The environmental cost of urban development in one Grand Rapids neighborhood
In the interest of full disclosure, the following information is about a development project that is taking place across the street from where I have lived for the past 27 years. The pictures you see here are a progression of the urban deforestation that has taken place in the past 24 hours.
Within the past 24 hours a crew of men have been working on the 400 block of LaGrave Avenue, which is located between Wealthy and Logan Street.
For the past 25 years this block of land has been mostly vacant, with a couple of houses being torn down during that time. Grass and clusters of full-grown trees have occupied most of the space within this city block.
Within these past 24 hours several dozen trees have been cut down and turned into mulch. Granted, there were a few trees that were dead or dying, but the bulk of the trees were healthy and provided a marvelous canopy in an otherwise concrete dominated area.
Over the years I have seen these tree be home to numerous small mammals and a host of birds. Every year there are hundreds of black crows that have used the cluster of trees as a stopping off point on their journey to who knows where. I have seen robins, cardinals, finch, blue jays and sparrows call this urban space home. There have even been times when both peregrine falcons and hawks have landed in this area, quiet possibly because of the large number of fully developed trees.
In addition, I have witnessed years of play that have taken part in this city block, with children climbing trees, neighbors eating berries from the mulberry tree and homeless men and women finding solace under them when seeking a respite from the hot sun.
In the past 24 hours almost every one of these trees have been cut down in preparation for a development project that will include residential and business construction. The development project is being undertaken by the Inner City Christian Federation (ICCF).
Earlier this year, while meeting with the executive director of ICCF, I asked what was going to happen to all the trees in the 400 block of LaGrave SE. He told me that they were all going to be cut down, because they were “ghetto trees.” The non-profit director went on to say that what he meant by this was that they were trees that just came up on their own, meaning they were not planted by humans.
Now, I don’t know about you, but trees don’t need humans. In fact, from an ecological point of view it is the other way around…….humans could not survive without trees.
I’m not against new housing being but across from the house I have lived in for 27 years, but I am not in support of development projects that unnecessarily cut down trees in the process. This is a sad day for Grand Rapids.
Three lessons from the fight to save Troy Davis
This article by by Eugene Puryear is re-posted from BlackAgendaReport.
“The Obama administration is silent on the most egregious violations committed on U.S. soil, aiding and abetting the execution of an innocent man.”
Troy Davis was executed on Sept. 21, pronounced dead at 11:08 p.m. Davis had been falsely convicted of the 1989 killing of a Savannah police officer.
Since his trial, seven of the nine witnesses who had testified against Davis recanted their testimony. Five witnesses signed affidavits asserting that they were coerced by the police. Three individuals said that another man, Sylvester “Redd” Coles, confessed to them that he committed the crime. The case against Davis lacked any physical evidence—no murder weapon, fingerprints or DNA evidence were ever presented.
None of that stopped the State of Georgia from taking the life of an innocent man.
In the weeks preceding the execution date, over 1 million people signed a petition; many more made phone calls and sent emails to local, state and federal officials demanding that they save the life of Troy Davis.
Students from Howard University in Washington, D.C., held rallies Sept. 16 and Sept. 21—the scheduled execution date. Hundreds of Howard students marched following the Sept. 21 campus rally and gathered at the White House, joined by other Davis’ supporters. Continuing to demand a stay of execution, at least 12 students were arrested.
“In the weeks preceding the execution date, over 1 million people signed a petition.”
When an announcement came minutes before the execution that the Supreme Court had granted a temporary reprieve delaying the execution, the demonstrators militantly marched to the Supreme Court to demand justice, holding a picket until the court’s decision was announced and the execution was carried out. Hundreds remained until after midnight, some of them having been in the streets for 12 hours, speaking out about their experience and plans to continue the struggle.
Despite this determined effort, repeated in cities across the United States and throughout the world, the Supreme Court allowed the execution to go ahead.
While there is much to be said about the case and the implications of the Save Troy Davis struggle, here are three lessons worth highlighting:
1. We are not living in a “post-racial” society
We can finally lay to rest this tiresome phrase.
The case of Troy Davis is at the intersection of race and class in the United States. The cops who coerced witnesses in the Troy Davis trial knew the odds were stacked in their favor. Georgia does not guarantee counsel for death row inmates, making it harder for poor defendants to properly mount appeals. According to the American Bar Association, those convicted of killing white victims in Georgia are 4.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those convicted of killing Black victims.
What these cops knew was the true essence of the criminal justice system. The death penalty and other “law and order” methods are political tools. They send a chilling message to the most oppressed sectors of society—primarily Black and Latino working-class communities—meant to discourage any resistance to their own oppression.
2. President Obama won’t save us
President Obama said it was “inappropriate” for him to “weigh in” on the Troy Davis case because it was a “state” issue. Seriously? In 2009, Obama weighed heavily against the trial of a woman in Iran that the United States government claims was innocent. The U.S. president can take a stand against an alleged injustice in another sovereign country, but not against a proven injustice in a U.S. state?
The White House raises the banner of democracy, freedom and human rights as a weapon against those governments it seeks to replace. The Obama administration and U.S. officials are brimming with quotes of condemnation against its targets abroad, yet are silent on the most egregious violations committed on U.S. soil, aiding and abetting the execution of an innocent man.
That is the true role of the U.S. president: the protector, the commander-in-chief of this corrupt system. Obama could have taken a stand for justice, but instead he stood by silently as Troy Davis was killed.
3. The fight-back movement is on
The fight is not over. Troy Davis’ executioners cannot be allowed to escape scot-free. There are many Troy Davises across the country, both in prison and outside. This is the time to escalate the struggle, to take the spirit of the fight to save Troy’s life and turn it into a mass fight-back movement against racism and the system of class oppression that depends on it.
The upsurge to save Troy Davis’ life is part of a rebellious undercurrent. From the massive immigrant rights’ movement in 2006 to the Jena 6 struggle in 2007 to the labor battle in Wisconsin this past winter, the fight to save Davis was a glimpse of potential, a signal of militant rejection of the suffering and oppression afflicting working people in this country.
Moving forward from here, we must turn the fight around Davis’ life into a general struggle against racism, oppression and exploitation. Troy Davis did not die in vain.
Health Insurance Industry Opens Check Books for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama
This article is re-posted from Opensecrets.org.
Research by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that President Barack Obama and his GOP rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, are the only two presidential candidates to have raised more than $40,000 from the health insurance industry so far this election cycle.
As of June 30, the date of the most recent campaign finance reports, Romney edges out Obama in terms of money raised, $43,750 versus $42,675, the Center’s analysis indicates.
Both men have favored health care policies that include an individual mandate for people to purchase private insurance plans. Romney did so as governor of Massachusetts, and Obama did so as part of the health care reform package he signed into law last year — a package that did not include a public insurance option to compete against private plans, as many liberals hoped it would.
Such mandates are supported by the insurance industry, which stand to benefit from increased customers as well as from government subsidies that help enroll people who could not otherwise afford insurance.
Romney, in fact, has received more than five times as much money from the health insurance industry than any other GOP presidential candidate, according to the Center’s research.
On the campaign trail, Romney has stood behind his Massachusetts policy, while arguing that Obama’s plan is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate from the federal government.
As Romney recently told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly: “States have the right to mandate. That’s why states mandate kids go to school. The federal government can’t do that. States mandate you have to buy auto insurance. The federal government can’t do that.”
Romney has also pledged to repeal Obama’s health care overhaul — which, like many Republicans, he calls “Obamacare” — on his first day in office.
On his first day in office, according to Romney’s campaign website, he will “issue an executive order paving the way for waivers from Obamacare for all 50 states. Subsequently, he will call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare and advocate reforms that return power to the states.”
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney endorsed a health care policy that mandated insurance coverage for all, targeting specifically the 10 percent without insurance. The 2006 bill was largely a success. A 2010 study (.pdf file here) found that 98.1 percent of Massachusetts residents were insured and 99.8 percent of children had coverage.
Behind Romney, the Center, found that ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich ranked as the No. 2 and No. 3 beneficiaries of health insurance money in the GOP presidential field.
They have raised $8,500 and $8,250, respectively, from health insurers, according to the Center’s analysis.
Before joining the “repeal Obamacare” bandwagon, Gingrich, like Romney, previously supported individual health insurance mandates and subsidies to help low-income Americans afford private insurance.
Santorum, who also wants to “repeal Obamacare,” was also the first 2012 presidential candidate to criticize a June decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Obama’s health care law.
“It is deeply disappointing,” he said, “to force the average American to submit their most personal decisions — their healthcare choices — to the government.”
Back in 1993, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act with then-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), which would have provided assistance to low-income Americans to purchase health insurance but did not include an individual mandate — an idea that many Republican lawmakers backed as an alternative to health care reforms championed by the Clinton administration.
Gramm and Santorum’s legislation never made it out of committee.
Notably, Santorum is the only presidential candidate to whom health insurers represent more than 1 percent of the money he has raised.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who proposes a free market-based insurance approach, has raised $2,250 from health insurers, according to the Center’s research. And Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who also claims Obama’s health care reforms are unconstitutional, has so far raised $500 from health insurers.
Here is a table showing how much money each presidential candidate has raised from the health insurance industry as of June 30:
|
Candidate |
Party |
Total |
| Mitt Romney | R |
$43,750 |
| Barack Obama | D |
$42,677 |
| Rick Santorum | R |
$8,500 |
| Newt Gingrich | R |
$8,250 |
| Ron Paul | R |
$2,152 |
| Herman Cain | R |
$1,250 |
| Michele Bachmann | R |
$500 |
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, too, has threatened to wipe out “Obamacare” with an executive order if he is elected president.
But back in 1993, when Perry was the agriculture commissioner in Texas, he showed support of the emerging “HillaryCare” reform bill in a letter to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. At the time, critics were already calling the Clinton initiative “socialism.”
As governor of Texas, Perry has battled the rising need for Medicaid in his state, where more than a third of the children are dependent on the program. The New York Times reports that Texas state agencies have accepted nearly $20 million in grants authorized by Obama’s health care law.
Moreover, the Texas health industry has a strong donor base that could help Perry. Research by the Center shows that Texas health professionals donated $7.7 million to federal political candidates and committees during the last election cycle.
Perry’s presidential campaign has not yet filed any campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission. Third-quarter reports are due to the FEC in mid-October.
For his part, Obama has attempted to brush off criticism of his health care reform overhaul.
“I have no problem with folks saying ‘Obama cares,'” Obama said last month at an event in Minnesota, not far from the renowned Mayo Clinic. “I do care… If the other side wants to be the folks that don’t care, that’s fine with me.”
In addition to requiring individuals to have health insurance plans, Obama’s health care law requires insurance companies to stop discriminating in their coverage based on people’s pre-existing conditions and it prohibits insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get sick.
Additionally, the law allows children to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26, closes the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut hole” and makes preventive care such as physicals and mammograms free, among other changes.
City Commission approves expansion of harm reduction efforts by the Grand Rapids Red Project
This morning the Grand Rapids City Commission approves a request by the Grand Rapids Red Project to expand its harm reduction services in the community. According to request the community-based group will “expand its currently existing syringe exchange program, for the purpose of reducing the spread of HIV / AIDS and other communicable diseases, among individuals who inject drugs by use of needles.”
The Commission approved the request unanimously, in part because the Red Project had substantial support from the community. The Commission had copies of letters from Heartside Ministries, former Mayor John Logie, Cares, the Michigan AIDS Coalition, Network 180, Pub 43, Life Guidance Services, Arbor Circle, the Kent County Health Department, The LGBT Network of Western Michigan and several area churches.
The other major factor in getting the approval is the impressive track record that the Red Project has in reducing and preventing drug overdose in Kent County. In a letter to the City Commission, Director of the Red Project Steve Alsum wrote, “According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, when Clean Works first received permission to operate, approximately 25% of all people with HIV/AIDS living in Kent County had contracted the disease through behavior related to injection drug use. As of April 2011, again according to the MDCH, only 10% of people living with HIV/AIDS in Kent County have contracted the disease through injection drug use.”
The Red Project staff is excited about the support from the City as they have plans to expand their services to areas of the City where injection drug use is prevalent. Alsum believes that they will be even better equipped to reduce the number of people who die from drug overdose, thus fulfilling their mission of harm reduction.
One Kent Proposal reviewed and discussed at GR City Commission meeting
This morning the Grand Rapids City Commission addressed ongoing concerns around the One Kent Coalition proposal to create a new regional government body.
The One Kent Coalition is moving forward in their pursuit to get the proposed legislation introduced in the State House before the New Year, but Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell wishes they would change course. “I want to use this public forum today to urge the One Kent group to step back and work with local governments, instead of moving forward with the State legislation.”
Other City Commissioners expressed concerns as well. Second Ward City Commissioner Rosalynn Bliss said she is not convinced that the proposed legislation would be good for the community, “it’s too partisan and it gives to much power to the Executive Officer.” Bliss is referring leadership position in the proposed One Kent legislation, where the new metropolitan government would be run by a CEO. Ruth Kelly echoed these comments by saying it is important to have as much transparency as possible and to avoid a government structure that would great more polarization with partisan influence.
In addition to the commission’s comments, there was a presentation by City staff and two lawyers who agreed to review the One Kent proposal. A 12 – page memorandum was submited that outlines 58 different aspect of the One Kent proposal that the review committee raised questions about. Some of these questions dealt with the executive power that the metropolitan leader would have, the lack of clarity on collective bargaining agreements for government employees, the districting process, the new government’s relationship to the existing city charter, the large number of political appointments and how this proposal would be voted on.
The observations in the review that were presented are both important and relevant for the City to move forward on how they deal with issues of possible consolidation. In addition, the review of the proposed legislation again makes clear that there are numerous undemocratic aspects of the One Kent proposal, which should need to be exposed and debated before any legislation can be adopted.
One side note worth reporting is that the City Commission adopted a resolution to fund a study with Grand Rapids, Kentwood and Wyoming on the possibility of consolidation of police and fire services between these three local governments. The total cost of the study is $265,000, with the City of Grand Rapids contributing $69,000.
More importantly, there are three private entities contributing significantly to the study of local government services consolidation – the Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation ($50,000), the Grand Rapids Community Foundation ($50,000) and the Frey Foundation ($27,000). This should raise flags for anyone paying attention, since both the DeVos and Frey families are members of the One Kent Coalition. The funding that both of these foundations provide should raise the question, is there are conflict of interest with funds coming from families that have a vested interest in seeing local government consolidation happen?
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Maathai Dies at 71
This is a repost from Our Kitchen Table
The obituary on Democracy Now reads, “Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, died Sunday after a long struggle with cancer. She was 71 years old. In 1977, she spearheaded the struggle against state-backed deforestation in Kenya and founded the Green Belt Movement, which has planted some 45 million trees in the country. She has also been an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and democratic development. She won the Right Livelihood Award in 1984. Twenty years later, she won the Nobel Peace Prize.”
This writer posted the following Indy Media story after Maathai’s 2007 visit to Grand Rapids.
Wangari Maathai at Fountain Street Church
“Every one of us needs ten trees to take care of the carbon dioxide we breathe out. We should know where our ten trees are. Or, are you using somebody else’s trees?” Wangari Maathai
2004 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Wangari Maathai opened her lecture with observations on the biblical creation story as told in the book of Genesis. She noted that every day, after making another aspect of the environment, the creator commented, “It is good,” except for the last day, the day humanity was created. “We have convinced ourselves we are more important than the rest of creation,” Maathai said. “But, we cannot live without trees. They can live without us.”
Maathai believes that because we have higher intelligence, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that other species survive. She applied that belief in Kenya, where as a young biologist she was studying the tic’s role in East Coast Fever, a fatal epidemic killing hybrid cattle. Her fieldwork led her to observe that Kenya’s environment had been degraded. Because of deforestation upstream, fertile topsoil was filling the rivers as silt; rainwaters were washing away into lakes and the ocean instead of returning to groundwater reservoirs; and, rivers were beginning to dry up.
“This was much more dangerous than the tics,” she said.
Then, in 1975, her work with the National Council of Women of Kenya opened her eyes to the serious issues facing Kenya’s women: they did not have enough wood for household energy; they did not have clean drinking water; they did not have nutritious food; they had no ways to generate income. Maathai’s solution “Let us plant trees.”
“We went to the foresters and asked, ‘Can you teach us how to plant trees?’ This is difficult when the people are illiterate and a professional tried to teach you. To cut a long story short, we teach ourselves, use our common sense, our woman sense. Forget the foresters. We started teaching ourselves how to grow trees.”
Much of Kenya had been clear-cut; the British had introduced pines and eucalyptus that drank too much water and dried out the land. “We wanted to restore indigenous vegetation, biodiversity. It’s a campaign we are till carrying out,” she shared.
Maathai encouraged groups of women to plant trees “whichever way.” The women collected native seeds, planted them in all sorts of cast-off containers and nurtured the seedlings till transplanting them. The women earned money for each seedling planted, generating income for themselves. The new forests help provide wood for energy and stifle the erosion that has robbed farms of topsoil and rivers of clean water. The women taught other women how to be “Foresters without Diplomas.” Today, Kenya has more than 7,000 tree nurseries run by these women.
Though more than 30 million trees have been planted in Kenya, Maathai’s work is not done. When she began in the ’70s, 30% of Kenya was covered by forests. Only 2% is today. However, her work with the women became a catalyst for another change. As the women empowered themselves, and the people found their voices, many spoke out against Kenya’s dictatorial regime.
“If you do not live in a society that is democratic, that allows a minority voice to be heard, it is difficult to protect the environment,” Maathai said. “The freedom of movement. The freedom of assembly. The freedom of expression. The freedom of the press. You have all these freedoms. In a society like yours, you take for granted. When you are at their (the government’s) mercy, they are very pleasant. When you are free, you become troublesome.”
“To cut a long story short,” Kenya became a democracy in 2002; Maathai serves in parliament and as Assistant Minister for the Environment. But, she does not advise people to wait on their governments to take care of the environment.
Read Maathai's inspiring memoir.
“We can plant trees. Anybody can dig a hole. Plant a tree in that hole. Water it. Make sure it survives,” she said. “The government is the custodian of the environment. If the custodian is not doing his job, you fire him during elections.”
Today in Kenya, Maathai has undertaken a campaign to reduce the proliferation of plastic bags and packaging that is polluting Kenya’s cities, impacting its wildlife and creating an untold number of breeding puddles for malaria-infected mosquitoes. She is also working with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as Goodwill Ambassador for the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem project–the goal, to plant one billion trees. She invited the audience to visit the Web site and get involved in the project. The Conga Forest, Amazon Forest and the South East Asian Forest are an important defense against the climate change that impacts all of us.
“It is the rich nations who really have to understand that, although the resources look like a lot around you, they are coming from people who are impoverished,” Maathai said. “Sooner or later, there will be conflict and it will affect us.”
Nobody Can Predict The Moment Of Revolution – Occupy Wall Street
(This video is re-posted from OccupyWallstreet.org.)
Despite of the corporate media’s effort to silence the protests, and Yahoo’s attempt to to censor it in e-mail communication, the occupation is growing in numbers and spreading to other cities in the US and abroad. Please forward our video to likeminded people via email, facebook, twitter – and make the voices of dissent circulate. Find the latest news, learn how to participate and support: https://occupywallst.org/.
Trailer for the LGBTQ People’s History of Grand Rapids film
Here is a taste of what you can expect to see on November 17, when the premier screening of A People’s History of the LGBTQ Community in Grand Rapids takes place at the downtown campus of GVSU.
We have conducted 70 interviews, collected lots of archival material – video, photos, articles and posters, for the material to complete this film. It has been an incredible process of learning and sharing.
GRIID is grateful to the LGBT Resource Center at Grand Valley State University and the Kutsche Office of Local History for their support in making this project come to fruition.
The premier screening is Thursday, November 17 at the downtown campus of GVSU, in the Loosemore Auditorium. Doors open at 6:30PM. The film screening if free and open to the public. There is also a facebook event page for this event.
The music for this trailer is provided by the local band Alexis and the song is Human Condition.
Elect to End Hunger and Poverty Tour in Grand Rapids this Thursday
Keith McHenry, activist with Food Not Bombs is on the road for a speaking tour across the US to talk about why we need to end the criminalization of hunger and poverty in America.
According to the FNB webpage:
The Elect to End Hunger and Poverty presentation talks about the campaign to end the criminalization of poverty and how you can participate in the global protest movement against austerity! Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry will share the details of the history, principles and current activities of the movement. Keith will also invite the audience to participate with their local activist groups.
Most people would elect to end hunger and poverty but many of the people running for office have another agenda, cutting social services while transferring our tax dollars to wealthy military contractors and their corporate friends. While elected officials cut social services like unemployment insurance, food stamps, education, health care and other basic necessities they are also passing laws against the poor and their supporters.
Food Not Bombs is responding to this crisis by recovering, preparing and sharing vegan meals and groceries with the hungry in nearly 1,000 communities. This presentation will inspire you and your friends to join the Food Not Bombs movement and help our dedicated volunteers organize, implement and feed the global campaign to end hunger and poverty. You can make a difference!
Food Not Bombs started in 1980 when eight college aged activists dressed as generals and started holding bake sales pretending to buy a bomber. Thirty years later Food Not Bombs continues to encourage the redirection of our resources from the military towards human needs.
McHenry will be speaking this Thursday at Trinity United Methodist Church in Grand Rapids at an event co-sponsored by the GR chapter of Food Not Bombs and the Grand Rapids IWW.
Thursday, September 29
6:30PM
Trinity United Methodist Church
1100 Lake Dr. SE, Grand Rapids
Nothing but praise for ArtPrize at GVSU event
Last night, a packed audience at Grand Valley’s Loosemore Auditorium, came to hear perspectives from a panel of artists on what they thought about ArtPrize.
The event was billed as “Perspectives on ArtPrize” and was part of the 2011 DeVos Art Lecture Series at GVSU. The panel consisted of 6 artists and ArtPrize founder Rick DeVos.
From the very beginning, it was clear that the event was framed in such a way that didn’t really welcome any criticism of the local art competition. Marcia Haas, wife of GVSU President Thomas Haas, said in her welcoming comments, “Isn’t it wonderful that our city is alive with art? This is an experience like no other, for people to have a chance to explore our community.”
The panel was then introduced and moderated by GVSU Director of Galleries and Collections Henry Matthews. The first words out of his mouth were, “can you feel the excitement?”
Matthews asked Rick DeVos to begin the conversation by saying that the overall structure of ArtPrize is pretty much the same as previous years, with voting and no categories. He also said there were awards being judged and an exhibition center at St. Cecilia Society, which included music and other performance art.
The first question asked by the moderator was, “For those who participated last year, how are things different or better?” Jason Quigno, a Native American artist from Michigan said it was hectic, but he likes seeing the excitement on the street. Cyril Lixenberg, an artist from Amsterdam, said he also thinks it is exciting and knows many other people who have told him they were excited. Cynthia McKean, an artist from Saugatuck, said there is confusion, but that this is part of the fun.
There were two Argentine artists on the panel, both from Buenos Aires. Juan Batalla said it was an interesting experience. “It allows art to be talked about, since there is no one who determines who gets to exhibit and who doesn’t. The real joy begins when people begin to talk about the art.” Danny Barreto said he was impressed by the size of the event, the beauty of the city and the variety of art. “It is not only for enlightened people, but for families and regular people who have a chance to look at art in a different way.”
Hubert Massey, an artist from Detroit, said he was impressed by the size and the interaction of the people with the art. “It has a real large impact on the community. Art changes lives and people’s behavior. This should be happening all across the country.”
This was the consensus all night, with panelists falling over themselves in praise of ArtPrize. Questions and comments from the audience were not much different in that people wanted to thank Rick DeVos and asked questions like, “Could this be replicated in other cities and what are the lessons learned from this event?” DeVos responded to the lessons learned by saying he thinks that we need to “just get out of the way and allow people determine what happens. He thinks that the collaborative relationships that develop are critical and more of that needs to be developed. The artists and the venue people are putting lots of energy into the whole experience.”
Another audience question asked how many people have been employed by this event? It spoke to the general belief that ArtPrize is good for the local economy, but upon further investigation it seems that a narrow sector of Grand Rapids really benefits – hotel, restaurant, parking lot and club owners are the big winners. DeVos’ response to this question was that the real goal of ArtPrize “is building a deeper and richer culture of experimentation of expression.”
When the artists on the panel were asked about how they felt about their work being voted on, they all responded favorably. DeVos said, “it wasn’t about the Prize, it was the participation of the people.” Really, I wonder how many artists, especially the first year, would have participated if there were no prize money. It seems like a pretty big carrot in motivating artist participation.
The only critical question asked all night was by a young Latino man. He wanted to how this art competition affected the poor people in the community? Cyril Lixenberg responded by saying “get the kids involved.” DeVos agreed and said that he talked to students who got excited about what they were seeing. “It opens up the possibilities for people. ArtPrize is like a treasure hunt, since they get to explore parts of the city they haven’t seen, especially people of lesser means.” No one really answered the young man’s questions and no one could use the word poor, just terms like “disadvantaged” and “lesser means.”
Matthews wrapped up the panel discussion by asking DeVos what was next for ArtPrize? DeVos said he had no “world conquering” plans.
After sitting through the brief panel discussion (only 1 hour), I was left feeling frustrated that: 1) there was no one on the panel who had a critical, different or dissenting opinion; 2) the only question with social implications was skillfully diverted and dismissed, and 3) the event was really an opportunity for Rick DeVos to promote himself and his art competition.
