The GRPD unknowingly gave us a tactical gift during their presentation to the Public Safety Committee
As we noted in yesterday’s post, the Grand Rapids Police Department took over the Public Safety Committee meeting on March 28th, in order to present their case on why the GRPD should have funding to purchase and deploy drones in Grand Rapids.
What the GRPD did not know, was that they provided movement organizers with a small gift.
Social movement organizers are always thinking about tactics and strategies that can be developed and use to further movement goals. One larger strategy that movement organizers have utilized for centuries is the idea of disrupting business as usual, whether that is government operations, business operations, or other systems of oppression.
For example, according to a report put out by the Indigenous Environmental Network in 2021, Indigenous-led resistance campaigns against pipelines in the US and Canada have reduced greenhouse gas pollution by at least 25% annually since these campaigns began. By disrupting the construction of oil and gas pipelines, the indigenous resistance not only reduced the amount of greenhouse gases produced, they cost oil and gas companies money. In other words, the profits that oil and gas companies make was disrupted by the various campaigns to resist the extraction and transport of fossil fuels.
Any social movement campaign that seeks to disrupt business as usual will be effective, precisely because it will have a real cost to the systems of power that they are confronting. When workers go on strike, they effectively shut down production, which costs the company they work for. When there is a well organized boycott, it can cost a specific company, a group of companies or even a country that is reliant on the profits generated from production and consumption. The South African Anti-Apartheid Movement was effective because of the divestment campaigns they waged, which impacted the profit-making entities that were being targeted.
Likewise, when large numbers of people take to the streets and shut down main intersections or highways, they disrupt business as usual, meaning they are disrupting commerce in a very big way. This is why one of the slides that the GRPD presented at Tuesday’s Public Safety Committee meeting was a real gift to social movement organizers. In that slide – shown above – it says, “the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) estimates that an urban freeway closure to have a $6,800 per minute cost to commerce.” This means that is people shut down an urban freeway for 30 minutes, it could cost the world of commerce $204,000. If a social movement action shut down an urban freeway for an hour, it would cost commerce $408,000.
Such numbers are not only significant, but they underscore exactly why police departments do not want social movements to disrupt business as usual. Therefore, I want to thank the GRPD for providing that bit of information, which could be beneficial for future social movement work in Grand Rapids.
GRPD takes over Public Safety Committee meeting and convinces the members to support drone proposal
(You can watch the GRPD’s presentation on why they should have drones at this link.)
Yesterday, GRIID posted a piece that deconstructed the local news coverage of the GRPD’s proposal on drones presentation that took place during the Grand Rapids Public Safety Committee meeting.
The coverage on MLive and the 3 Grand Rapids-based TV stations was superficial, using the GRPD as the primary source, along with literally copying parts of the GRPD’s presentation they made to the Public Safety Committee. There was no serious inquiry from the commercial news media about what the use of drones by the GRPD would mean and how it could impact the public.
Since I was critical of the local news media’s coverage on the critical issue of the GRPD proposing to purchase and utilize drone technology, I wanted to offer up my own analysis of what took place during the Public Safety Committee meeting and what impact it could have in the larger fight to defund the police and reduced their budget in order to fund more care work in the community.
During the presentation, Chief Winstrom was joined by three additional cops to make a push for the GRPD to obtain and use drones. In his brief comments at the beginning, Winstrom used the faux argument that the “GRPD is short handed.” Winstrom then used the MSU shooting as an additional argument for why drones would “enhance” their work, even though he never made it clear as to how having drones in the case of an active shooter situation it would enhance what the cops do.
The GRPD then began putting up slides for everyone to see, slides which were meant to make their case for why drones are necessary for their work. In this first slide, shown here above, they give reasons why drones are needed, arguing that the drones will “offer an opportunity for a safer community.” However, all four reasons listed, in my opinion, are not about a safer community, rather they are really about efficiency.
There was also information about costs and economic benefits. In one slide it stated, that the “Direct GRPD call-in savings would be $11,880 annually. However, in another slide, seen here below it states that the cost of the number that the number of drones the GRPD wants to purchase would be $100,000, plus annual reoccurring expenses, which were quantified for maintenance, certification and training ($20,000), but not for data storage or FOIA requests. This means that the savings amount ($11,880) in one slide is meaningless, on top of the fact that they don’t know how much it will cost to do data storage or for POIA request.
Equally important is the fact that beside the money they will spend on training people, there is no budget cost listed for paying the salaries of cops who will be using the drones from the time of deployment until they stores the data. For me, the fact that they left out cost for cops using the drones is deceptive, since it could mean tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for police salary. Having GRPD cops working the drones also adds to Chief Winstrom’s argument that they need a larger police force.
The other slide that is worth looking at (here below) , shows a list of reasons for deploying the drones. The one listed that is worth reflecting on is City Manager Extenuating Circumstances. This means that the City Manager of Grand Rapids has the power to determine if there are other reasons to use drones, for surveillance and information gathering. Chief Winstrom said that Extenuating Circumstances, as an example, might be the 2020 uprising that took place in downtown Grand Rapids. In fact, Winstrom had stated at the previous Public Safety Committee meeting, that when there are protests that are not permitted or where traffic is being blocked or government and business operations are disrupted, those would qualify for Extenuating Circumstances. Extenuating Circumstances are included in the policy that the Grand Rapids NAACP had a hand in writing, which you can find here. Ultimately, when the City Manager decides there are Extenuating Circumstances, the City’s policy on surveillance, which the NAACP helped craft, goes out the window.
However, the reality is that, most of the presentation by the GRPD during the Public Safety Committee meeting focused on using drones to find people who are lost or to find suspects who flee.
Public Safety Committee responses & questions
After the GRPD presentation, there were a few questions from committee members, both government officials and volunteer committee members.
Commissioner Moody was the first person to speak and he began by saying that he was in favor, saying that drones were needed. Commissioner Moody went on to say that for the GRPD to not have drones says a lot about what is “wrong.”
Mayor Bliss, who was filling in for Commissioner O’Connor asked if car theft issues and motorcycles speeding in city, would drones be good for these issues?
Commissioner Ysasi asks if drones would be used for monitoring speeding? She then asks if operating a drone would only be cop position, not civilian. Winstrom responded by saying that a drone cop would be in a squad car.
One of the volunteer members of the Public Safety Committee asks how drones would promote and protect the public. Winstrom says that drones would reduce the time when looking for a live shooter or someone who commits a felony.
Another volunteer member of the Public Safety Committee, Christine Cameron, believes that the GRPD should drones.. “If we don’t have drones, it would tie the hands of the GRPD.” Cameron then wants to make a motion to have a public hearing.
Finally, one Public Safety Committee member asks if drones would be used for criminal intelligence gathering? Winstrom said no.Chief Winstrom then talks about how the OPA will review all the drone footage and make sure it is in line with City policy.
Commissioner Moody then makes a motion to set a public hearing for GRPD drone purchasing and use. There is a unanimous vote to hold a hearing. City Manager Mark Washington said he will bring the question back to the next City Commission meeting on the April 11, with a public hearing potentially being April 25th.
In the end, the members of the Public Committee didn’t really challenge the GRPD on the information, claims and arguments they made for the need to purchase and utilize drones. The unanimous vote wasn’t just a to support holding a public hearing, since many of the committee members had also verbalized their support that the GRPD spend more money on technology that could still be used against the public, and facilitate the likely expansion of the police force.
If you don’t support the GRPD purchasing and utilizing drones, then check out the campaign being organized by Defund the GRPD.
Commercial news coverage of the GRPD proposal to purchase and use drone technology in Grand Rapids
On Tuesday, the Grand Rapids Public Safety Committee met to listen to Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Winstrom present his latest proposal to purchase and utilize drones for the GRPD. You can watch the Public Safety Committee meeting for March 28th, at this link.
However, if people were not watching the meeting on Tuesday or haven’t looked at the recorded video of the meeting, they might have come across stories in the Grand Rapids commercial news media. MLive and all 3 Grand Rapids-based TV stations – WOODTV8, WZZM13 and WXMI17 – all of which ran stories about the latest proposal by the GRPD to purchase and utilize drone technology. What follows is a deconstruction of that coverage.
Sources cited in the coverage
It’s always important to look at which sources are cited in these kind of stories, since we are not only talking about Grand Rapids government policies, but because the GRPD has come under significant scrutiny in recent years.
The only source cited in the MLive article, was Police Chief Winstrom. WOODTV8 cited Chief Winstrom and the Grand Rapids NAACP President Cle Jackson, but Jackson said he believed that the drones would be used for “public safety.” In the Channel 13 story, the only voice we heard was from Police Chief Eric Winstrom, although the WZZM 13 reporter did say that the group Defund the GRPD already began a campaign to oppose them, though viewers did not heard directly from anyone with Defund the GRPD. Lastly, in the WXMI 17 story, Chief Winstrom is once again the only source cited.
How were the stories on the GRPD proposal for drone use framed?
How news stories are framed is also an important part of how the public navigates the news, especially about critical issues like policing. The MLive article headline reads, Grand Rapids city leaders to decide on moving police drone conversation forward. The headline alone doesn’t tell us much, but it does communicate that there was no public opposition to the GRPD use of drone technology. Beyond the MLive headline, the rest of the article essentially uses the information from the GRPD presentation during the Public Safety Committee meeting, often using word for word bullet points, without any critical assessment or verification of the claims made by the GRPD on drone use.
The channel 8 online post headline reads, Chief says GRPD ‘late to the party’ on drones, which clearly reflects the perspective of the GRPD. In the rest of the story, as was mentioned, the President of the NAACP is cited, but he doesn’t challenge the Chief of Police and believes that the surveillance policy that the NAACP help to write with the City of Grand Rapids will guarantee that drones will not be used in a negative way. More importantly, the channel 8 reporter allows Winstrom to make a statement on camera, without challenging the head of the GRPD’s claim. Winstrom said:
“There’s a lot of common sense in this town. When it comes down to it, and when you really understand what we’re going to be doing with these drones and how that’s going to benefit the people of Grand Rapids, I think the city’s going to come together and say ‘yeah, it’s probably about time we utilize this technology for the benefit of the city.”
WZZM 13 also frames much of their story around what the GRPD presented during the Public Safety Committee meeting, again using the same list of talking points on drone use that the GRPD presented. Channel 13 is the only news source of the four GRIID looked at that provided an oppositional point of view, but they limited the reasons for the opposition by Defund the GRPD to just one talking point, despite the fact that they have numerous talking points to oppose the GRPD’s purchase and use of drones, which you can read on their Facebook page.
With the WXMI 17 online story about the GRPD and drones, their headline reads, Grand Rapids Police Department pitches a plan for drones. This headline is somewhat neutral, but the content of the article essentially parrots the same information and talking points used by the GRPD.
What is missing from the coverage on the GRPD’s proposal to purchase drones?
There is a great deal that is missing from Tuesday’s coverage on the GRPD proposal to purchase and use drones. First, there are not nearly enough oppositional voices/perspectives presented in most of the coverage, especially since no person or organization was actually cited with comments that were oppositional. Second, there are no comments or perspectives shared by the members of the Public Safety Committee, whether they were elected officials or volunteer committee members. If you watch the Public Committee meeting it is clear that there were people who ask questions. Now, for the most part the questions were not oppositional, but there were some questions that at least challenged the GRPD on their drone proposal.
Third, while the GRPD used the argument that everybody uses these drones, the local news coverage did not investigate to see if there was concern about use of drones by police departments around civil rights or privacy issues. There are national organizations that have raised significant issues about police use of drones for several years, specifically the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
All of the news sources GRIID looked at did mention that the next step in the process for the GRPD to purchase and use drones, will be the public hearing that the Grand Rapids City Commission will initiate, along with possible community forums to discuss the issue. However, if the public were relying on the local commercial news media to make an informed decision about the GRPD’s proposal to purchase and use drones, they would be rather disappointed. As we said in the beginning of this post, since the GRPD has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, it is imperative that we seek out information, perspectives and opinions that do not sold rely on what the GRPD is telling the public about drones.
Editor’s Note: Tomorrow GRIID will post our own analysis of the GRPD’s drone proposal at the Public Safety Committee meeting.
On the one year anniversary of the GRPD killing of Patrick Lyoya: GRIID Interview with a member of the Comrades Collective
GRIID – What are your thoughts about how slowly the legal process has taken in regards to trial of the former GRPD cop who killed Patrick Lyoya?
CC – I expected this to happen. While I was surprised that Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker decided to file charges, it was after the riots in Grand Rapids in response to the police murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. The City didn’t want that to happen again, especially now that they’re pushing tourism downtown with upcoming developments.
When Becker did decide to file second degree murder charges, the part of me that knew better, anticipated the legal process being slow and steady for Christopher Schurr. He was arrested in Calhoun County, over 60 days after murdering Patrick Lyoya but didn’t spend more than 12 hours in custody. That only happens for people with privilege — he’s a white cop. The legal process doesn’t work like that for people that look like me.
GRIID – The Comrades Collective has 2 events coming up around the anniversary of when Patrick Lyoya was murdered by the GRPD. Can you talk about those 2 events and they fit into a larger strategy of mobilizing public support around Justice4Patrick?
CC – It’s been almost a year since Patrick Lyoya was murdered. The Comrades Collective is planning a caravan through Boston Square and the southeast side on April 2nd to remind and rally our community. The second event is spearheaded by someone else, RegJames. He had a fundraiser for a “Justice for Patrick Lyoya” billboard reveal. We were already planning to do a march and candlelight vigil on April 4th, so it made sense to collaborate and conjoin them. We understand that our community isn’t as comfortable with the potential repercussions of protesting, so we want to mobilize our community in a less intense but still powerful way. We want their support as much as Patrick’s family does, the movement is hard to carry for a few.
GRIID – Do you think that the tactic by the lawyers representing the ex-cop who killed Patrick Lyoya, to delay the trial as long as possible, is designed with the hopes that the movement will diminish? If so, what response do you have?
CC – I don’t think it’s solely Schurr’s defense team, they wouldn’t have been able to accomplish this without Chris Becker’s assistance. He’s brought the most pitiful prosecution I’ve ever seen. I foresaw his efforts being half assed, and it was confirmed when I sat in Judge Ayoub’s court during the preliminary hearing and watched Becker present an MSP witness that made Patrick Lyoya look like a criminal, instead of trying to paint him in a more positive light. Becker was doing the defense team’s work for them. I’m suspicious that they were able to push the trial back to October 24th while Judge Elmore was out because “an issue came up.” The motion was approved by Judge Trusock, he isn’t presiding over the case. Schurr’s defense team cited needing to go over thousands of case files and experiencing deaths on their counsel’s family, which Chris Becker didn’t object to.
While the Prosecutor’s office claims its due process and not wanting to have any missteps, they are all counting on people forgetting and giving up. The City has also targeted activists and organizers that have been consistently showing up, charging them with all kinds of shit to scare them. It’s only making us more vigilant and determined to see it through, so that it isn’t all for nothing. Patrick’s life matters. He could’ve been any one of us or our loved ones.
GRIID – If the ex-cop is convicted of second degree murder, for many this will be a win. However, for those who see policing in Grand Rapids as a systemic problem, where even abolition of the GRPD is a goal, what would you like to see happen in addition to the conviction of Christopher Schurr?
CC – It’s really hard to imagine a cop being convicted in Grand Rapids, especially after all of the incidents of GRPD brutalizing people over my lifetime. The political climate is grotesquely conservative, considering the money that runs this city and the support that Christopher Schurr has received. That’s all a part of the systemic problem. There would have to be radical policy changes for real accountability, let alone police abolition in Grand Rapids. That’s what I would like to see. If Schurr were to be convicted, I wouldn’t see it as a win because Patrick Lyoya’s life and the lives of so many others impacted by police brutality, have been forever changed.
GRIID – Lastly, how important is it for people to understand the link between policing in Grand Rapids and structural racism?
CC – It’s life or death for people to understand and address the link between policing in Grand Rapids and structural racism. The purpose of the police is to enforce the will of the rich. In Grand Rapids, the structure protects and serves the DeVos and Van Andels, their names are on most of the buildings downtown and around the county. Their money is what pumps through the veins of the city government. However, until we realize how powerful we are together, the program will remain the same.
For more information on the Comrades Collective, you can follow them on Facebook. You can also watch the latest Comrades Collective podcast, which discusses the same issues reflected in the above interview.
Last year during Black History month, I made three posts about books dealing with the Black Freedom Struggle that influenced how I saw the world. Now that we are in Women’s History Month, I want to do the same thing in regards to books by women, particularly feminists that influenced my understanding of the world.
I say feminist writers, as Women’s History month has evolved to the point where it is centered on identity politics, rather than the being rooted in the origins of International Women’s Day.
Two weeks ago, in Part I, I shared the titles of books that I read in the 80s and early 90s that challenged my understanding of myself and the world around me. In Part II, I provide a list of books that are from the late 1990s and early 2000’s. In today’s post – Part III, I am posting feminist books from the last 15 years that have had a tremendous influence on me.
And the Spirit Moved Them: The Lost Radical History of America’s First Feminists, by Helen LaKelly Hunt
Abolition. Feminism. Now, by Angela Y. Davis, Gina Dent, Erica R. Meiners and Beth E. Richie
How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective, by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor
Abolition Feminisms Vol. 1: Organizing, Survival, and Transformative Practice, by Alisa Bierria, Jakeya Caruthers and Brooke Lober
Abolition Feminisms Vol. 2: Feminist Ruptures against the Carceral State, by Alisa Bierria, Brooke Lober and Jakeya Caruthers
Unapologetic: A Black, Queer, and Feminist Mandate for Radical Movements, by Charlene Carruthers
Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution, by Zillah Eisenstein
A Black Women’s History of the United States, by Daina Ramey Berry and Kali Nicole Gross
Women’s Radical Reconstruction: The Freedmen’s Aid Movement, by Carol Faulkner
Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto, by Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya and Nancy Fraser
In Part I of our series looking back at the 20th anniversary of the public resistance to the US invasion/occupation of Iraq in 2003, we focused on early organizing efforts to build an anti-war movement before the US war on Iraq even began. In Part II, we looked at the protest when President’s Bush’s visited Grand Rapids the day after his State of the Union address and the GRPD’s response during that protest.
In Part III, we looked at the Women in Black actions, the global protest against the war march that took place in Lansing, along with the People’s Alliance for Justice & Change workshops on civil disobedience that were offered to a growing number of people who wanted to do more than just hold signs. Part IV focused on student organizing against the imminent US war against Iraq, along with civil disobedience that was done at Rep. Ehlers office before the war began. In Part V, we looked back on some of the plans that anti-war organizers had put in place once the US invasion/occupation of Iraq began, along with increased GRPD surveillance. Part VI focuses on what actions took place once the US war/occupation of Iraq had begun, along with the increased intensity of GRPD surveillance and repression against anti-war organizers.
In today’s post, we look at local media reporting on the US war in Iraq and how one radio station was overtly promoting the war.
A Pro-US Invasion of Iraq bias
The national media watchdog group, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) did excellent work monitoring the national news outlets leading up to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq, with a report entitled, In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views.
Once the US invasion of Iraq had begun, FAIR followed up with another study of US media coverage, Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent, which was consistent with the study that GRIID conducted on local news coverage of the US invasion/occupation of Iraq.
GRIID conducted a six-week study of the Grand Rapids Press and the three TV news stations (WZZM, WXMI and WOODTV8) from a few days before the war began (March 17) through the first full week in May. The GRIID study looked at sources, framing, historical context and home-front coverage. You can view a 38 minute video analysis of their study, Searching for the Smoking Gun: Local Coverage of the War in Iraq.
In addition to the GRIID study of local news coverage of the US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq, some involved in anti-war organizing decided to challenge the local media with their hyper-nationalistic reporting and cheerleading.
In mid-April, anti-war protestors decided to hold a demonstration outside of the office of Citadel and Clear Channel radio, both of which were not only providing one-sided reporting on the US war against Iraq, but some of their DJs were using their airtime to dismiss and mock those who did not support the war. One DJ in particular, Rich Michaels would mock anti-war demonstrators, saying they were cowards and during the early months of the war would begin his show saying, “Born and raised in America, it’s Michaels in the Morning.”
Check out the Grand Rapids Press coverage of the anti-war protest at Clear Channel and Citadel radio stations at this link, pages 18 – 19.
In our next post, we will look at other anti-war actions that were organized in Grand Rapids month after the war started and what kinds of tactics and strategies that anti-war organizers were using.
Since Howard Zinn wrote A People’s History of the United States, there have been numerous books that have used his model to address the history of events of specific groups of people, but always on a national level.
A People’s History of Grand Rapids is one of the first books that applies a history from below for a specific community. In Smith’s book, people will learn about the struggle of Indigenous, Black and immigrant communities in Grand Rapids, and the organized efforts by workers, women and the LGBTQ community to win greater freedoms and equality. In addition, there are chapters that inform readers of movements against war, environmental destruction, the exploitation of animals and police repression, along with movements for global solidarity.
A People’s History of Grand Rapids presents readers with a rich tradition of social movements in West Michigan and properly frames their struggles against the systems of power and oppression that each movement was up against. A People’s History of Grand Rapids is a book that counters the official narrative about this community, and it can inspire people by seeing that they have not been alone in the fight for justice where they live.
I will be talking about my book on Tuesday, April 11th, 6:30pm, at the Schuler Books on 28th Street in Grand Rapids. This is a free event and open to the public. You can also purchase a copy of the book that night. Here is a link to more details for the April 11 event at Schuler Books.
You can also purchase a copy of A People’s History of Grand Rapids directly from me. Just send me an E-mail (sjeff987@gmail.com) if you want to swing by a pick up a copy in person or if you want a copy mailed to you. I also have a PDF version of the book available for $10.
Dissecting the Grand Rapids State of the City speech
If you want to read the text of the Mayor’s State of the City speech, WGVU posted it. You can also watch the speech, which in many ways provides details the public would miss by just reading what was said.
Before we hear from the MC or the Mayor, the video version of the speech has three slides that repeat for 5 minutes. One slide just says, The State of the City 2023, but the other two slides (shown here above and below) are lists of corporate sponsors for the event. Now, why does the City even need corporate sponsors for the event? Maybe it was to cover the cost of renting the venue and the cost of refreshments to this invitation only event. It used to be that anyone from the public was invited, but is recent years it has become an invitation only, which means that those invited are in full support of what the City is doing. It also means that any dissenting voices are NOT invited, which also means any chance to question or confront City policies are eliminated.
Even if the corporate sponsors are meant to cover the costs, it sets a bad tone for the entire event. First, it gives a free pass to those companies, since they are now seen as “friends” of the city. Second, it raises questions about what kind of relationship the City has with these corporations, corporations which have a history of exploitation and political manipulation. Third, there are four companies that benefit from the construction boom addressed in the Mayor’s speech – Rockford Construction, Triangle Construction, Diversco Construction and Progressive AE. Then there are three DeVos owned entities listed as sponsors – Amway RDV Corp and AHC Hospitality. I don’t think I need to argue why partnering with the DeVos family is problematic, but you can always look at The DeVos Family Reader for details.
Kent County Commissioner Tony Baker acted as the MC and asks elected officials to stand up during his opening comments. I’m always confused as to why elected officials are given that kind of recognition at these events. Aren’t they supposed to be there on behalf of the residents? I mean, no one else was asked to stand up, not health care workers, neighborhood organizers, teachers, mental health workers or volunteers of any kind, which as we know, are often the very people who make things happen.
Eventually Mayor Bliss comes to the podium and begins with the obligatory thanks, then begins by stating, Over the past year we continued to make considerable progress toward this next version of Grand Rapids. The Mayor then gives a list of several items, even naming several new neighborhood businesses that have opened. There was lots of economic rhetoric, such as economic growth, industrial growth, opportunities, transformative civic projects, and employment and wages are expected to grow locally. Does this mean that businesses will start paying a living wage so people can afford rent or even a home mortgage? Does thus mean that industrial growth doesn’t mean exploiting workers or the environment? Are the transformational civic projects going to lift up the most marginal in this city?
The Crisis of Policing
Mayor Bliss then thanks Police Chief Winstrom, by saying, “It was also almost a year ago that Patrick Lyoya was tragically killed.” He wasn’t tragically killed, he was murdered, shot in the back of the head by a GRPD cop who was sitting on top of Patrick while he was lying face down on the ground.
Chief, we are deeply grateful for your leadership this past year and your ability to listen, build accountability, trust and meaningful partnerships to ensure Grand Rapids remains one of the safest cities in America.
In October, GRIID wrote a response to this claim of Grand Rapids being the safest city in Michigan, a claim made by the group Wallethub. In that GRIID post I wrote:
In the Home & Community Safety category, the only reference to policing is, “Law-Enforcement Employees per Capita.” The WalletHub survey completely ignores anything about how local police departments target certain populations or what the public thinks about the role of policing in their community.
Mayor Bliss then brags about the fact that there are now social workers and mental health workers who respond to calls with cops. Some cities are actually just sending out social workers and mental health workers, without cops. More importantly, we need to really think through and be critical of this practice of pairing cops with social/mental health workers. The national organization Interrupting Criminalization has great resources and a toolkit, providing critical analysis in response to what Grand Rapids is doing, particularly with their report, Beyond Do No Harm Principles.
Interrupting Criminalization also provides monthly trainings entitled, “Building Coordinated Crisis Response: A Learning Space for groups and organizations responding to crisis without police.” You can register for those trainings online at this link.
The Mayor went on to say, “The best response to violence is to stop it before it starts.” While I would agree with this sentiment, the Mayor’s notion of violence is limited to physical violence, or what the GRPD would identify as “criminal.” However, violence is also structural. When people don’t make enough money to support themselves or their families – like a living wage – then that is violence. When people can’t afford rent in the current housing market, then that is violence. When people who identify as trans are confronted by constant harassment, intimidation and transphobia, that is violence. This is where the real prevent starts, is to address structural violence, which is often the root causes of people engaging in street level violence.
The Housing Crisis
The Mayor then shifted her comments around housing, “I mentioned last year, we are in a housing crisis because we have more people than homes. And our population is growing fast.” While this statement might be true, it doesn’t address two fundamental aspects. First, the real housing crisis that exists for thousands in this community is affordability. When people don’t make a living wage, they can’t afford to either purchase a home or they can’t afford to pay rent. The second issue is whether or not growth is fundamentally a good thing. Now, within the framework of free market Capitalism, growth is always encouraged, but growth also means a burden on ecosystems, plus it increases the likelihood of creating more social and economic problems. Lastly, I think more housing units will be great for construction companies, developers, realtors and landlords/property management companies. It will not be beneficial to lots of residents who are being priced out of the housing market. Until we make sure that the thousands of people who can’t afford housing in this market, we will continue to displace people and push some sectors of the population out of the city, which has already been happening since the 2008/2009 economic crash.
Now, Mayor Bliss goes on to say that the City of Grand Rapids currently has more than 1,000 affordable homes and apartments in the development pipeline, but many of these new “affordable housing units” are not truly affordable. First, many of the new housing units that are apartments will cost more than many people can afford, regardless of the fact that they are calling it affordable housing. Second, most of these “affordable” housing units have been subsidized by public tax dollars that will fund the building of the units, meaning the money will go to developers, construction companies and non-profit housing entities. This is a temporary solution. We need to make sure that everyone makes a living wage – which would be a minimum of $25 an hour – for people to be able to afford rent or mortgage payments.
Mayor Bliss then states, “In 2022 we seeded the fund with 5 million dollars that will be dispersed yet this year. This year we will grow the fund by another 10 million dollars.” If the City of Grand Rapids was serious about re-directing money to fund truly affordable housing, then they could do what people have been demanding since June of 2020. People have demanded that the City reduce the GRPD budget to the 1995 City Charter mandated level of 33%, which would free up about $10 million every year. Imagine home much new housing could be built for that and how much in would benefit tenants who can’t afford rent right now?
Lastly, when the Mayor names private and non-profit developers as central players in the current housing crisis, it limits our ability to radically imagine other ideas, ones that are not driven by Market Capitalism. On February 19, GRIID wrote a response to the Chamber of Commerce created Housing Next plans, which included the following ideas for how to address the housing crisis.
- Paying people a livable wage, which right now would be $25 an hour minimum
- Reducing the wealth gap in Kent County, where there are over 600 millionaires, but 25% of the population subjected to poverty.
- Government regulated rent control
- The creation of Tenant Unions to support tenant struggles and to develop tenant power in the face of landlord/Property Management housing, which is about maximizing profits, not the well being of tenants
- Stop the influence peddling from Real Estate and Rental Property Associations, especially during election cycles, as we documented in 2022.
- Re-direct part of the massive GRPD budget to go towards housing, and redirect past of the massive US Military Budget ($858 Billion for 2023) and use it to provide housing for people, particularly the most marginalized communities.
- Practice Radical Hospitality, particularly in the faith communities. Imagine home many people who are currently housing insecure, could benefit from the resources and hospitality of the faith communities.
- Limit large corporate property management companies or real estate investors from operating in Grand Rapids/Kent County.
- End government subsidies/tax breaks for developers.
- Promote cooperative housing and Community Land Trusts.
Mayor Bliss then shifts gears by saying, “We are seeing an explosion of entrepreneurship across our City,” when talking about neighborhood development. She lists several neighborhood businesses in the process. The Mayor then began to talk about the City’s “campaign to revitalize the Grand River corridor.” This of course is a campaign centered on developments projects, not on environmental sustainability, plus it re-affirms the City’s Settler Colonial history.
The Mayor then wraps up her State of the City speech by saying things like, “From policing – to housing – to our economy and environment, we are genuinely addressing root causes of issues that have simmered under the surface for generations. We are not doing it by hastily pushing top-down solutions.” Um, yes, you are. The City’s community engagement process is weak, and most times laughable, as we recently saw with the Public Safety meetings held in Grand Rapids last week. Plus, there are so many people who are invited and then appointed to various boards, most of which are people who work with or are representing members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, as we noted in an October 2020 article.
The Mayor of Grand Rapids then ends with lots of lofty language, positive language about progress and diversity, but even with all of the rhetoric, it is impossible to ignore all of the serious social problems this city faces. Personally, I do not trust the City of Grand Rapids, nor it’s corporate partners to do what is right, especially for the most marginalized in our city. I trust grassroots and autonomous projects and movements that not only pressure local government, they create and implement projects that do not rely on systems of power and oppression, like corporations and cops.
43 years ago the US financed Salvadoran Death Squads murdered Archbishop Romero: We Must Never Forget!
In January of 1992, just days before the cease-fire in El Salvador, I was sitting in the Central Plaza watching the crowds of people with my traveling partners. We noticed a large crowd in the center listening to a man speaking in English who was accompanied by a translator. I decided to walk over to investigate what was going on when I realized that the man speaking was a preacher from the US. No sooner did I realize this that I turned around and rejoined my friends shaking my head in disgust.
When the crowd finally dispersed I noticed that the street preacher was headed in our direction. Right away he began to speak to us in English and inquired about our being in El Salvador. We told him we were tourists because one never knows when there are people listening in on your conversations. Before we could say any more this guy began asking us if we had “come to know the Lord.” We all said no, much to his disappointment, but we were curious enough to know what he was doing here. He said “to spread the Gospel and to win souls for Christ.” We asked him if he was doing anything for these people in the way of food, housing, jobs, ect. He told us no and that those things were not relevant as long as people saved their souls.
At that point I remember telling him that he was no different than the long line of Christians who had come here to impose their will on these people. I said if you wanted to preach religion, maybe he might want to follow the model of the late Archbishop Oscar Romero. Looking at me with a confused expression, our missionary friend simply said, “Who was he?”
The above was taken from my book, Sembramos, Comemos, Sembramos: Learning Solidarity on Mayan Time. That book is about how the people of Central America and Chiapas, Mexico had transformed my life and helped me to come to the realization that real solidarity takes place when we accompany people who are fighting for liberation from oppression.
I also shared this story about the US missionary in El Salvador, because it demonstrates how arrogant and clueless most people in the US are when it comes to the life and commitment of the late Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero. In El Salvador, people affectionately referred to Romero as Monsenor, because Romero had demonstrated his commitment to the people of El Salvador towards the end of his life. And Romero had primarily demonstrated his commitment to the people because he accompanied them in their struggle, walking with them and making the church in El Salvador their church of the poor and oppressed.
Before Romero was chosen as the new Archbishop of El Salvador, he was a quiet and conservative bishop. Romero was even a member of the Opus Dei, a movement within the Catholic Church that began in Spain in the early part of the 20th century and supported the dictatorship of Franco.
However, Romero was a close friend of Fr. Rutillio Grande, a priest in one of El Salvador’s rural communities. Grande was a proponent of Liberation Theology and when he was assassinated for serving the poor and challenging the wealthy oligarchy in El Salvador, Romero began to see the light. This moment of transformation is what Jesuit scholar Jon Sobrino called “Rutillio’s Miracle,” because it was the catalyst that transformed Romero into the Voice of the Voiceless.
Quickly Romero began to not only speak out on behalf of the poor, he began acting in such a way that soon thousands of Salvadorans would come to call him simply “Monsenor.” Romero turned the facilities at the cathedral into a space for people to come for relief, food and medical assistance. Romero also began hearing the stories of countless Salvadorans who told him how their family members were disappeared, tortured and killed.
Romero then began to challenge the power structure in El Salvador, mostly through his Sunday sermons and his weekly radio broadcast. Romero understood all to well that the poverty and violence that people endured was because of the unjust economic power that the country’s wealthy possessed.
Romero also understood that the political violence that was terrorizing the country’s poor and working class people was a direct result of US military aid to El Salvador. Five weeks before Romero was assassinated he wrote a letter to then US President Jimmy Carter. He asked Carter that if the US really wanted to support justice in El Salvador that the US should stop sending weapons to his country and that the US should not directly intervene in any way into the political, economic, military or diplomatic affairs of El Salvador.
Noam Chomsky writes in the book Manufacturing Consent, that after Romero sent the letter to Carter, the Carter administration put pressure on the Vatican to try and curb the activities of the archbishop. The Vatican did not try to silence Romero for his critique of US imperialism, but they also did nothing to challenge the Salvadoran military to cease their threats against Romero and other religious workers in the tiny Central American country. This fact alone, makes you wonder, why is the Vatican now canonizing Romero as a Saint, when they were complicit in many ways in the US-back counterinsurgency campaign that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in the 1980s?
How Romero Transformed my life
In March of 1980, when Oscar Romero was assassinated, I was completely oblivious to what was happening in El Salvador. However, within a few short years, my world was opened to the realities of US-sponsored terrorism in Central America.
When I first moved to Grand Rapids in 1982, I quickly came in contact with folks who were doing weekly vigils for Central America on the Monroe Mall. The picture shown above, was part of that ongoing consciousness raising work around Central America when the US was supporting counter-insurgency wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Contra War in Nicaragua and had turned Honduras into a massive US military base.
When I was in the seminary in 1983/84 and studying at Aquinas College, a student group that I was part of continued to hold vigils, hand out literature and invite speakers to campus. We hosted a Salvadoran labor organizer who had survived a bombing of her labor hall earlier that year.
After I had left the seminary and helped to found the Koinonia House, we continued organizing around Central American solidarity issues, but it never felt like it was enough. Then in 1986, our community house on LaGrave, decided to take the next step and declare ourselves a sanctuary for Central American political refugees. It was this decision that led me down the path of living and working in Central America, making 13 trips between 1988 and 2006, doing primarily accompaniment work.
According to Staughton Lynd’s book, Accompanying: Pathways to Social Change, the Salvadoran Archbishop was the first person to use the term accompaniment. Romero practiced accompaniment in two important ways.
First, the Salvadoran Archbishop practiced accompaniment by speaking out against injustice. Romero spoke out against the injustice in El Salvador, because that is what the people told him to do. Romero did this in his sermons, in his letters and on his radio show.
In his Third Pastoral Letter as Archbishop, Romero stated, “The most acute form in which violence appears in Latin America, is structural, or institutionalized violence, in which the socioeconomic and political structures operate to the benefit of a minority with the result that the majority of people are deprived of the necessities of life.” This is why in the same pastoral letter, Romero denounces Capitalism.
However, the second, and most important form of accompaniment that Romero practiced, was walking with the people. Romero made it a point to visit communities all over El Salvador, to listen to them and to learn from them in their struggle.
This was the most important lesson I learned from Romero. I learned to walk with people, to listen and to accompany them even if it meant putting my life at risk.
When I was in El Salvador during the cease fire in 1992, the women from the grassroots organization COMADRES (an organization founded as a result of the assassination of Archbishop Romero), had invited us to stay at their offices, because it would help keep them safe. What these Salvadoran women meant was that the presence of gringos would provide them with some extra space to do what they needed to do and maybe it would mean they would be able to stay alive for another day.
COMADRES, like so many other Salvadoran groups were constantly receiving death threats and having members of their organization disappear or end up murdered by the Salvadoran army. The four of us who stayed at their office were honored that they would ask us to have a presence with them and we delighted in the opportunity to sleep on the floor.
Because the cease fire had begun, there was a massive demonstration planned a few days later in San Salvador, where hundreds of thousands of people would converge on the capitol and celebrate the end of the counter-insurgency war that Romero and so many others fought against. Again, the women at COMADRES asked us to accompany them in the march and to even make our own banner expressing our solidarity with the Salvadoran people.
The march and celebration was amazing and lasted all day, all night and into the following morning. It is hard for those of us who have not grown up in a war torn country to understand the emotional and psychological relief that people were experiencing during the celebration that took place right next to the Cathedral that Romero had preached at while he was the Archbishop.
I’m still not sure how I feel about the Vatican’s decision to canonize Monsenor Romero, since for me and for most Salvadorans, Romero did not need to be validated by the Catholic hierarchy. Romero found his validation in the work of accompaniment. We shouldn’t need to feel validated by awards or recognition, rather our validation should come from those we accompany on the road to collective liberation. Viva Monsenor Romero!
Movimiento Cosecha action targets Senator Winnie Brinks in Lansing around Driver’s Licenses
On Thursday about 10 members of Movimiento Cosecha Michigan went to the Lansing State Capitol, to continue their push to win Driver’s Licenses for All.
The Cosecha activists were all wearing sashes that said “15 years without Driver’s Licenses.” The sashes went with a quinceañera theme, where families celebrate the 15th year of their daughter. Cosecha was using the quinceañera theme to make a point about the fact that undocumented immigrants have not been able to obtain Driver’s Licenses for 15 years. They were also saying that there has been a 15 year period where the children of immigrant families may have endured trauma, because a family member was detained by police for not having a Driver’s License, which often led to ICE taking them to a detention facility and possibly deporting them.
In a Press Release sent out by Cosecha Michigan, it read in part:
“We are here because Sen. Brinks has introduced the Licenses for All bill in the past but it has never gone anywhere. Now that Senator Brinks is the majority leader, we here constituents are demanding that she prioritize and pass the bill right away. Fifteen years driving with the constant fear of being stopped by police is too much, 2023 is the year to finally change this” said Gabby, an immigrant organizer with Cosecha Michigan.
“Michigan cannot be falling behind the rest of the country,” Gabby continued, “because our state is already benefiting from the labor of undocumented workers. In the time of the pandemic we were classified as essential workers but without any benefit. With the new Democratic majority in the state legislature, now is the time to finally follow through on the promises to support immigrant workers and families in our state.”
While the Cosecha Michigan activists were in the office of Senator Brinks, there were two staff people they interacted with. When asked about how the Senator’s staff responded to their presence, they said that “it felt as if we were an inconvenience.” Another person thought that the staff was “condescending” towards them. One would think that as people who have been directly affected by not being able to obtain a Driver’s License, which puts them and their families at risk, the Senator’s staff would have responded with, “Please come in and have a seat. How can we assist you or be supportive of your struggle.” Unfortunately, that was not the case.
After Cosecha Michigan activists read statements in Spanish and in English, they left the 15 years without a Driver’s License quinceañer doll with Senator Brinks, as a reminder of the urgency with which they are demanding that Driver’s Licenses for All now!
As the Cosecha Michigan activists were heading outdoors to talk about what happened and to speak with someone from the Lansing News Media, I couldn’t help but think about how quickly the Democrats were able to repeal the Right to Work law that was put in place in 2012, by then Governor Rick Snyder. I certainly think that repealing Right to Work was a good thing, since it was an attack against labor unions and working families in general. However, one fundamental difference with undocumented immigrants not being able to obtain a Driver’s License, their lives are literally at risk of being arrested, detained and possibly deported. Being detained and deported means family separation, which is a greater consequence than what the Right to Work law imposed on workers. The question is, will the Democrats make passing a Driver’s Licenses for All bill as quickly as they did the repeal of Right to Work or not. Time will tell, and it will tell us something potentially about which lives the Democrats value more.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 