Left In Lowell

Honestly, I will be posting my Tuesday City Council Blogging entry at some point, but I have to get some work done (typing up my notes is time consuming). However, I took a quick glance over at First Draft and Holden is pointing out an article from the Washington Post about the Bush administration whitewashing (yet again) a report about potential negative effects of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement). I know a lot of people concerned about CAFTA, and also, the debate rages over at Left Center Left so it’s pretty relevant. Bold emphasis mine (in the first paragraph, I just wanted to point out the irony of paying for something then saying it was biased against you)…

The Labor Department kept secret for more than a year government studies that supported Democratic opponents of the Bush administration’s new Central American trade deal, internal documents show.

The studies, paid for by the department, concluded that several countries the administration wants to be granted free-trade status have poor working conditions and fail to protect workers’ rights. The agency dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

[snip]

The studies’ conclusions contrast with the administration’s arguments that Central American countries have made enough progress on such issues to warrant a free-trade deal with the United States.

[snip]

Hoping to lure enough Democratic votes to win passages, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman earlier this month promised to spend money and arrange an international conference to ensure “the best agreement ever negotiated by the United States on labor rights.”

But behind the scenes, the administration began as early as spring 2004 to block the reports’ public release.

The Labor Department instructed its contractor to remove the reports from its Web site, ordered it to retrieve paper copies before they became public, banned release of new information from the reports, and even told the contractor it couldn’t discuss the studies with outsiders.

Isn’t the American public tired of being lied to in every aspect of governance from toxins released from the fall of the twin towers in NYC to WMD to the environment to trade policy? Poll seems to suggest that yes, yes they are.

Cape Cod Works has a post about Bush’s non-speech on Iraq last night. One thought struck me after reading this quote from the speech:

“The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.”

This is, of course, a theme of Bush’s - we fight them there and we don’t have to fight them here, which I’ve posted about before. But I failed to make another connection…

What makes the Bush administration think that al Qaeda can’t multitask?? Especially since it’s fairly well-known that most of the “terrorists” or “insurgents” (depending on who you’re talking to) in Iraq are home-grown…al Qaeda is all over the world. What, a 12-year-old can watch TV and play on the computer at once but al Qaeda can’t plan attacks on the US while we’re in Iraq? Are you kidding me?

[UPDATE: Americablog reports that the one and only place in his speech that Bush got applause from the soldiers was when they were led to do it by a Bush team guy…it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.]

I’m back from the Affordable Housing rally and city council meeting. I took a full load of notes, trying to catch everything I could from the meeting, which I will make a full report on shortly (hopefully tonight if I don’t run out of steam).

First, we were denied our tent city. Because the permit didn’t explicitly say “can have tents”… apparently you have to itemize everything. Next time we apply for a permit, I suggested, we put in everything - “we will have 200 cans of soda, 50 of Coke, 50 of diet Coke, 25 of Sprite…” Ah, well, thwarted by stupid bureaucracy. Either it was small-town mentality working against us, or a more sinister reaction to the cause engendered, but in any case, no tent city. We did, however, deploy one of the tents and carry it around with us. I will post pictures when I can.

I find that two very distinct and contrary storylines are emerging about what happened/what is happening with Julian Steele (the former 20 acres of public housing, now an empty lot awaiting market-rate and some affordable houses to be built). The Councilors were very clever tonight - whether on purpose or by accident, I don’t know. Probably both. They put our petition nearly last on the agenda (the petition being a demand that something be done to fulfill promises to former Steele residents and to rebuild affordable housing elsewhere), which made our speeches come after the subcommittee report from Councilors Milinazzo and I think Elliot and Martin on the current issues around development problems at the Julian Steele site. They got to tell their side of the story (or at least some parts of it) before we got to make a case. Namely, that the legislation passed at the state level stipulated as I mentioned in my last post that some replacement housing (affordable housing, though I’m not sure where that “affordable housing” falls next to actual public housing) and that the city has put forth all effort to follow the “replication plan” under the bill. They also got a chance to mention that the stipulations in that bill put constraints on developers such that it’s difficult to begin work (I guess because it puts a limit on some units’ sale in terms of cost?).

The discussion after the four speakers spoke among the councilors was about how Lowell is only 12th in the state for highest ratio of affordable housing (T.J. McCarthy, assistant City Manager, whom I had a lively talk with afterwards, mentions 14% - the state recommends a minimum 10% ratio of affordable housing to market-rate). If so (obviously, it’s hard to counter when I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’ll take them at their word) that’s extremely commendable. They also argued that since Julian Steele was demolished, some 200 units of affordable housing (again, what defines this affordable housing I don’t know - income of $33K and below? something higher? lower?) have been created, though not all under the reclamation plan. They also mentioned that the state of the housing was terrible, some units had been condemned or were unlivable, “at least 1/3 were not fit for human habitation” according to Bud Caulfield. He also said millions had been invested over the years since the housing was built in 1950 to get very little out of it (that doesn’t sound right - unless some contractor or other was stiffing the LHA, or someone made off with the money - money put into fixing a building usually does SOME good, unless it was misappropriated, in which case, where was the investigation?).

Eileen took issue with the suggestion that no resident or community input went into the Julian Steele plan. This was not a project done “on a whim” as she put it. The state was not putting the money in (so what was the $7M offered to fix up the units, I wonder, and who would have had control of that to ensure it was used correctly?). She toured J.S. units, remembers many as being condemned, etc. etc. (I still wonder the ratio of condemned/unlivable to “salvageable” units since there were 284 of them).

Rita also piped up, but I’m not really sure what she was saying. Something about when people thought of J.S., there was a stigma attached, as a drug haven, that was wrong, etc etc (but I’m not sure she was saying it was wrong to attach that stigma, or the stima was wrong in the first place).

As I said, there seems to be two threads emerging about this - the Councilors all seem to remember totally-run-down horrible housing units, that were doing the public no good, that were unsalvageable, that no one advocated for keeping, that under the Home Rule Bill would be (mostly) replaced in a reclamation plan with better housing. But the story from some people, including former residents, was that the place was rundown but salvageable, that it was a community they wanted to keep, but by the time the plan came to fruition the residents’ group there was decimated by evictions, that the relocation for many of them was not up to snuff (or law), that the housing to replace Julian Steele is both inadequate in terms of numbers and in terms of what “affordable” is defined as, and not quick enough in coming. Certainly the facts and the truth can’t be espoused by both sides, because they contradict. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle - good intentions mingled with some bad tactics or plans, bad circumstances converged with bad timing. No one claims to have been malicious, of course. No one claims to want to gentrify the city (in the way of pricing the poor out in favor of the rich) either, but the effect is there.

In the end, the motion was to pass our petition to the LHA (Lowell Housing Authority). Really, it’s all symbolic anyway. The LHA, I’m sure, won’t really want to talk to us, particularly in light of the lawsuit by former residents…and the CBA does work with them on other projects, so a relationship exists. But if the LHA and the city did half of what is claimed, they do have some apologizing to do.

Tonight’s Tuesday City Council blogging will be from City Hall this time, as I will be joining the affordable housing rally in front of City Hall and then going to the meeting to listen to the speakers who will be talking about the City and the Lowell Housing Authority’s unfulfilled obligations to former residents of the destroyed Julian D. Steele public housing units on Shaughnessy Ter. in Lowell, and their promise to replace those 284 units. We are building a tent city, “Steeleville,” to represent the displaced residents. The rally starts in front of City Hall at 5pm, and we will have refreshments. Then we will attend the City Hall meeting at 6:30 where there will be speakers. Anyone is welcome to join us for the rally or the meeting, or come early and help us set up!

The Julian D. Steele housing units were built in 1950. Named after a public housing activist, the state financed these affordable homes. Prior to their eviction, residents of “Shaughnessy” (as the locals knew it) had a median income of just $11,715, and most families were wage earners. Contrary to the argument of public officials at the time, former residents say the 20-acre neighborhood was not a crime-ridden dangerous place, but a neighborhood with people who cared and watched out for each other.

In 1995-96, the City of Lowell funded the Lowell Housing Authority (LHA) in a plan for demolishing Julian Steele. Apparently, the city used federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), which are meant to be used for addressing the causes of poverty.

The next year, the LHA proposed the demolition to the Mass Dept of Housing and Community Development. DHCD refused to approve this destruction of perfectly good, albeit run-down affordable housing and offered Lowell $7M to repair and improve the property for the residents.

Instead, the City launched a lobbying campaign for a Home-Rule bill and got the Julian Steele Act passed at the state level. This Act allowed the demolition of the units, replacing 284 units with only 180, 99 of which would be available to households with incomes of up to $300,000. Just 18 units would be available to households with incomes of $33,000 or less (and remember, the median income prior was roughly $11,000). The Act also required for building 63 market-rate units and 157 “affordable” (under $33K) at other sites. In total, even if the City lived up to this Act, Lowell would lose 46 units of affordable housing, and the housing that would supposedly replace the public units at Julian Steele are not “affordable” to wage earners at the former residents’ median income.

Now, what was Julian Steele stands empty and barren. The developers, after Lowell spent $1M to demolish the affordable units, backed out because they wouldn’t earn enough profit to make it worth their while to build on the property.

We’re going to the City Council to demand they at least fulfill their promise to the residents both of Julian Steele and of the City: rebuild the truly affordable housing, take care of the residents you displaced, and stop loaning and giving money to developers to build luxury housing until the time comes when you have done so.

Check out Independent World Television, a new organization looking to launch a non-corporate, non-governmental news network that will conduct *gasp! shock!* in-depth investigative journalism on a variety of subjects. I will definitely be keeping an eye out for this one. I took their survey (they are asking for input). They’ll also need our (the grassroots) help, so check out their website, and decide if their cause is one you want to support with your dollars.

(via this post at MyDD.com)

Boston is apparently a hedonistic paradise where sickos and perverts reign supreme…

In an oped for Catholic Online, Rick Santorum writes that “When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Apparently, Ricky “man on dog” Santorum subscribes to the Mitt Romney school of insult-Massachusetts-first. I doubt it’ll get him reelected even in the conservative bits of Pennsylvania though.

(via Atrios)

It’s been a whirlwind week on the blogs in general, the national ones like dKos and AMERICAblog in particular. If you haven’t yet heard about Karl Rove and his (incendiary, indecent, reprehensible…what word really portrays it?) comments, you can get the scoop here at AMERICAblog, and the comment itself I will post here (bold mine):

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Rove said. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war…. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies…. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals,” Rove said.

There can be little said that has not already been said. But in case any readers hadn’t yet heard of this, I thought I would point it out.

It’s also fun to watch the heads explode trying to explain it.

Michael of WonkNOT! had this really insightful piece (go read the whole thing) on the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation summit (a summit based on the study commissioned by the Foundation that I pointed out here). Sitting in his seat “fuming,” he has this to say:

Gov. Romney’s speech was accompanied by a Powerpoint. In one of his first slides he said that his entire plan was based upon some assumptions. #3 of the 4 assumptions was that private health coverage was better than public. STOP RIGHT THERE! Someone’s got to question this. In multiple studies over multiple years, people have shown that Medicaid and Medicare are better run, with lower admin costs than the private sector. Furthermore, the ultimate test of quality is what you get- I robust and comprehensive coverage offered by the government (Medicaid) is surely better than a cheap, high deductible (he proposed up to $1000) plans. My favorite of these now on the market is Tonik, which is offered by Blue Cross in California and marketed to Extreme Youth. Its high deductible and covers little. NY state has also been offering high deductible low cost plans for the past few years and they’ve had few bites.

It’s true - we get little bang for our current buck. As this SFGate.com article points out, we pay almost $5000 per person per year for health care. That includes private statistics. However, the other industrialized countries spend less and get more. “Canada, for example, spends about 60 percent less per person than the United States but has longer life expectancies.”

How long before this fact permeates into the general populace? The numbers can be kind of thick to wade through, but the media could be explaining it more often and better. Say it with me: private health care in the US is more expensive and less effective than Canada’s so-called “socialist” medicine that everyone (including my Canadian-citizen father) seems to abhor.

Of course, the private insurers don’t want you to know this. Because while employers know that they are losing ground in competition with other countries because of health care costs and might welcome other options, the health care industry will fight tooth and nail to keep their status quo.

So it’s no surprise that even though Michael says, “Until Tues, I didn’t believe this [bias] would be the case - I have huge respect for the BCBS Foundation leadership…” he also was “left underwhelmed.” Just another big industry protecting its bottom line - I don’t know why anyone is ever surprised anymore. Talk of universal health care and that health care is a right due all citizens is a threat to these institutions. I suspect we’ll see more fighting before we’re through with this debate in Massachusetts.

Sorry for the lack of posting lately, I’m dealing with my car, work, family, my car…yeah, I did a little damage to it last week by rear-ending someone (nothing too serious, at low speeds, no one was hurt, but oh lordy, do I have the worst luck with cars lately).

So I get on Lowellsun.com and the first thing I click on, the snark-o-meter goes off.

Study: All Mass. residents should insure themselves

BOSTON — Massachusetts could provide health insurance to all its citizens by increasing health-care spending by as much as $2 billion annually and by requiring all individuals to purchase their own insurance, according to a report by the state’s largest HMO.

The state now spends one quarter of its $23 billion budget on health care.

The report by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts said it’s unlikely that Massachusetts would achieve universal health care unless every person were required to carry health insurance, just as every automobile owner is required to have auto insurance.

“It is simply not possible to achieve universal coverage without requiring the purchase of insurance,” the report stated.

Uh…anyone else see what’s wrong with this picture? An HMO did a study and said…”Force people to buy my product!” But wait, there’s more…

Gov. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, threw his support behind the concept. He said his own health-care plan would require that people either obtain health insurance or maintain adequate savings to cover their medical expenses.

Anyone else now unsure of whether or not Mitt is a whore for the business interests as well as the right wing?

I think someone forgot to tell the Iraqi people that we invaded their country not to free them, but to turn them into targets for terrorists so we wouldn’t have them attacking here at home. Scottie tells us:

But I think no matter where you stood prior to the decision to go into Iraq, we can all recognize that the terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism.

And our own preznit sez:

“Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror”…”Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home.”

(Hat tip to Atrios on the last quote. And always, always to Holden for his obsessions with the geese people.)