The GRPD, White Supremacy and Community Accountability
The recent actions of the Grand Rapids Police Department, where they profiled black youth after an incident at the KROC Center is not only infuriating, it is the most recent example of how deeply entrenched White Supremacy is the norm when it comes to the police.
What happened to those young African Americans is unacceptable and should never be tolerated. The response from the community to demand some form of accountability has been admirable, but we see how the GRPD is simply unwilling to be questioned on their behavior. Both the Chief of Police and the police union have made it painfully clear that they do not care what the community has to say about recent events or what many others addressed during last Tuesday’s City Commission meeting, which was to talk about the collective experience from people of color as it relates to the GRPD.
The recent incident and the response by the police department and police union should cause us all to take a step back and examine the real function the police serve in Grand Rapids, some some history of police unions, White Supremacy in Grand Rapids and the false solutions that the City of Grand Rapids has been presenting on policing.
What are cops for?
For many people in the US it is known that what gave birth of modern policing was the organizing of white men to hunt and police slaves who dared to flee the plantation. Modern policing was founded on slave patrols. This cannot be said enough, because besides this being the origin of modern policing it should tell us something about the ongoing white supremacists nature of how policing has functioned for nearly 200 years in the US. I can’t stress enough how important it is for people to read the book, Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America, by Kristian Williams.
Police departments serve the power structure of any community. This doesn’t mean that cops don’t do “good things,” but we really need to move beyond the good/bad binary and come to terms with the primary function of police departments. Police departments serve the power structure, the state and engage in various forms of population management to make sure that people don’t try to overthrow the systems of power and oppression that most of us live under. The police essentially protect the system of economic exploitation that most of us experience, since they do not go after the capitalist class for unjust treatment of workers, and they make sure that whatever grievances we have with those in power, we will not be allowed to stop the abuses of power by means other than petitions and voting.
Police Unions
The response from the Grand Rapids Officers Association to the recent outcry from the public is frustrating, but it should be understood that it is consistent with the function of police departments and that police unions are fundamentally different than other trade/labor unions.
As Kristian Williams observes:
“Police associations thus developed in relative isolation from the rest of the labor movement, while building close ties with the command hierarchy within departments. This fact points to two related reasons why police unions are not legitimate unions. First, as is discussed above, the police are clearly part of the managerial machinery of capitalism. Their status as “workers” is therefore problematic. Second, the agendas of police unions mostly reflect the interests of the institution (the police department) rather than those in the working class.
Williams goes on to say in Our Enemies in Blue:
Unionization (of police) has thus served to preserve the patterns of abuse and discrimination, while at the same time advancing the agenda of law enforcement on the social and political fronts.
Another way to think about this point is that since police unions work for the system of power, they are not really interested in challenging the status quo or challenging any system of oppression that exist in any community. Again, their function is to serve power and defend the interests of those within the police department. The Grand Rapids Officers Association said in their response to the recent public outcry that they – are charged with taking care of the people who take care of all of our citizens. It is true that their task is to look out for cops, but the notion that cops “take care of all our citizens” is a ridiculous piece of propaganda.
White Supremacy and Cops
The GRPD is set to host several community meetings across the city on Wednesday, April 19 to share the findings of the recent racial profiling study. While some might see this as a mechanism of accountability, what such studies do is further legitimize the white supremacist nature of police departments.
White Supremacy doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is the result of structural violence that benefits white people over communities of color. Communities of color disproportionately experience exploitation and poverty, and are therefore more likely to be policed over white communities and white neighborhoods.
The arrest rates and incarceration rates of communities of color is disproportionately higher that that of white communities and this is by design. Therefore, hiring more officers of color will not do much to dismantle the White Supremacy within police departments, it will only further legitimize the nature and function of those police departments.
False Solutions or re-imagining what it means to look out for each other
Within months after the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the GRPD realized that is was important to take the initiative around so-called police reform. The level of police violence was astronomical, particularly in communities of color, so the GRPD and the city leaders knew is was important to appear as if they city was taking proper action.
The city has been working on 12 ways to attempt to improve community relations and restore public trust. These 12 recommendations are really just minor adjustments to the current system of policing and will not result in building trust within the community. All one had to do was listen to those from the community who spoke at the City Commission on Tuesday and it is clear that there are large sectors of the community that do not trust the GRPD.
So what is to be done? Well, there are no easy solutions and any discussion of what is to be done must come from those who are most directly impacted by police abuse and police behavior. What many organizations and many communities who directly impacted from police violence have been saying in recent years is that they want to have control over their own communities. Some organizations and movements, like Black Lives Matter, have been calling for the abolition on policing. Again, we have to listen to the wisdom of those most negatively impacted by police violence.
At a minimum, let us hope that the resistance from the GRPD leadership and the police union to practice accountability, will lead us have more critical discourse on the nature and function of policing and allow us to re-imagine new ways of looking out for each other that do not rely on cops.
On Tuesday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos joined President Trump and several other cabinet members for a Strategy and Policy Forum listening session with 17 CEOs from major corporations.
Corporations like Walmart, IBM, General Motors, PepsiCo and Boeing were present to offer their suggestions on how to further privatize the country. Each of the cabinet members met with specific CEOs and Betsy DeVos spent her time with Ginni Rometty of IBM; Jack Welch, formerly of GE and Toby Cosgrove of the Cleveland Clinic.
According to a statement released by DeVos, she stated:
“Today’s event was a great opportunity to listen and learn from some of America’s best innovators and job-creators. I look forward to collaborating with them on how we can maintain our nation’s global competitiveness.”
Speaking as a member of the Capitalist Class, DeVos was in her element during the “listening session,” feeling right at home with public-private partnership dynamics. In her statement from April 11, DeVos also said:
“By encouraging public-private partnerships, we can help connect students with prospective employers and provide those students with the necessary skills to find a good-paying job in their communities.”
For members of the Capitalist Class, education is primarily about talent creation and making sure that schools are producing new workers and managers for the business community. Education is not seen as a form of liberation, development of critical thinking skills or as a mechanism to further explore our humanity. The Strategy and Policy Forum listening session with the 17 CEOs is just one illustration of the importance of education as a form of workforce development.
Further Punishment for those with Student Loans
On Tuesday, Betsy DeVos reversed some Obama administration policies on student debt and student loans, policies that were not all that beneficial those those with student loans.
DeVos stated, “We must create a student loan servicing environment that provides the highest quality customer service and increases accountability and transparency for all borrowers, while also limiting the cost to taxpayers.” 
Such a statement further demonstrates Education Secretary DeVos’ belief that the market should be the driving factor when it comes to education.
Resistance Report noted that, “The new rule will affect approximately 4 million students and graduates whose loans are in default, collectively owing more than $67 billion. The affected students make up about 11 percent of the estimated 44 million Americans who have student debt, according to data from the Federal Reserve. And unlike credit card debt, student debt can’t be discharged through bankruptcy, thanks to laws passed in the 1970s.”
These changes to the student loan policy will most likely result in more students defaulting on their loans, but it will certainly result in more and more people being deeply limited in what they can be involved in, since having 10 – 30 year student loan payments provides little incentive for people to be involved in challenging systems of power that have imposed these loans on them in the first place.
Media Literacy and the Trump Administration
For nearly 20 years, GRIID has been promoting Media Literacy as an important component for an informed public. Over the past two decades we have conducted media literacy trainings throughout Michigan and have worked with public health educators, sexual assault prevention campaigns, labor organizers, environmental activists and anti-war organizers.
Media Literacy is fundamentally about developing critical thinking skills, skills that are often not part of the current educational system. Education is often framed as a mechanism for talent creation or merely preparing students for the job market. We view education as a life-long endeavor that is primarily about developing critical thinking skills that are essential to all of us in order to promote and practice justice and liberation from oppression.
Over the past 20 years we have used numerous media literacy exercises, but none more than the Branded Alphabet. The Branded Alphabet media literacy exercise is a great way for people to:
- Understand the pervasive nature of advertising in our society and how we are all being targeted by advertising campaigns.
- Understand how the news media functions and how they decide what information to give us, when to give it to us and how to give it to us.
- Juxtapose the Branded Alphabet with the current administration cabinet as a way to demonstrate the gap between our knowledge of products vs our knowledge of politics.
- Understand how the media system is constructed in such a way as to make consumerism a priority over an informed public
We have just updated the Brand Alphabet media literacy exercise, since we now have a new administration, with most of the key cabinet members being approved by Congress.
We invite you to test your knowledge of both the Branded Alphabet and members of the Trump administration. Ask yourself why you might now products more readily just from one letter than who hold major cabinet positions in the Trump administration? The answers are on page three of the media literacy exercise.
Last Thursday, the US military engaged in a bombing mission against Syria, launching 59 Tomahawk missiles directed at several targets on the Middle Eastern country.
However, this was not the first time that the US has bombed Syria in recent years. Since 2014, the US has been bombing Syria regularly (roughly 8,000 airstrikes), but unlike this past weekend, there was not an outbreak of protests across the nation, like the ones targeting the Trump administration.
Endorsing the US Missile Strike against Syria
Since the Thursday evening US military attack against Syria, politicians have been responding to the Trump administration’s actions. Michigan Senator Gary Peters made the following statement on Friday in support of the missile strike:
“Bashar Al-Assad’s ruthless use of chemical weapons to kill innocent men, women, and children is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated. Our ultimate goals in resolving the crisis in Syria should be restoring stability to the region and providing safety and security for the Syrian people, who have endured unspeakable terror at the hands of their own government. I applaud the skill and bravery of the American service members who executed last night’s air strike.
While it’s crucial that we send a strong message to Assad, I firmly believe this strike and any future U.S. military action must be accompanied by a comprehensive strategy to achieve our goals of stability and safety. Now more than ever, we need clear and consistent leadership from the Trump Administration that includes diplomatic, economic and military coordination with our Arab partners in the Middle East and allies in the international community. President Trump should work with Congress to ensure the United States presents a united front to address what is an extremely complicated conflict in Syria.”
Senator Debbie Stabenow has of yet to post a statement on her website, but she was interviewed on WKAR (MSU radio station) and had this to say:
“The Syrian people have endured horrendous atrocities at the hands of their government, and the latest chemical weapons attack against innocent children and their families demands a response. The Trump Administration must ensure that further US action is part of a clear strategy and policy that includes diplomatic coordination with our allies, as well as input from Congress. I stand behind our service members involved in last night’s military action and commend their bravery.”
Interestingly enough, Rep. Justin Amash, unlike Democrats Peters and Stabenow, did not support the Trump administration’s missile attack on Syria. On a brief statement of Facebook, Amash said:
Airstrikes are an act of war. Atrocities in Syria cannot justify a departure from our Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to commence war.
The Framers of the Constitution divided war powers to prevent abuse. Congress to declare war, so the American people might be represented in such a decision; the president to conduct war and repel sudden attacks.
Such a statement from Amash is not out of character, since her has opposed US military actions during the Obama administration as well. To be clear Amash does not take an anti-war or an anti-imperialist position. Amash claims to be more of a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, but it should also be stated that his seat has been held by Republicans for decades and has been considered a safe seat.
Amash has not been seriously challenged in several races, nor was Rep. Vern Ehlers before him or Rep. Paul Henry before Ehlers. Given that the seat has been a safe seat for republicans, it has allowed those who have held the seat some flexibility to vote against their own party, especially when that vote doesn’t threaten the outcome of any particular legislation.
Major US Media acts as cheerleader for the US missile strike against Syria
Since Friday morning, most of the major US media has been endorsing the US missile strike and acting like a cheerleader for the US Military.
The independent news site, The Intercept, ran an article on Friday with this sentiment, running the headline, The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria.
In addition, the media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting noted that in five major US newspapers, there were 18 opinion pieces on the US missile strike on Syria and all of them praised the US missile strike. Indeed, it has been difficult to find many dissenting opinions within the US commercial media, once again demonstrating US media loyalty to empire.
Last week, we kicked off the first installment in our series of articles under the heading of Betsy DeVos Watch. 
In this week’s article we take a look at a visit from the Secretary of Education to a charter school in the nation’s capitol. DeVos was visiting Excel Academy in Washington, DC and began her brief comments by stating, “As we bring our education system into the 21st century, it is important we highlight the many types of different schools serving the varied and unique needs of individual students.”
Of course, there is nothing surprising about these comments or which school DeVos visited, since she has been saying for years that she thinks that charter and private schools would be better for the country.
However, what was more interesting than the fact that Betsy DeVos visited Excel Academy, was who she brought with her. Accompanying the Secretary of Education was the President’s wife Melania Trump and Queen Rania Al-Abdullah from Jordan. Excel Academy is an all girls school, which is why DeVos chose two women to be her guests for the school visit on Wednesday.
DeVos ended her comments at Excel Academy by stating, “I’m honored to have joined First Lady Melania Trump and Queen Rania Al-Abdullah in visiting this exemplary school. I thank Excel Academy for shaping these young women’s lives in a positive and meaningful way.”
Let us take a moment to unpack what kind of message DeVos and her guests could have sent to the all-female students who attend Excel Academy and what kind of role models each of the them represent in the real world.
First, Betsy DeVos grew up in a family that was extremely wealthy and one that had very reactionary beliefs about women and families. Betsy then married into an even wealthier family, which also has a long history of supporting religious values that often demean women and promote patriarchal values. Both the DeVos and Prince families have spent millions of dollars supporting groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council and Promise Keepers (just to name a few), all of which promote patriarchal values with very narrowly defined gender roles. The young girls attending Excel Academy could also learn the idea that wealth gives you power, buys you access and allows you the ability to impose your will on the rest of society.
Then there is the President’s wife Melania Trump. There have been lots of demeaning things written about Melania and we in no way want to contribute to gossip and petty views about the President’s wife. However, we will say that it is no doubt quite probable that these girls that attend Excel Academy are aware of the history of how Trump has viewed women, along with the sexist comments he has made and doesn’t apologize for. What sort of message does that send to these girls at Excel Academy.
Lastly, there is Queen Rania Al-Abdullah from Jordan. While some might think that being royalty is rather cool, the fact is that Jordanians live under a monarchy, do not have terribly progressive policies regarding women and girls and on top of that are a major recipient of US military aid.
So when Betsy DeVos says she wants to see young women’s lives be shaped in a positive and meaningful way, we would say don’t use the Secretary of Education and her guests as role models.
Last summer, Grand Rapids Mayor Rosalynn Bliss announced that she was forming an affordable housing committee, with the intent of addressing the crisis Grand Rapids has been experiencing around cost and availability around affordable housing.
Since last fall, a committee has been in place and has been meeting to discuss the issues of affordable housing, along with putting together a list of recommendations for how to address this crisis. However, before we get to the recommendations, it seems important to provide some context to what has been happening in recent years around housing and gentrification in Grand Rapids.
The Grand Rapids Housing Crisis
For years now Grand Rapids has been involved in a development boom, with new projects being introduced on a monthly basis. Besides the downtown development boom, there are other areas that have also experienced major development changes, such as along the Wealthy Street corridor, the Michigan Avenue corridor, the near westside between Bridge St and West Fulton and the Belknap neighborhood, just to name a few.
The majority of these new projects are based around creating market rate housing, housing that has and will attract mostly professionals and those aspiring to be part of the capitalist class. Such projects have led to the physical displacement of working class individuals and families, with the bulldozing of homes, to the increase in rental costs that many of these neighborhoods have experienced because the landlords/property management companies know they can charge more.
In addition, with Grand Rapids being in the national spotlight, it has attracted many more investors from out of town, even out of state, who realize that investing in Grand Rapids in very profitable. The corporatization of housing in Grand Rapids is growing, with no end in sight, since the vacant housing market is less than 1% and rental units are mostly adopting market rate prices.
There have been some affordable housing projects announced in the past year, but these projects are woefully inadequate in terms of the need and in some cases involved some of the same developers that are creating the problems to begin with.
Representation on the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Committee
One concern from the very beginning, when it was announced that the Mayor was forming this committee, was who would have a seat at the table. Here is a list we received from someone who also sits on the committee.
Jordoun Eatman, David Allen, Sonali Allen, Anne Armstrong, Connie Bohatch, Max Benedict, Neil Carlson, Lamont Cole, Laurie Craft, Patricia Kelly, Kurt Hassberger, Mike Hawkins, Ruth Kelly, Tim Kelly, Alicia Key, Lynn Locke, Adelyn VanTol, Joshua Lunger, C. Frank, BriAnne McKee, Jon O’Connor, Clay Powell, Erica Hooser, Darel Ross, Gustavo Rotondaro, Kristin Turkelson, Suzanne Schulz, Monica Steimle, Celeste Vaught, Stacy Stout, Ryan VerWys, Ryan Wheeler, John Wheeler, Jesica Wood, Kara Wood, Landon Bartley, Amy Snow-Buckner, Audrey McIntosh, Nancy Haynes, Tracie Coffman, Jonathan Klooster, Mayor Rosalynn Bliss, Greg Sundstrom.
Those on this list are either elected city officials, city staff members, representatives of development companies and non-profit organizations. There are some housing advocates who are part of this list as well, but the majority of people who make up the affordable housing committee are those who by virtue of what they do and who they work for, will be unwilling to significantly challenge the status quo around housing, development, racial justice and economic issues.
An equally important point to raise is, who is not part of this committee? It can not be emphasized enough, that those who are Most Impacted by the current Housing Crisis – those displaced, working class people, marginalized communities of color, and queer youth – are not part of this committee. In fact, one could argue that they are the most important people in terms of making recommendations, since they are the ones who are currently experiencing the housing crisis.
Affordable Housing Recommendations
The 82-page report that was recently released consists of a lot of technical language and is not the most user-friendly document, but it is worth reading if we want to understand the framework that those who are members of this committee have put forth.
There are three major aspects of the report. First, is a list of how funds should be used coming from the Grand Rapids Affordable Housing Community Fund. Second, there is a list of short-term recommendations, then followed by some long-term recommendations.
There are 24 short-term recommendations:
- Reduce PILOT fee from 4% to 1%, Market rate developers qualify for PILOTS if affordable housing
- Re-focus on homeownership
- Incentives for small scale development (residential/commercial)
- Reduce or subsidize City fees (i.e., water and sewer connection fees, LUDS, HPC, permits) Neighborhood Enterprise Zone
- OPRA
- Brownfield
- Development agreement
- Expedited permitting
- Move to monthly water bills
- a: Density bonus, b: parking reductions, c: affordable housing prerequisite
- Homeownership and rental balance for healthy market and Tag parcels to an affordability index, to know affordability ranges
- Number of unrelated people, raise from current four
- Allow Accessory Dwelling Units by right
- Non-condo zero-lot-line
- Setback requirements, minimum lot size, building area, building width for single family
- Mixed housing types
- Height restrictions, increase
- Eliminate lots of common ownership
- Eliminate minimum lot width requirement in Traditional Neighborhood zone district and Lot width requirements for two families
- Income Limits and Lead Practices for Tax Foreclosures
- Layer lead abatement/housing assistance
- Residential Rental Application Ordinance
- Reduce or eliminate monitoring and blight fees for non-profits awaiting redevelopment
Most of these recommendations seem to be centered around construction and development and do not address the actual needs of the thousands of families currently experiencing the housing crisis. Again, this is not surprising, considering who is sitting at the table.
One short-term solution, which we have suggested, would be to have the city stop giving major tax-breaks to developers and to instead divert that money to the Affordable Housing Community Fund. In addition, the Affordable Housing Community Fund should have 50% or more of those determining how the money will be used, be from impacted communities.
The long-term solutions continue much along in the same vein, which focuses on mild reforms that often benefit developers and home owners. There is a long-term recommendation about living wages, but with no real clarification. Certainly if people made $15 an hour, what many groups are calling for as the new minimum wage, it would make a difference in terms of what people could afford. However, even living wages have limitations.
The national Homes for All group has the following principles/values that would actually make more sense in terms of providing a framework to actually achieving housing justice, although these are values that those currently making a profit off of housing would never adopt. They also are committed to having this movement being majority led by those most impacted by the current housing crisis. Here are those values:
• Community and Housing are a Human Right: Our homes, our communities and the land upon which we live are not a commodity to be exploited for profit, they are precious resources that should be used to meet people’s needs.
• Land and housing should be collectively-owned and controlled by communities: We reject corporate and Wall Street ownership of land and promote alternative models that increase democratic participation and control over land & housing in our communities.
• Land and housing should be developed in a way that is sustainable for the planet.
• Land and Housing should be accessible, permanent, quality, and connected to economic, social and cultural networks and institutions. No person, regardless of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, ability, citizenship or previous criminal or housing record should be denied a home nor forced to live apart of the networks and institutions our communities rely on to survive and thrive.
The Grand Rapids Chapter of Homes for All is working on trying to implement these principles. You can contact them at info@grhomesforall.com.
The recommendations put forth by the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Committee will be discussed at a meeting on Thursday, April 20, from 3-5pm at City Hall. However, the public is only allowed to observe, not to provide input, yet another indication of how this process is designed and how it has been managed.
Celebrating the Grand Rapids Furniture Workers Strike of 1911: Lessons for contemporary organizing and resistance
On April 19, it will be 106 years since hundreds of furniture workers walked off the job in Grand Rapids protesting working conditions, wages and the lack of an 8 hour work day.
We have been researching this historic event over the years and want to offer the following information for those who want to familiarize themselves with this history, learn from it and think about the significance of working class tactics for todays organizing efforts.
First we highly recommend Jeffrey Kleiman’s book, Strike: How the Furniture Workers Strike of 1911 Changed Grand Rapids.
In addition, on the Grand Rapids People’s History site, we have written or republished numerous articles based on our own research over the years as it relates to the 1911 Grand Rapids Furniture workers strike.
First is a two-part article written by Michael Johnston, who is know by many as the unofficial labor historian of Grand Rapids. In Part I of his two-part series, Johnston provides important historical context, a context that led to the massive worker walkout on April 19 of 1911.
In Part II, Johnston writes about the role that the IWW (industrial Workers of the World) played in the 1911 strike and how the local power structure and even many of the other unions saw them as a threat.
We also include in this primer on the 1911 furniture workers strike, some articles about other factors that played into the outcome of the strike. First, we look at the role of religion and how Christian Reformed Church members were told not to participate in the strike, while the Catholic Bishop at the time was in full support of the striking workers.
Then there are those who documented the strike at the time. We wrote a piece that contrasted the observations of Viva Flaherty, a socialist, who provides a great reflection on what happened during the 1911 strike, and how one of the Furniture barons (R. W. Irwin) documented what took place.
In another article we have written, we note that there were 10,000 workers marching in the Labor Day parade in 1911. Not only was this an impressive number of workers, but it was essentially about 10% of the entire population of Grand Rapids in 1911. Imagine if 10% of working class people took part in a contemporary Labor Day parade or action.
In yet another piece, we contrast the living conditions of those in the capitalist class – the Furniture Factory owners – and those who actually created the wealth for these men – the furniture workers.
Lastly, we include an article about the backlash from the 1911 furniture workers strike. The capitalist class was not happy about the 1911 strike, even though they ended up winning. However, those in power are never content with just winning certain battles, they want to prevent future attempts to challenge their power. What the Robber Baron class did was to change the City Charter, which resulted in decreasing the number of city wards to just 3 and eliminating a strong mayor position. The result of this charter change would make it harder for working class people to have real representation on the city commission and to make the mayor a glorified commissioner.
Again, it is important that we come to terms with understanding this local history, reflecting on it and thinking about what it means for current struggles against the power structure in Grand Rapids.
It is important for people who want to develop a class consciousness to read the business press. While reading the business press might be aggravating, it is important to know what the business community is thinking and how they are influencing public policy.
In a recent “sponsored content” article in MiBiz, the President and CEO of The Right Place Inc, Birgit Klohs, wrote about current proposed legislation in Michigan that would essentially divert more taxpayer money to support business interests.
The legislation that The Right Place Inc CEO was referring to her in article is Senate bills 242, 243 and 244. One of the sponsors of the bill, State Senator Jim Stamas, explains the legislation this way:
Under the bills, business expansions or new locations creating at least 500 qualified new jobs that pay the prosperity region average wage or higher would be eligible to receive up to a five-year, 50 percent abatement on the personal income tax withholdings of the new employees. Companies creating at least 250 qualified new jobs paying wages at 125 percent or more of the prosperity region average wage would be eligible to receive up to a 10-year, 100 percent abatement.
This legislation passed in the Michigan Senate last week and is often referred to as the Good Jobs for Michigan bill. Not so surprising, there is a statewide coalition of businesses and business entities called the Good Jobs for Michigan group.
What is important for the public to understand is that legislation generally isn’t the brainchild of individual legislators, rather legislation is often crafted by those who are part of the capitalist class. And the reason that the capitalist class is in the business of creating policy is because they are always thinking about how they can divert more public money to private interests……..their private interests.
The Good Jobs for Michigan is a slick campaign that essentially is designed to divert public money into the private sector because the private sector claims this is necessary in order for businesses to create jobs. Therefore, businesses and business associations are saying to the government is, “Give us some money so we can create jobs, so we can make a whole bunch of money.”
The Good Jobs for Michigan group is made up of business and trade associations from across the state, including the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and The Right Place Inc. Therefore, the “sponsored” article from Birgit Klohs in MiBiz was nothing more than a pitch to the larger business community to get them to lobby legislators to vote for these bills.
The article from The Right Place Inc CEO appeared on March 19. The Michigan Senate voted on Friday, March 31st to adopt all three bills. This was a bi-partisan supported set of bills, with only 5 Republican Senators voting against the legislation. Even the pro-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy didn’t mince words about what this legislation would do. The pro-market think tank referred to Senate bill 242 as, Transfer state revenue to certain business owners.
The public can ill afford to allow those in the capitalist class to continue to dictate policy that negatively impacts working class people. Just because the word jobs is used in these kinds of campaigns, doesn’t mean it is in the interest of the public.
Betsy DeVos compares School Choice to Uber or Lyft
Now that Betsy DeVos has bought a seat in the new administration, we thought it might be a good time to begin doing a regular column entitled, Betsy DeVos Watch. These columns will be an opportunity to provide regular analysis of the statements and policies put forth by the Secretary of Education.
On Wednesday, Betsy DeVos delivered a speech at the Brookings Institute. DeVos continued to promote her commitment to the so-called “School of Choice” policy, which is essentially a policy that undermines public education.
It makes complete sense that DeVos would speak at the Brookings Institute on this topic, especially since the organization publishes an annual Education Choice and Competition Index (ECCI). “The intent of the ECCI is to create public awareness of the differences among districts in their support of school choice, provide a framework for efforts to examine the impact of choice and competition, and document changes over time in the policies and practices of school choice.”
There is one major point we want to emphasize from DeVos’ comments delivered at the Brookings Institute. DeVos made the comparison between school choice and transportation. Betsy stated, “Nobody mandates that you take an Uber over a taxi, nor should they. But if you think ridesharing is the best option for you, the government shouldn’t get in your way.”
This comparison is instructive in many ways. The comparison by DeVos essentially seeks to frame education through a market lens, which is no surprise considering that this lens, along with a religious lens, are how she sees the world. As someone who comes from the capitalist class and then married into an even more staunch proponent of the capitalist class, Betsy DeVos whole heartedly believes that the neoliberal market should dictate what we do.
Seeing the world through a market lens is problematic in so many ways. DeVos sees transportation options as choices, but that is because she ignores the history and context of how transportation options have been imposed on us. The very fact that most of us are limited to car transportation is due to the history of the influence of the automobile industry, as is well documented in the documentary film, Taken for a Ride. However, if our transportation system in the US had been designed with the public interest and ecological concerns in mind, we would have a very efficient mass transit system that would benefit everyone. Therefore, the so-called choice model for either transportation or schools is really an illusion. The education system has been determined by those in power who have never had the interest of the masses in mind.
Lastly, it should be stated that Betsy DeVos’ comparison between transportation of choice and school choice is also disingenuous, especially when one realizes that she comes from a family that has used private chauffeurs, owns a $40 million yacht, has had helicopter pads at their homes and utilizes their own private airplanes for their transportation “needs.”
Giving Public Money to Private Developers in Grand Rapids
MLive announced yesterday that Lofts on Wealthy LLC, a division of 616 Development, has been granted a $970,250 in tax breaks to redevelop the former Kregel book publishing site.
The tax breaks were awarded by the Michigan Strategic Fund, which is part of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. The MEDC is a quasi state entity that claims to market the state of Michigan and attracting business development and investors.
The people who sit on the board of directors of the Michigan Strategic Fund are those who also represent the business community, such as Fifth Third Bank, Greenstone, the Michigan Farm Bureau and Truscott Rossman. There are a few state employees on the board, such as Nick A. Khouri, a former VP with DTE and Shelly Edgerton, a longtime state legislative operative. You can easily see why the Michigan Strategic Fund would want to grant major tax breaks to developers, allowing them to make even larger profits by using public funds.
The 616 Development project on Wealthy plans to include retail on the ground floor, along with 75 apartments that will range from $775 for a micro-unit and up to $1,975 for a three-bedroom. This means 616 Development will on average generate $112,500 a month from rent, not including the money they make from the retail spaces. So lets say that will bump it up to $150,000 a month that the developer will make, which comes to roughly $1.8 million a year.
616 Development claims that they will invest $11.7 million into the building, which means that the project will pay for itself in less than 7 years.
Had the Michigan Strategic Fund not provided the tax breaks totally just under $1 million, this would mean that the company would need another year to pay off their investment.
Imagine what $970,250 could do for providing truly affordable housing in Grand Rapids. Imagine was millions of dollars that are being granted in tax breaks each and every year would amount to in actual construction of affordable homes for families that are currently being displaced from all of the market rate housing projects across Grand Rapids.
There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the fact that millions of dollars of public money (tax breaks) are benefitting developers, while thousands of families can’t afford the cost of rent in Grand Rapids.
