we can predict what is likely to occur. Wealthier folks, most probably young people – because this is not family housing being built – will move in. A superstorm Sandy type event or bigger happens. Their car, conveniently located in the basement level parking garage, is flooded out. They will have to survive on the island that East Boston will turn back into in the next big storm event for who knows how long.
Will you be surprised when these folks, who have the resources to leave their rented apartment, actually do? I won’t. And what will then happen? Will rents go down? Will maintenance fall off? Will it become abandoned? And what happens to the rest of my community? This is what we don’t know. We could know if we put the time and effort to find out, but we don’t.
My concern is that if these large scale developments are not built so that they are both resilient to climate change AND so that they build on the strong sense of community that exists in East Boston, we will have ironically created the potential for the kind of gentrification that may result in displacement in the short term, but in the long term leads to abandonment.
However, in the face of climate change, the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards operate a little differently. When we talk about who is vulnerable to the negative impacts to climate change, some people would like to argue that it is everyone. OK, that is technically correct, in the same way that it is technically correct that I am also vulnerable to dying from the flu. Except that the real risk of my dying from the flu is pretty small. And that is because I have really good health insurance, I am wealthy enough to be able to eat a healthy diet, and I am privileged enough to have the time to exercise – which full disclosure since my husband may be in the audience, I really don’t do to the extent I probably should. But I still have great health insurance, which is one form of resilience.
So, when we talk about who is really vulnerable to the storm surge, flooding, and heat waves that we can expect here in Boston as our climate continues to change over the next few decades – it is the people who are least resilient who are really the most vulnerable. It is those who are politically, socially, and economically marginalized and insecure. The people who do not have good health insurance. The people who have to work several jobs to feed and clothe their families. The people who do not have access to fresh food, and even if they did, do not have adequate time to prepare a healthy meal.
How are these things – climate change, environmental justice, and gentrification – connected?
In East Boston, we have a weird thing going. We have a lot of abandoned waterfront land. And our entrepreneurial city government is eyeing that land as the next big redevelopment. Now, to be clear, I have yet to meet anyone in East Boston who doesn’t want something to happen on all of that abandoned land. It is ugly. It is dangerous. And it prevents us from having access to the water. So, of course we want that land developed. But we also want it developed responsibly, we want it developed in a way that does not increase the hazards that residents are already exposed to, and we want it developed in a way that does not displace current residents or make it difficult for the kind of diversity we have now to be maintained in the future.
But, what we see happening is that, the large scale developments, over 900 units of new housing, that are expected to fetch $3000 per month for 2 bedrooms are already impacting the rents. And not a single one of these developments has even been built yet. But, between February 2012 through February 2013, rents have increased 31% in East Boston, faster than any other neighborhood (although North Dorchester comes in close at 29%). And I can tell you stories of people that I know personally – young, college educated people – who have had to move out of the neighborhood to find an affordable place to live.
Now, the fact that the rents increased in this way even before these large scale developments have even rented their first apartment is not the weird part. The weird part is that all of these proposed developments that are pushing up rents are all located in the riskiest location: right on the waterfront. These developments are premised on the economic value of the waterfront; on the waterfront as an environmental amenity. And at the same, we are putting market and luxury rate housing right where sea level rise is happening. Or to put it another way, we are building housing, that is marketed for people who have the greatest ability to leave, in the place of highest risk to storm surge and flooding.
What makes this weird is that we can predict what is likely to occur. Wealthier folks, most probably young people – because this is not family housing being built – will move in. A superstorm Sandy type event or bigger happens. Their car, conveniently located in the basement level parking garage, is flooded out. They will have to survive on the island that East Boston will turn back into in the next big storm event for who knows how long.
Will you be surprised when these folks, who have the resources to leave their rented apartment, actually do? I won’t. And what will then happen? Will rents go down? Will maintenance fall off? Will it become abandoned? And what happens to the rest of my community? This is what we don’t know. We could know if we put the time and effort to find out, but we don’t.
My concern is that if these large scale developments are not built so that they are both resilient to climate change AND so that they build on the strong sense of community that exists in East Boston, we will have ironically created the potential for the kind of gentrification that may result in displacement in the short term, but in the long term leads to abandonment.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
An experiment in game theory: Part I
So, last night I performed an experiment. I wanted to test out whether Robert Axelrod's use of game theory in explaining the evolution of cooperation worked in the modern world of social media.
Axelrod has successfully shown that how we structure interactions with each other determine how effectively cooperation develops. Cooperation is viewed pretty expansively. I particularly like the description of the "Live and Let Live" phenomenon that existed in trench warfare during WWI.
The standard situation in game theory is the Prisoner's Dilemma.* The upshot of the game is that both parties benefit from mutual cooperation (e.g. live and let live) but one party could do better by exploiting or abusing the other. Repeated experiments have shown that all parties do better in the long run by cooperating, but each individual has the short term incentive to exploit the other. Axelrod provides four "suggestions" for promoting and sustaining cooperation, or non-exploitative, behavior.
Be nice. Here, Axelrod asserts that your default behavior should be to cooperate, especially if you are going to interact with that other person again. What's most important about this is that always starting off in the adversarial position creates an environment in which cooperation becomes a losing strategy. If you start off fighting, you'll be fighting all of the time.
Axelrod has successfully shown that how we structure interactions with each other determine how effectively cooperation develops. Cooperation is viewed pretty expansively. I particularly like the description of the "Live and Let Live" phenomenon that existed in trench warfare during WWI.
The standard situation in game theory is the Prisoner's Dilemma.* The upshot of the game is that both parties benefit from mutual cooperation (e.g. live and let live) but one party could do better by exploiting or abusing the other. Repeated experiments have shown that all parties do better in the long run by cooperating, but each individual has the short term incentive to exploit the other. Axelrod provides four "suggestions" for promoting and sustaining cooperation, or non-exploitative, behavior.
Don't be envious. Axelrod argues that you shouldn't compare how well you are doing to how well someone else is doing. Instead, you should compare how well someone else could be doing in your shoes. The main lesson here is that you do not have to do better than others to do well for yourself.
Be nice. Here, Axelrod asserts that your default behavior should be to cooperate, especially if you are going to interact with that other person again. What's most important about this is that always starting off in the adversarial position creates an environment in which cooperation becomes a losing strategy. If you start off fighting, you'll be fighting all of the time.
Reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. The strategy that works best in the Prisoner's Dilemma is called Tit for Tat. Basically, it means that when other people are nice, be nice right back at them. But when they exploit or abuse you, you punish them. When they start cooperating again, you forgive. How much forgiveness you give depends on the environment. The willingness to forgive is itself exploitable unless you use a one to one reward/punishment strategy.
Don't try to outsmart other people. People respond to your behavior. If good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior punished, as Axelrod says, "...your own behavior is likely to be echoed back to you."
I have become curious about whether the structure of social media promotes cooperation or exploitation. People have written that at the same time that social media allows people to connect across space (think about friends or family across the world that you regularly interact with on Facebook), it also engenders a form of social distance that allows people to say things in social media that they would not say in a face to face situation.
In the next posting, I will describe the experiment and my lessons learned.
*In this game, two burglars are caught at the scene of the crime and interrogated separately. If both burglars cooperate with each other and keep their mouths shut, they would each spend only 1 year in jail. However, if one decides not to cooperate and implicates the other, he will not go to jail at all.
Learning, Doing, Teaching, Being
Some time ago, Snap Judgment, one of my favorite NPR programs, had a show about Daryl Davis who befriended a few KKK Grand Wizards. Through simply trying to understand how they could hate him before they knew him as an individual, he managed to convince at least three to give up their robes.
I admire this.
Recently, I saw a TEDx talk by Ash Beckham whose message was that your hard isn't any harder than anyone else's hard. Your hard may be disclosing that you are gay, or being an undocumented immigrant, or fearing hordes undocumented gay immigrants moving into your neighborhood. But, as she says, there is no harder. There is just hard.
I admire this.
And even today, I happened upon an RSA video of Brene Brown brilliantly explaining the difference between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy acknowledges, but also disconnects one from others. Empathy requires connecting with the feelings of the other.
I admire this as well.
I also read an article about Mandela written upon the event of his death. The author recounted the story of Mandela looking after and keeping clean a fellow prisoner suffering from a stomach illness. The message in the article is that it is insufficient to remember. What is demanded of all of us is to act to facilitate social justice and honor the dignity of other human beings. And, of course, to forgive.
And as someone who teaches and works at the intersection of social relations, community development, law and policy, and public health, I encourage engaging in respectful discourse that allows empathy to develop. I read about it, especially in relation to race/ ethnicity, gender, and class. I write about it. I participate in lots of activities that demand facilitating this exact thing. I do research that requires that I put myself in a non-judgmental position (and I am pretty good at this). And, as a college professor, I teach it at every level and every opportunity.
And yet, openness, empathy, and forgiveness are difficult to practice outside of my "work." I can listen to a participant in one of my studies talk about how a specific group that I belong to are "the problem" in society. I can analyze this and relate it to a variety of theories that situate such reactions in ethnocentrism, political manipulation, mass media hysteria or some combination therein. And I can even encourage everyone I work with to remember that "those people" are human beings and not caricatures of false consciousness. But I cannot handle intolerance outside of this.
And I know from my own training, ongoing engagement with development in social theory, and field research that her behavior is likely the result of fear and loss. Fear of people who she doesn't know or understand. Loss of standing in a community that has changed before her eyes. Fear of change, generally. Loss of a community that she once knew and that is not so slowly fading into the past.
But, to be frank, I can not let her behavior go unchallenged. She may very well be a nice person otherwise, but her statements and behavior in certain spaces are simply unacceptable While I can understand why she may act the way she does, I do not empathize with it.
I think this is the case because I associate these fears and this sense of loss with an undeserved sense of entitlement. I cannot give quarter to someone who wants to tell me, or people like me, whether I am entitled to be actively involved in this place that I have chosen to call my home. This is my community and you cannot tell me otherwise.
And so, I continue to work on promoting discourse, understanding, empathy, and forgiveness. But I do not confuse understanding with acceptance. I cannot tolerate intolerance, even when I understand where it is coming from. I believe that people should held accountable for their actions, especially with the words they use in social media. But I do hope that someone in this neighborhood is able to continue to engage in meaningful dialogue with this woman, at least for her sake. At this stage in my life, I cannot.
I admire this.
Recently, I saw a TEDx talk by Ash Beckham whose message was that your hard isn't any harder than anyone else's hard. Your hard may be disclosing that you are gay, or being an undocumented immigrant, or fearing hordes undocumented gay immigrants moving into your neighborhood. But, as she says, there is no harder. There is just hard.
I admire this.
And even today, I happened upon an RSA video of Brene Brown brilliantly explaining the difference between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy acknowledges, but also disconnects one from others. Empathy requires connecting with the feelings of the other.
I admire this as well.
I also read an article about Mandela written upon the event of his death. The author recounted the story of Mandela looking after and keeping clean a fellow prisoner suffering from a stomach illness. The message in the article is that it is insufficient to remember. What is demanded of all of us is to act to facilitate social justice and honor the dignity of other human beings. And, of course, to forgive.
This I admire and want to emulate.
And as someone who teaches and works at the intersection of social relations, community development, law and policy, and public health, I encourage engaging in respectful discourse that allows empathy to develop. I read about it, especially in relation to race/ ethnicity, gender, and class. I write about it. I participate in lots of activities that demand facilitating this exact thing. I do research that requires that I put myself in a non-judgmental position (and I am pretty good at this). And, as a college professor, I teach it at every level and every opportunity.
And yet, openness, empathy, and forgiveness are difficult to practice outside of my "work." I can listen to a participant in one of my studies talk about how a specific group that I belong to are "the problem" in society. I can analyze this and relate it to a variety of theories that situate such reactions in ethnocentrism, political manipulation, mass media hysteria or some combination therein. And I can even encourage everyone I work with to remember that "those people" are human beings and not caricatures of false consciousness. But I cannot handle intolerance outside of this.
So, there is this woman in my neighborhood. And she just says the most gawd-awful things, mostly about Latino immigrants. It doesn't take a whole lot of training in the subtle code language of xenophobia or regular reading in social theories of othering to see her behavior, especially online, as too closely aligned with folks who have landed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence files.
And I know from my own training, ongoing engagement with development in social theory, and field research that her behavior is likely the result of fear and loss. Fear of people who she doesn't know or understand. Loss of standing in a community that has changed before her eyes. Fear of change, generally. Loss of a community that she once knew and that is not so slowly fading into the past.
But, to be frank, I can not let her behavior go unchallenged. She may very well be a nice person otherwise, but her statements and behavior in certain spaces are simply unacceptable While I can understand why she may act the way she does, I do not empathize with it.
I think this is the case because I associate these fears and this sense of loss with an undeserved sense of entitlement. I cannot give quarter to someone who wants to tell me, or people like me, whether I am entitled to be actively involved in this place that I have chosen to call my home. This is my community and you cannot tell me otherwise.
And so, I continue to work on promoting discourse, understanding, empathy, and forgiveness. But I do not confuse understanding with acceptance. I cannot tolerate intolerance, even when I understand where it is coming from. I believe that people should held accountable for their actions, especially with the words they use in social media. But I do hope that someone in this neighborhood is able to continue to engage in meaningful dialogue with this woman, at least for her sake. At this stage in my life, I cannot.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Dear Gaming Commission
I am a homeowning resident in East Boston and professor of law and policy at
Northeastern University.
I am writing to urge you to reject any consideration of a proposal for a "Revere-only" casino at the Suffolk Downs site without having gone through the proper process as outlined in MGL c.23K§15(13). The current plan is so different than the original proposal that has been described by Suffolk Downs for the past two years that it can only reasonably be considered a new proposal. The current plan has a different applicant, a different location, a different partner, and a different business model. As such, MGL c.23K§15(13) clearly states that this new proposal requires a new host community agreement and a new vote at least 180 days after November 5, 2013. The plain reading of the law is quite clear on this point. As your legal counsel undoubtedly has made you aware, Massachusetts courts pay very close attention to the plain language in state statutes.
To entertain a so-called Revere-only casino proposal at Suffolk Downs without having gone through the process as outlined in Expanded Game Act and your regulations is to render the concept of the rule of law meaningless. It is not the place of the Commission to divine the intent of the voters in Revere. This is not an academic exercise in epistemology or logic; it is a practical a legal matter with material implications. MGL c.23K§15(13) explicitly describes the process by which voters are to make their choices clear. The Commission needs to ensure that the proponents of this new proposal follow the letter of law and the process described therein.
I also urge Chairman Steve Crosby to recuse himself from all decisions related to Region A casino license applications. The recent revelations of personal and professional relationships between Chairman Crosby and casino proponents in both Everett and Suffolk Downs reinforce the concern that casinos will corrupt our public officials and public processes. It is simply implausible that Chairman Crosby could be considered impartial if he were to recuse himself from evaluating one applicant but not the other. Indeed, the insistence on finding some way, even if contrary to the unambiguous language in state law, to allow Suffolk Downs to submit a proposal suggests that the Commission is trying to create the appearance of competition in order to create a distorted semblance of impartiality.
The decisions and actions taken by this Commission to date have already reduced the public trust in the ability of the Gaming Commission to provide meaningful oversight of any casino licensed to operate in Massachusetts. As I stated in my comments to you dated 2 October 2013, the rule of law is first and foremost rooted in the commitment to following procedure. Procedure in and of itself does not automatically result in fair outcomes. But without fair procedure, even desirable outcomes are tainted with the appearance of corruption, further reducing trust in our government. If the Commission allows the proposed "Revere-only" proposal to go forward, and if Chairman Crosby refuses to recuses himself from evaluating any Region A applicants, the Commission's decisions can only be interpreted as stating that laws do not apply to some people and that the government cannot be trusted to look after the public's interest.
Thank you for your time.
Neenah Estrella-Luna, MPH, PhD
I am writing to urge you to reject any consideration of a proposal for a "Revere-only" casino at the Suffolk Downs site without having gone through the proper process as outlined in MGL c.23K§15(13). The current plan is so different than the original proposal that has been described by Suffolk Downs for the past two years that it can only reasonably be considered a new proposal. The current plan has a different applicant, a different location, a different partner, and a different business model. As such, MGL c.23K§15(13) clearly states that this new proposal requires a new host community agreement and a new vote at least 180 days after November 5, 2013. The plain reading of the law is quite clear on this point. As your legal counsel undoubtedly has made you aware, Massachusetts courts pay very close attention to the plain language in state statutes.
To entertain a so-called Revere-only casino proposal at Suffolk Downs without having gone through the process as outlined in Expanded Game Act and your regulations is to render the concept of the rule of law meaningless. It is not the place of the Commission to divine the intent of the voters in Revere. This is not an academic exercise in epistemology or logic; it is a practical a legal matter with material implications. MGL c.23K§15(13) explicitly describes the process by which voters are to make their choices clear. The Commission needs to ensure that the proponents of this new proposal follow the letter of law and the process described therein.
I also urge Chairman Steve Crosby to recuse himself from all decisions related to Region A casino license applications. The recent revelations of personal and professional relationships between Chairman Crosby and casino proponents in both Everett and Suffolk Downs reinforce the concern that casinos will corrupt our public officials and public processes. It is simply implausible that Chairman Crosby could be considered impartial if he were to recuse himself from evaluating one applicant but not the other. Indeed, the insistence on finding some way, even if contrary to the unambiguous language in state law, to allow Suffolk Downs to submit a proposal suggests that the Commission is trying to create the appearance of competition in order to create a distorted semblance of impartiality.
The decisions and actions taken by this Commission to date have already reduced the public trust in the ability of the Gaming Commission to provide meaningful oversight of any casino licensed to operate in Massachusetts. As I stated in my comments to you dated 2 October 2013, the rule of law is first and foremost rooted in the commitment to following procedure. Procedure in and of itself does not automatically result in fair outcomes. But without fair procedure, even desirable outcomes are tainted with the appearance of corruption, further reducing trust in our government. If the Commission allows the proposed "Revere-only" proposal to go forward, and if Chairman Crosby refuses to recuses himself from evaluating any Region A applicants, the Commission's decisions can only be interpreted as stating that laws do not apply to some people and that the government cannot be trusted to look after the public's interest.
Thank you for your time.
Neenah Estrella-Luna, MPH, PhD
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The role of advisory committees in sustaining East Boston's awesomeness
Excel Academy is looking to build a high school a few blocks from my house in East Boston. I heard a few days ago that the political leadership get to appoint the impact advisory committee members. Two have already been named. One has already begun to solicit early comments. However, I'm worried about how it would operate and am frankly wondering what the value of any comments would have.
My concern is rooted in the fact that one of the other people who has already been appointed to the committee is someone who has publicly stated that immigrants, which comprise a significant part of the student population at Excel Academy, are not worthy public support.
I know this because this individual signed (#615) a petition in 2009 expressing opposition to Governor Deval Patrick's New Americans Agenda. The petition specifically objected to:
- expanding programs to support English as a second language learning in public schools,
- increasing funding for translation and interpreter service in public schools,
- providing access to in-state college tuition for all immigrant residents in public universities, and
- other services and programs that support the successful integration of our immigrant neighbors.
The student body at Excel Academy in East Boston is 72% Latino and represents 23 different nationalities. And yet, this individual is publicly opposed to the very conditions that support the academic success of many of those students.
Why would anyone who wants to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and planning of this school make the time to participate when someone who has already been appointed to the committee itself believes that parents who are still learning to speak English should be denied translation when talking with teachers and school officials? Think about the message that sends to the rest of us who care about exactly the kinds of families that Excel Academy aims to serve.
Why would anyone who wants to meaningfully contribute to the conversation and planning of this school make the time to participate when someone who has already been appointed to the committee itself believes that parents who are still learning to speak English should be denied translation when talking with teachers and school officials? Think about the message that sends to the rest of us who care about exactly the kinds of families that Excel Academy aims to serve.
The problem is not necessarily this individual. She has every right to hold whatever opinion she wants and to express her political viewpoint in any legal manner available to her. However, it strikes me as inappropriate that an individual whose public statements are in opposition to how a publicly funded charter school operates is appointed to advise on the siting of such school.
The problem, as I see it, is that it seems that our elected officials, who are responsible for appointing people to these advisory committees, seem to only know a handful of people who live in the neighborhood.
All eight advisory committee members for this committee will be appointed by four elected officials. How many of those people will be Latinos (who comprise 54% of the neighborhood's population) or immigrants (50% of our neighbors are immigrants)? How many of them will be parents of students who currently attend public schools? How many of them will be educators who currently teach? How many of them will be one of the growing number of urban planners and architects who live in our neighborhood? How many of them will be people who physically live in the area where the new school will be sited?
The problem, as I see it, is that it seems that our elected officials, who are responsible for appointing people to these advisory committees, seem to only know a handful of people who live in the neighborhood.
All eight advisory committee members for this committee will be appointed by four elected officials. How many of those people will be Latinos (who comprise 54% of the neighborhood's population) or immigrants (50% of our neighbors are immigrants)? How many of them will be parents of students who currently attend public schools? How many of them will be educators who currently teach? How many of them will be one of the growing number of urban planners and architects who live in our neighborhood? How many of them will be people who physically live in the area where the new school will be sited?
Every time the same people keep getting appointed to these committees, we lose the opportunity to capitalize on the diversity of people and talent who live here. We have immigrant neighbors who were professors of environmental sustainability in their native homelands. We have young planners who know how to read transportation studies. We have contractors who specialize in environmentally sustainable and healthy buildings who live in this neighborhood. We have bilingual parents who could more effectively bring those supposedly hard to reach parents to public meetings than either of the two appointed committee members.
If the city and BRA were really interested in a meaningful advisory process (and maybe they aren't), they could more effectively tap the organic talent that already exists in this neighborhood by actually opening up the process of applying to participate.
Instead of going to their friends and political contributors, how about asking for a list of people from all of the neighborhood groups. And how about actually talking with those individuals to determine whether they have whatever skills are useful, but more importantly, the attitudes to work in a public process to support a public school that serves a population and neighborhood that deserves exactly the kind of support that the petition above opposes?
Think about what it would mean to East Boston's future if we could engage all of our residents, both long time residents and newcomers (domestic and foreign), in the decision-making processes in our neighborhood. I think it would be awesome.
If the city and BRA were really interested in a meaningful advisory process (and maybe they aren't), they could more effectively tap the organic talent that already exists in this neighborhood by actually opening up the process of applying to participate.
Instead of going to their friends and political contributors, how about asking for a list of people from all of the neighborhood groups. And how about actually talking with those individuals to determine whether they have whatever skills are useful, but more importantly, the attitudes to work in a public process to support a public school that serves a population and neighborhood that deserves exactly the kind of support that the petition above opposes?
Think about what it would mean to East Boston's future if we could engage all of our residents, both long time residents and newcomers (domestic and foreign), in the decision-making processes in our neighborhood. I think it would be awesome.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Dear Marty Walsh - I would like to vote for you
Dear Marty Walsh,
I admit that I did not expect you to be one of the top candidates in the preliminary. This says more about me than about you. I was clearly not paying as much attention as I thought.
You should know that, in the past, I have worked with John Connolly. He provided urban sustainability projects that my urban studies students could work on. He even came and spoke with my students about development issues. I also found his office helpful in assisting some parent start to address longstanding issues at the local high school. Going into the preliminary, I thought, regardless of who I supported on September 24, I would end up voting for him on November 5.
But shortly after the preliminary, I became increasingly skeptical about the friends Connolly keeps. While he criticized you for the support you received from organized labor, he was receiving money from those who support a number of causes that I oppose and, in one case find offensive (e.g. Pioneer Institute, American Crossroads).
As I tried to make an informed decision about which candidate to support, I began to lean in your direction. I was able to meet with you when you made time to speak to some of the Latinas of East Boston. I was impressed when you appeared to be visibly upset by the stories told by one of our youth of high school counselors actively discouraging Latino students from pursuing a college education. I was also impressed by the level of detailed knowledge around development issues, and the BRA in particular, that you showed. And people who I have a lot of respect for made compelling arguments in your favor.
However, I go into this election as an East Boston resident, more so than in any other election. We are faced with potentially the most important change this neighborhood has seen since the airport dispossessed us of Wood Island Park in the 1960s. I've never been a single issue voter, but this time, there is one issue that can make or break the quality of life in the neighborhood I have come to call home.
Just as decades of expansion of Logan Airport continues to negatively impact the quality of life in this neighborhood, the proposed casino at Suffolk Downs will no doubt have large repercussions for me and my neighbors.
You voted in favor of the casino bill when you were in the statehouse. And you have publicly stated your support for a casino at Suffolk Downs. After much thought and research, I do not believe a casino in this (or any) dense, urban neighborhood is a good idea.
Some of my neighbors believe that the only thing that could save Suffolk Downs-the racetrack, after the failure of more than two decades of public subsidies and at least one bailout, is a casino. You give every indication that you believe this as well.
But more importantly, if the residents of East Boston vote against the casino mitigation agreement, you have not publicly stated whether you would reopen host community agreement negotiations with Suffolk Downs if presented the opportunity.
Without that assurance, I cannot bring myself to vote for you. Given the available evidence, I've come to believe that a vote for you is a vote for a casino. Without a public statement to the contrary, I will unfortunately not be able to support you at this time.
I admit that I did not expect you to be one of the top candidates in the preliminary. This says more about me than about you. I was clearly not paying as much attention as I thought.
You should know that, in the past, I have worked with John Connolly. He provided urban sustainability projects that my urban studies students could work on. He even came and spoke with my students about development issues. I also found his office helpful in assisting some parent start to address longstanding issues at the local high school. Going into the preliminary, I thought, regardless of who I supported on September 24, I would end up voting for him on November 5.
But shortly after the preliminary, I became increasingly skeptical about the friends Connolly keeps. While he criticized you for the support you received from organized labor, he was receiving money from those who support a number of causes that I oppose and, in one case find offensive (e.g. Pioneer Institute, American Crossroads).
As I tried to make an informed decision about which candidate to support, I began to lean in your direction. I was able to meet with you when you made time to speak to some of the Latinas of East Boston. I was impressed when you appeared to be visibly upset by the stories told by one of our youth of high school counselors actively discouraging Latino students from pursuing a college education. I was also impressed by the level of detailed knowledge around development issues, and the BRA in particular, that you showed. And people who I have a lot of respect for made compelling arguments in your favor.
However, I go into this election as an East Boston resident, more so than in any other election. We are faced with potentially the most important change this neighborhood has seen since the airport dispossessed us of Wood Island Park in the 1960s. I've never been a single issue voter, but this time, there is one issue that can make or break the quality of life in the neighborhood I have come to call home.
Just as decades of expansion of Logan Airport continues to negatively impact the quality of life in this neighborhood, the proposed casino at Suffolk Downs will no doubt have large repercussions for me and my neighbors.
You voted in favor of the casino bill when you were in the statehouse. And you have publicly stated your support for a casino at Suffolk Downs. After much thought and research, I do not believe a casino in this (or any) dense, urban neighborhood is a good idea.
Some of my neighbors believe that the only thing that could save Suffolk Downs-the racetrack, after the failure of more than two decades of public subsidies and at least one bailout, is a casino. You give every indication that you believe this as well.
But more importantly, if the residents of East Boston vote against the casino mitigation agreement, you have not publicly stated whether you would reopen host community agreement negotiations with Suffolk Downs if presented the opportunity.
Without that assurance, I cannot bring myself to vote for you. Given the available evidence, I've come to believe that a vote for you is a vote for a casino. Without a public statement to the contrary, I will unfortunately not be able to support you at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)