An archival history of the early political organizing efforts by the Grand Rapids LGBTQ community – Part III
In Part I, I looked at the people from Grand Rapids who went to the LGBT march on Washington in 1987, how that was a catalyst for the creation of the Lesbian and Gay Community Network of Western Michigan. I also looked at archival records to show that one of the first priorities of The Network, was to organize a Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids.
In Part II, I looked at the archival history of how the Mayor of Grand Rapids refused to support the first few years of Pride, the exchanges between the Mayor and members of The Network, plus the ironic support they received from the Mayor of Holland, Michigan.
In Part III, I will look at the campaign to get the City of Grand Rapids to expand their anti-discrimination ordinance to finally include sexual orientation as something that could not be matter of discrimination.
Once the Lesbian and Gay Community Network of Western Michigan had firmly established the annual Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids, they next set their sights on getting the City government to included sexual orientation in the local anti-discrimination ordinance.
The campaign to include sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination ordinance began and 1991 and was finally won in 1994. There was a tremendous amount of pushback from people who saw the campaign as the LGBTQ community asking for “special treatment” instead of expanding civil rights. You can see from the video included here that there were huge public hearings held, along with a changed strategy after it was initially defeated.
Once the ordinance campaign was successful, the Lesbian and Gay Community Network of Western Michigan gathered for a celebration, which is reflected in the photos below.
In Part IV, I want to look at the AIDS organizing that was being done in the 80s and 90s in Grand Rapids, along with the obstacles that the LGBTQ community had to over come.
It has been 6 years since I last did a 10-part series on the Grand Rapids Power Structure. Some things have change, but the systems of power and oppression that exist in this city have only become more sophisticated and more nuanced.
I will probably follow much of the same pattern that I did in the 2018 10-part series, but with updated information and an expanded analysis.
I still believe that the graphic above holds true for Grand Rapids, where private wealth/economic power is at the top in the hierarchy of power for this city. I plan to explore more of that power behind the local government by looking at the people and the organizations that pull the strings regarding local elected officials.
In addition, I will provide some analysis of the sectors and movements that are more likely to challenge the systems of power and oppression in Grand Rapids, which will be explored in the last part of the updated series on the Grand Rapids Power Structure.
I also believe that it is critical that we come to terms with the Grand Rapids Power Structure and have a more robust analysis of who they are, especially if we hope to be able to not only expose them, but to challenge the influence that have over this community.
Lastly, I would like to re-post a visual depiction of the Grand Rapids Power Structure from 2018, since I understand the power of images can be just as important as the written word.
It is been known for years that there are many people and organizations in the US who do not believe that climate change is real.
Some of those people and organizations have been influenced by the fossil fuel industry, which has paid organizations to publicly deny that climate change is a reality. For example, in Grand Rapids, the Acton Institute, an organization that believes that Christianity and Capitalism are great bedfellows, has taken money from ExxonMobil to promote climate denial.
However, there is also another former of climate denial, one that is more subtle, but just as dangerous.
Since January 1st of this year I have been monitoring MLive, WOODTV8, WZZM 13 and WXMI 17 around several critical issues – the Grand Rapids Public Schools, Public Safety/GRPD, local elections and climate change/climate justice. The data above speaks for itself regarding what the local news focuses.
However, beyond the data, the other major issue with reporting on matters like climate change is how the news frames the issue.
Most of the local news coverage has centered around how mild the winter has been in Michigan, but rarely to they attribute the mild weather to climate change. In fact, in the 20 total stories that have been climate change related, only twice did the coverage actually use the phrase climate change when referring to the cause of the mild winter.
Other stories have focused winter or tourist businesses, which have been negatively impacted because of climate change, plus numerous stories that have centered on nuclear energy in Michigan, because of the Governor’s energy policy, which will include funding to get the Palisades nuclear power plant back online. However, in climate change is not named in any of these stories.
The most recent climate change story to appear in local news was an MLive story from Tuesday entitled, ‘Excessive heat’ already being highlighted in extended forecast.
The MLive story provides graphics on upcoming days where excessive heat will occur, along with warnings to people about engaging in strenuous work outdoors. The MLive article goes on to state:
The heat index forecast for next Tuesday shows a feels-like temperature between 95 degrees and 100 degrees will be widespread across the southern half of Lower Michigan.
The MLive article also admits that we will experience, “an overall warmer-than-normal summer.”
Unfortunately, the MLive reporter never uses the phrase climate change in the story, meaning they never talk about the causes of the hotter than normal weather.
Now, I don’t know if MLive or the other local daily news stations have a formal policy on climate change and I don’t know if there are other internal or external factors that prevents local news from naming climate change or discussing the causes of climate change. Regardless of the reasons, to not name climate change or talk about the causes of one of the most critical issues of our day is nothing short of climate change denial.
On Saturday, MLive posted an article with the headline, Pedestrian bridge crossing Grand River envisioned for Grand Rapids amphitheater.
The article states that the Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority, working with Grand Action 2.0, the City of Grand Rapids and Kent County officials submitted a proposal for $2 million in federal funds to be used for a walking bridge that would connect the future Amphitheater and the westside. The $2 million request was submitted to Rep. Scholten’s office, since it falls within her Congressional District. The article also states that the $2 million would only be a portion of the cost, although the article does not provide an estimated total cost for the walkable bridge.
There are several questions or thoughts I have about this proposal walkable bridge, but how about we start with Rep. Scholten role in all of this. In October, GRIID posted an article about the fact that the US has been providing $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel on an annual basis. Now, according to the fabulous tool that the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights has created, which allows you to type in your city or state, which provides an amount of the $3.8 billion annually in US military aid to Israel that could stay in your community. If we type in Grand Rapids, we find that on an annual basis, $2,815,720.00 of the $3.8 billion in US military aid to Israel could stay in our community. It’s also more than the $2 million requested by the Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority. As you can see from the graphic below here, the $2,815,720.00 could provide very urgent funding for real community needs.
Next, there is the issue on why the walkable bridge is being proposed by the local power structure. The MLive article states that the walkable bridge would connect Williams St on the east side of the Grand River to Front Street on the west side. Certainly one of the most pressing issues surrounding the Amphitheater and the soccer stadium is that no parking structures are part of the plan. This begs the question of where people will park?
I would contend that the walkable bridge is being proposed to allow people coming to an event at the Amphitheater an opportunity to park on the west side and then cross over the Grand River. However, this does not really address the issue of where people will park, since it only means that more people who attend Amphitheater events will park on the westside near the river, where parking is also very limited. Ultimately, the walkable bridge will contribute to creating a parking nightmare for those who live on the westside. And since Amphitheater events will likely be in the evening, people who work during the day and live on the near west side will have to content with concert attendees, which adds another potential – and likely – problem to the 14,000 seat Amphitheater reality.
Lastly, while we don’t yet know what the total cost of the walkable bridge, it is safe to say that it will be at least another $2 million, which means the City and the County will spend public money to cover the costs. The total cost of the Amphitheater is listed at $184 million, with more than half of that coming from public dollars.
So the real question is, why is it that those in power can always find public funding for projects that benefit them, but rarely find public funding for projects that will directly impact that lives of thousands in Grand Rapids? The cost of the Amphitheater and the walkable bridge would easily be about $200 million. Imagine if $200 million of public money were invested in the 3rd Ward, the heart of the African American community. Imagine if $200 million was spent on providing relief to renters, for healthy food vouchers for families that are malnourished, or create a system of mass transit in this city and really address the climate crisis. This is why we need to collectively oppose these so-called transformational projects and see them for what they are……projects that put more money into the pockets of those who are already disgustingly rich in Grand Rapids.
I have been tracking the local daily news media that is based in Grand Rapids (MLive, WOODTV8, WZZM13, and WXMI 17) since January 1st on a variety of issues, including reporting on local (GR and Kent County) elections.
The other three types of stories that I have been monitoring are the Grand Rapids Public Schools, Public Safety in Grand Rapids and Climate Change/Climate Justice. Since January 1st, there have been a combined (from all four news sources) 25 stories that are specific to local elections/candidates/campaign financing. Comparatively, Climate Change stories have numbered 29, the Grand Rapids Public Schools have been reported on 60 times, and the GRPD/Public Safety in Grand Rapids has garnered a total of 270 stories. From the data you can easily see what the priorities are with these four news agencies.
Besides what the local news is reporting, I look at what they are not reporting. For example, in February, GRIID reported that the DeVos family had contributed $264,000 to just four candidates running for positions in Kent County – Kent County Clerk – Lisa Posthumus Lyons, Kent County Treasurer – Peter MacGregor, Kent County Prosecutor – Chris Becker, and Kent County Sheriff – Michelle LaJoye-Young.
Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsed candidates
You also have probably not heard about the fact that one of the most power organizations in Grand Rapids – the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce – and whom they have endorsed for the August Primary in Grand Rapids and Kent County.
According to a recent GR Chamber of Commerce post on their website, they list all of the candidates and ballot issues for the August Primary. The post provides some criteria for how they decide on which candidates to endorse:
Endorsement considerations include policy alignment with Chamber priorities, voting record for incumbents, questionnaires, interviews and public statements of candidates. All endorsement decisions require a two-thirds majority vote of the PAC Board.
As someone who has been monitoring the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce for several decades it seems to me that Chamber priorities are:
- Influencing Public Policy to benefit their members, which are part of the Capitalist Class – policies such taxing working class people proportionately more than those in the Capitalist Class
- Getting local governments to use large sums of public money for development projects that will make some of their members even richer – Downtown Amphitheater, Soccer Stadium, proposed Aquarium, etc.
- Make sure that the monetary interests of GR Chamber members in downtown are protected from the unhoused, which resulted in getting the City of Grand Rapids to adopted two ordinances in July of 2023 that essentially criminalized the unhoused.
Here is a list of the candidates their Political Action Committee has endorsed for the August Primary:
- Mayor of Grand Rapids – David LaGrand (LaGrand is a business as usual candidate)
- Grand Rapids City Commission: First Ward – Dean Pacific (See who Pacific is endorsed by)
- Grand Rapids City Commission: Third Ward – John Krajewski (Krajewski is a former cop and the only white candidate in a race where all of the other candidates are BIPOC. The 3rd Ward has the largest African American population in GR)
- Kent County Commission 2nd District – Elizabeth Morse (Republican)
- Kent County Commission 10th District – Robin Halsted (Republican)
- Kent County Commission 18th District – Steve Faber (Democrat)
- Kent County Commission 19th District – Kris Pachla (Democrat)
All four of these candidates are candidates that will not threaten the interests of GR Chamber of Commerce members, especially on economic and development issues.
Lastly, the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce is endorsing the Kent County lodging (hotel/motel) tax, primarily because the increase from 5% to 8% will be used to subsidize downtown development projects that will disproportionately benefit GR Chamber members. This is more or less what the GR Chamber website said on the hotel tax:
The proposed increase from 5% to 8% will generate the predictable revenue to support the public financing components of catalytic public-private projects. We have successfully done this before for projects such as DeVos Place Convention Center.
This goes right along with a recent social media post that I have been seeing, which reads:
Imagine being taxed to build a stadium, to have a billionaire charge you admission, all so you can cheer on millionaires playing a game, meant to divert your attention from being exploited by a ruling class who does things like, tax you to build a stadium.
This is what the GR Chamber of Commerce refers to as Public/Private partnerships. The public pays and the private sector profits.
An archival history of the early political organizing efforts by the Grand Rapids LGBTQ community – Part II
In Part I, I looked at the people from Grand Rapids who went to the LGBT march on Washington in 1987, how that was a catalyst for the creation of the Lesbian and Gay Community Network of Western Michigan. I also looked at archival records to show that one of the first priorities of The Network, was to organize a Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids.
In today’s post, I will explore the documented correspondence between The Network and the Mayor of Grand Rapids regarding the first years of the Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids and why the Mayor did not support the celebration.
As you can see from the Grand Rapids Press front page headline, Mayor Helmholt refused to endorse the first ever Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids or write a proclamation for the event.
Undeterred, The Network sent Mayor Helmholt a letter in March of 1989, asking if he would support the 2nd Annual Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids with a proclamation. Mayor Helmholt responded in a letter, stating that his position had not changed and in fact was affirmed by the letters and phone calls he received supporting his decision.
Members of The Network also attended a City Commission meeting on June 6, 1989, asking for the proclamation. The Network Newsletter documented that event and cited several members who spoke during the commission meeting. Network members reminded the Mayor that this was the then 20th Anniversary of the Stonewall uprising and that Gay and Lesbians deserved equal rights and recognition. Rev. Bruce Roller responded to Helmholt’s denial for a Mayor Proclamation by saying, “I’m real angry and real tired of having our God’s name used to oppress lesbians and gays.”
In that same issue of the Network News the group pointed out that Mayor Helmholt had granted at least 119 proclamations since the group’s first request in 1988. Among the groups/events that Helmholt wrote proclamations for were: Michigan Beverage News Week, Family Sexuality Education Month, Polish Heritage Month, National Roofing Week and Bozo Show Day.
Since Mayor Helmholt refused to make a proclamation in support of a Grand Rapids Pride Celebration, The Network crafted their own and read it during Pride 1989.
One interesting outcome of The Network’s efforts to challenge Mayor Helmholt to fully support a Pride Celebration in Grand Rapids, was a letter that the Mayor of Holland, Michigan sent to The Network supporting their decision to have a Pride Celebration, stating that this was a fight for civil rights, which he supported. The kind of support offered by the Mayor of Holland also included a list of supporters, which was archived in this document from The Network.
Lastly, it is worth noting that because the members of The Network were so well organized, they forced Grand Rapids City officials and residents to accept not only future Pride Celebrations, but the fundamental rights that those in the LGBTQ community deserved.
(Above GR Press article was from June 18. 1989, featuring comments from Bryan Ribbens, Jeff Swanson and Holly VanScoy.)
In Part III, I will look at the effort to get the City of Grand Rapids to expand their anti-discrimination ordinance to finally include sexual orientation as something that could not be matter of discriminated.
Palestine Solidarity Information, Analysis, Local Actions and Events for the week of June 9th
It has been 8 months since the Israeli government began their most recent assault on Gaza and the West Bank. The retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attack in Israel, has escalated to what the international community has called genocide, therefore, GRIID will be providing weekly links to information and analysis that we think can better inform us of what is happening, along with the role that the US government is playing. We will also provide information on local events and actions that people can get involved in. All of this information is to provide people with the capacity of what Noam Chomsky refers to as, intellectual self-defense.
Information
Jabalia’s Mass Graves Are a Lesson in Horror
America’s “bounce the rubble” lawmakers want to punish ICC
Leading Jewish Group to Biden: Backing Israel’s War on Gaza Puts ‘US Democracy in Danger’
Israeli bombing kills dozens sheltering at UN school
Democrats Are Welcoming a Genocidal War Criminal to DC
Israel Used US-Made Bombs in Deadly Attack on UNRWA School
‘Horrific’: Israel’s War on Gaza Also Destroying the Climate, Study Finds
Israel unleashes “unprecedented bloodshed” in West Bank
Analysis & History
Debunking Israeli Propaganda in Rafah
RAFAH CLASH EXPOSES ROOTS OF EGYPT AND ISRAEL TENSION
Che Guevara in Gaza: Palestine becomes a Global Cause
Local Events and Actions
Power to Palestine: Weekly Rally in Grand Rapids
Wednesday, June 12 6pm – 7pm, Monument Park
A meme that has been around for several years now, which usually is shared by people during an upcoming election cycle, has been showing up in my social media feed quite a bit lately.
The meme uses the colors of an LGBTQ+ flag, with the following text:
Don’t tell someone you love them, and then vote for someone who will hurt them.
I get the intent and the sentiment that comes with this meme, although I think it is problematic.
Clearly, the meme was created to specifically center those who identify as LGBTQ+. Additionally, if you have a relationship with someone who identifies as part of the LGBTQ+ community, you say that you love them or that you care about them, then it would follow that you would not vote for someone who would do harm to them. The harm in this case would be to support public policy that would do harm to the LGBTQ+ community.
Seems simple enough. You should not vote for someone who will promote public policy that is inherently homophobic or anti-trans. However, there is also something that is implied in this meme, which often means that you should never vote for a Republican, but voting for a Democrat means you won’t do harm to the LGBTQ+ community.
The problem I have with this sentiment and this logic is two fold. First, just voting for Democrats doesn’t mean that they won’t do harm to the LGBTQ+ community. Second, memes such as these are too narrowly focused on “gay politics”, when we know that the LGBTQ+ community is extremely diverse. There are those in the LGBTQ+ community that are also Black, Latinx, immigrants, Palestinian, Jewish, working class, unhoused, etc.
This is the problem with narrow identify politics, since it doesn’t consider the totality of individuals and communities.
For example, according to the site Liberation:
Just three weeks into 2024, the Trans Legislation Tracker website is already tracking 308 active bills — including 38 bills at the national level — that attempt to deprive transgender Americans of the few legal protections they have and to introduce a slew of new restrictions targeting their most basic rights, including the right to access necessary and life-saving health care, to have their identities legally recognized, to practice their culture, to engage in sport, and even to access public spaces like bathrooms.
The article goes on to note:
At the national level, Democrats have been scarcely better champions of LGBTQ rights. Biden pledged to pass the Equality Act in his first 100 days in office, which would ban discrimination against LGBTQ people across wide swaths of U.S. public life. Three years later, it has yet to come to a vote in the Senate. Meanwhile, last year Biden’s own Education Department made anti-trans changes to Title IX, which mandates gender equality in sports programs. LGBTQ people denounced these changes as a “roadmap” for bigots to discriminate against them.
The Democrats, which cast themselves as the champions for many minorities, including LGBTQ people, are continuing to prove that they will not even be fair-weather friends to queer people as the far-right attacks get worse, and increasingly see us as a political liability.
When we look at a who range of other identities of those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, we can also see that you shouldn’t vote for people who will do them hard. Here are several examples of who you shouldn’t vote for because it will harm people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates who want to maintain or increase the level of funding for cops, since police departments across the US disproportionately target and kill BIPOC people.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates who want to further criminalize immigrants, many of whom come to the US in the first place because of the economic and military policies the US imposes on their countries of origin.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that adopt support policies that criminalize the unhoused, perpetuate housing insecurity or don’t support rent control.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that unconditionally support Israel, Israel’s current genocidal campaign against the Palestinians and the longstanding Israeli occupation of Palestine.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that support Corporate welfare, that support tax policies that benefit the rich and punish working class people, that support using public to dollars to underwrite development projects that will primarily benefit those in the Capitalist Class, and those that support the growing wealth gap between the 1% and the rest of us.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that support subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, that support the expansion of oil pipelines, mining, corporate agriculture, those who don’t support a growing shift to mass transit or community control of renewable energy sources, since all of these things perpetuate Climate Change.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that continue to support a massive US military budget ($886 Billion for 2025), since we could significantly reduce that budget and redirect it for housing, renewal energy, education and health care.
- You shouldn’t vote for candidates that support continue colonial and settler colonial policies that impact Indigenous people currently living in the US or Indigenous people living in other countries that the US has relationships with and particularly countries where the US has military bases.
These are just a few examples of how voting for candidates will do harm to BIPOC, immigrant, working class, non-Christian faith, and those with disabilities who are also LGBTQ+ people. Don’t tell someone you love them and then vote for people who will sure as hell do them harm!
Instead of condemning Biden’s new immigration asylum policy, Rep. Scholten justifies it, then blames Republicans
On Tuesday, President Biden announced new restrictions on immigrants seeking asylum in the US. As Biden stood near the border, along with Governor’s of border states, he said:
Today, I’m announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. Migrants will be restricted from receiving asylum at our southern border unless they seek it after entering through an established lawful process.
And those who seek — come to the United States legally — for example, by making an appointment and coming to a port of entry — asylum will still be available to them — still available. But if an individual chooses not to use our legal pathways, if they choose to come without permission and against the law, they’ll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States.
This action will help us to gain control of our border, restore order to the process.
What most news agencies have not reported or discussed, is that this new policy that Biden has implemented will further criminalize immigrants and cause more of them to die.
Biden is invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was previously used by former President Donald Trump, which sparked numerous legal challenges. In fact, the deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, Lee Gelernt, said of Biden’s restrictive asylum policy: “This is not a ‘win’—it’s a monstrosity. Asylum is a human right.”
Demonstrating her standard party loyalty, Rep. Scholten released a statement – see below – which not only justified Biden’s repressive asylum policy, the Congresswoman then blamed the failure to adopt a more comprehensive immigration policy.
The fact of the matter is that after the 2020 Presidential victory of Biden, along with gaining control of the US House for the next two years, the Democratic Party failed to adopt a progressive and justice immigration policy. When Rep. Scholten was elected, the Republicans had a majority in the US House. Scholten can blame the Republicans all she wants, but her Party and her President will be presiding over more deportations and more undocumented immigrants in cages, similar to what happened with former Presidents Trump and Obama.
The bipartisan immigration legislation that Rep. Scholten is referring to is the Dignity Act, which GRIID has previously critiqued. The Dignity Act has some positive elements to it, but it also has an emphasis on enforcement, which Scholten spoke to. She said, “Crossings have increased, but so has enforcement. Border agents do have adequate technology resources, which means more enforcement.” Rep. Scholten discussed the need to enforce the existing US immigration laws, but failed to bring up the issue of why so many people are fleeing Mexico and Central American, to come to the US.
Scholten also talked about having bipartisan support for the Dignity Act, specifically with Rep; Salas from Florida. However, the Dignity Act is not Comprehensive Immigration Reform, nor does it address more structural elements of root causes of immigration, such as the US role in supporting military and trade policies in Latin America that have destabilized most of the region, along with the fact that more and more people are being displaced and forced to flee their homelands because of Climate Change. (See Todd Miller’s excellent book, Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security.)
For a more robust critique of Biden’s new asylum policy, listen to journalist John Washington who was recently interviewed on Democracy Now! Or you can read his latest book, The Case for Open Borders, published by Haymarket Books.
John Washington on Democracy Now! – “But what we do know is that we see again that President Biden has been willing to turn his back to a lot of the campaign promises, a lot of the initial policies that he tried to put forward, and is not upholding asylum or not engaging in the effort to restore asylum as he promised. And we know that the effects are going to be excruciating and likely deadly on people who are trying to seek asylum and who are some of the most vulnerable people in the world right now.”
At last week’s Mackinac Policy Conference Gov. Whitmer presented a False Solution to the housing crisis
Every year the Mackinac Policy Conference happens, bringing together politicians and various elites from around the state. You can see the list of speakers during the conference last week, a conference that was organized by the Detroit Chamber of Commerce.
This was the setting for comments from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, comments she made about housing. MLive reported on what Gov. Whitmer had to say last week, providing some context and then a comment from Whitmer:
Whitmer, speaking Wednesday at the Mackinac Policy Conference on Mackinac Island, said the new goal – an increase of 53% – will help make home ownership more affordable by increasing supply.
“By raising our statewide housing goal to 115,000 units, we will build more housing to drive down costs and ensure every Michigander has a safe, affordable place to call home,” Whitmer said.
What Whitmer presented to a room full of politicians and private sector elites was essentially a false solution. False solutions are those that do not actually address the problem at hand substantially but deceive people into believing that they do, while at the same time triggering other serious problems.
The market, meaning the system of Capitalism, will never be able to solve the housing crisis, primarily because housing operates within a Capitalist system. This has been true throughout US history and became painfully clear during the 2007 – 2008 financial crisis. In fact, if we follow Whitmer’s recipe for housing, the crisis will only get worse, since under a market-based housing model, the crisis will be perpetual.
Now, I don’t know if Governor Whitmer actually believes that the Capitalist market will actually solve the problem or if she knew that this is what the business people, the powerful people who were in the room wanted to hear. For the Governor to say it for the people in the room makes complete sense, since many of them were large campaign donors that helped her get elected.
So, what would a real solution look like? What we need to see at the state level is one of the demands laid out by the Rent is Too Damn High coalition. This coalition is proposing the state spend $4 billion for social housing in FY25 state budget. The Rent is Too Damn High calls this Social Housing.
“Social housing is a public option for housing that is permanently affordable, protected from the private market, and publicly owned by the government or under democratic community control by non-profit and cooperative entities. Around the world, robust social housing programs have ended affordable housing shortages; expanded democratic accountability and equitable housing access; and raised populations out of poverty and into prosperity.” Social housing is built to house people well, rather than deliver a profit to developers & managers. States and municipalities in the US are initiating social housing programs anchored by a new generation of public-sector housing development agencies.
We support a $4 billion state infusion into social housing, to be administered regionally by public developers. This amount could directly support approximately 40-50,000 new social housing units, which would make significant progress towards the state-established goal of building 75,000 total new homes over the next 5 years.”
Adopting a solution to the housing crisis by funding social housing with public funds would be widely embraced and it would take away the profitability of some of the housing market. In addition, it would send a message to the public that housing is primarily a right and not a mechanism to make profits for developers or part of speculative capital, which ultimately drives the cost of housing.
Lastly, it is worth noting that the sponsors of the Mackinac Policy Conference was a broad representation of Corporate America, which you can see here. Clearly the conference is designed for those with deep pockets and easy access to politicians, not regular people, working people, communities of color and those most affected by the housing crisis. Big Gretch once again demonstrated who she owes her allegiance.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 