Achieving Civil Rights in the Face of Stop & Frisk Abuses
There are pundits who place the US Civil Rights era between
the years 1955 and 1968. This placement
suggests the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans and other hyphenated
Americans was just a 13-year ordeal. Is
this actually the case? Can national
ancestors such as Mississippi NAACP leader Medgar Evers rest easy, assured that
their bloodshed brought franchise, fair deals and justice?
“Much has changed for the better since Mr. Evers’s brutal
death 50 years ago—but there is also much we can still learn and put in use
from the brave life he lived”, reflects St. Senator Eric Adams (D, WF) 20 SD. “Certainly, if he were alive today, he would
be at the front lines against the abuse of Stop and Frisk…Yes, this City would
do well to consider his courage and continue the fight against inequality and
injustice that still exist today.”
The Senator speaks with authority regarding the flaws of the
NYC Police Department’s procedure officially named Stop, Question and
Frisk. Prior to gaining the NYS Senate
seat, he was a NYPD Captain in central Brooklyn. He distinguished his police
career by co-founding 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care with several other
peace officers. Since taking his NYS
Senate office in 2006, Adams has kept an eye on NYPD activity. A visit to his State Senate website reveals
his dedicated attention to local police matters. There is a downloadable 23-slide presentation
entitled Stop, Question and Frisk
Procedure in the ‘Report’ section.
This slide show gives the objectives of Stop, Question and Frisk; the
procedure for carrying it out; and the four scenarios when a police officer can
conduct Stop, Question and Frisk. Using
2009 Center for Constitutional Rights’
findings and statistics, the State Senator makes a strong case that the
procedure “has unmerited focus on African-American and Latino youth; the
required reporting is not being followed; and the negative impact it has on
youths of color’s psyche and criminal record.” The slide show purports “Of the
four scenarios when a police officer should execute the practice, the
overwhelming scenario is to fulfill quotas or gather names for the NYPD
database”.
It appears that Stop, Question and Frisk flies in the face
of civil rights. When queried about the realities of
Stop Question and Frisk the State Senator posits, “Protecting New Yorkers and
protecting their civil rights do not have to be competing interests. We must give our law enforcement the tools
they need to keep us safe. The abuse of
Stop and Frisk is not useful in preventing crime. In fact, it sours communities against working
with police and that means crucial information isn’t shared to stop violence
before it can occur. The practice must
be reformed to better meet the necessary standard of reasonable suspicion, to
remove discrimination, and to ensure more criminals and fewer innocents are
targeted for Stop and Frisk.” His study
and assessment of Stop, Question and Frisk is comparable to Medgar Evers’s work
and concerns. Evers was shot in his back the early morning of June 12, 1963.
Currently the front runner in the race for the Brooklyn
Borough President’s Office, Adams stands to win the election in September. Should he win he will not only be New York
City’s first African American in the seat and but be the first police officer
in several decades. How will he make his
mark as the BP serving all of Brooklyn? Adam
says, “This is a pivotal moment for Brooklyn.
We have become very popular in recent years but that hasn’t meant a
better quality of life for everyone. I
want to turn our popularity into prosperity for all. The BP must have a unifying vision for the
borough that brings all Brooklynites together to make Brooklyn the best it can
be.”
Labels: African Americans, black interest, civil rights movement, community, discrimination, NYC, NYC politics, NYS Senate, Stop and Frisk, urban
Re-think Hasty Cast Off of Avella's Scratch Off Proposal
It is understood that St. Senator Avella's proposed
scratch off lottery that would fuel community grant funds is a means to support
grassroot and nonprofit program objectives where Member Items had done so. It
is clear Avella's proposal is in response to Governors Patterson and Cuomo's cessation of State Member Items.
The Member Items gave the nonprofit community a place to request funding on an
annual basis, though of a smaller amount
than the multi-year contracts, typical of state agency awards. Multi-year
contracts closeout losers of the RFP process from agency funding for three to
five years or even longer. Further, the award winners have years to develop
relationships with agency employees. The sweetheart deals feared from Member
Items exists with public agencies.
The Member Items gave unincorporated grassroot groups a chance to get funding
for such activities as community gardens, intergenerational programs, special
community events, and other small scale civic projects. These awards were
contingent on the grassroot groups having a fiscal conduit, usually a
community-based nonprofit. Public agencies tend to enter into contracts with
either higher education institutions, groups with 501-c-3 determinations, or
established businesses. Grassroot groups are ineligible for public agency
awards. For these reasons and more, the state legislature had to bring home the
groceries to their districts.
The State Senator's proposal will need to go through the usual vetting that
occurs in NYS Senate and Assembly committees as well as public hearings. The
legislature is in recess now and is due to resume December 2012/January 2013.
Questions that need answering are why did so many years go by where Member Items
were awarded to political associates and family members without correction? Was
it necessary to discontinue Member Items altogether if that was the issue?
I concur that "Flexible funding for a broad range of nonprofits is a good
idea." However, transactions done by agency administrators AND politicians
require close monitoring. Agency administrators may have biases for or against
eligible fund-seeking entities. All humans have flaws.
Labels: news slanting, nonprofits, NYS Senate, politics
Crowd Jeers As Elected Protect Their Interest in Atlantic Yards
Amidst much jeering and booing, NYS Senate Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee conducted a public hearing at Pratt Institute to ascertain the status of the Atlantic Yards/FCR project, March 29, 2009. Bill Perkins (30 SD, Manh.), committee chair and the sole committee member present, St. Senator Velmanette Montgomery (18 SD, Bk.), Martin Golden (22 SD, Bk.), Karl Kruger (27 SD, Bk.), and St. Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (57 AD, Bk.) were present to hear testimony of five panels.
While Senator Montgomery and Assemblyman Jeffries’ presence were due to the project being in their respective catchments areas and Senator Kruger is the Finance committee chair, Martin Golden’s presence was questionable. Senator Golden isn’t a committee member and represents Brooklyn neighborhoods Gravesend, Bensonhurst and Gerritsen Beach. Sen. Montgomery remarked that Golden “showed disrespect toward his colleagues,” after he asked for “the public hearings to stop.” Absent were Forest City Ratner representatives.
The hearing’s purpose was to watch out for the public’s interest in the progress of a massive project involving the Empire State Development Corp. and the Metropolitan Transit Authority State of New York. Jeffries stated, “The Atlantic Yards Project bypassed the ULURP procedure, received $400 million from New York State, $200 million from the City and eminent domain approved to expedite land assembly to make way for luxury housing, an arena and commercial space.”
When asked what kept construction from starting, ESDC executive director Marisa Lago explained it was financial constraints; however, neither ESDC nor MTA applied for stimulus money (ARRA 2009), whose application deadline is June 24 2009.
Hakeem Jeffries served his constituency handsomely by asking the MTA why it hadn’t collected all or most of the $100 million up front from FCR, given its recent proposal to raise fares, defer maintenance and cut bus routes. Rather, the MTA agreed to accept allotment payments and can’t commit to holding fares to the increases that go in effect June 28, 2009.
Jeffries other questions concerned activating construction trade training, raising the present 10% allocation for affordable condominiums (195 units) and getting affordable rental and condominium housing constructed (2,445 units) constructed during Phase I.
Other panels included Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance, and the Independent Budget Office. BUILD COO Marie Louis asked “the elected to work with us to make the community benefits agreement enforceable.” The CBA is not a contract; rather a deal between FCR and the community. ESDC and MTA are not included or accountable for its execution.
Labels: Atlantic Yards Project, Brooklyn, Forest City Ratner, gentrification, NYS Senate
