PINS AND NEEDLES

Well, alas, we are no longer on pins and needles in Boston.  Mayor Tom Menino is seeking reelection. Given that Massachusetts is an "incumbents paradise" all but guaranteeing him victory, I have to say that, although I know that he is a good guy that cares, this is a sad day for Boston.  We just can't break away from the past in this city.

I had a conversation today with someone that was telling me about a small business owner that is trying to open a local restaurant in a neighborhood that will not be named because it might expose the business to the political retaliation that illustrates what I am talking about.

Our business owner is trying to open a local restaurant in a neighborhood that definitely needs it.  With the way things are in this economy, one would think the mayor would be standing outside and holding a sign to cheer him.  But no.  Not in this city.     

Two weeks ago, the fire inspector was supposed to come inspect the site.  He never showed.  One week ago, our business owner was ready to open his doors and start turning a profit.  But, alas, there is no kachinging of registers to be heard today.  Instead, our business owner has been waiting on pins and needles every day to see if the fire inspector will show up, knowing that he can't bring in the inspectional department until the fire inspector has given the ok.  

Each time they call to check the status they are told, "He will get there when he gets there," as if his opening and precious profits are a trivial nuisance to the city.  You see, Boston is a club, and our business owner is not in it.  So, despite his understandable eagerness to open, he is ignored.  And he can't even speak out about it because he worries he may never open if he does.

Meanwhile, across town, as our business owner hourly loses profits, the city's inspectors are harassing Mayoral Candidate Sam Yoon for site violations, as if that is a better use of time than granting an inspection to a small business owner trying to boost a flagging economy.  

This is Menino's Boston, the city at its worst, where insiders get rewarded and everyone else, including the little guy, gets screwed.  Where part-time Licensing Board members make $85-100k and streetworkers that are saving kids' lives can barely afford to eat.

Recently, I came across the above photo near Uphams Corner while the Strand Theater was being renovated.  At first, I thought, "kudos to the mayor, this is awesome!"  But each day over a period of months, I would walk by the worksite and grimace.  In a neighborhood that is 8% white, only once out of a hundred passes, and on the very last day, ironically, did I see a black construction worker on site.  Each day, it became more of a thing for me to check, where towards the end I would stop and check to make sure I wasn't missing anyone.  I would actually stop and count: "one, two, three, four, etc."  Each time, my ugliest fears would be confirmed, "yep, not one black worker on site."  Imagine, then, my horror, as I came across the photo while running, just two blocks from the theater.  "I live United," it says.  Really?  You do?  Are we living in the same city, Mr. Mayor?  

I walked by another construction site near South Station not long thereafter. Again, I stopped and snapped a picture, counting, "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, yep, not one black worker on site." 

This is Boston, the ugly Boston.  To be fair, it's not all Mayor Menino's fault.  He inherited this legacy, and it was in place long before he came around.  But after four terms and seventeen years, what has changed?  

Young black men are still excluded from the workforce and the deeply segregated neighborhoods where they live are overpoliced and underesourced.  Where is the change?  Where is the new thinking?  Where is the wildly successful transitional employment program that New York City started years ago?  The one we were supposed to bring to Boston but never followed through on?  Where is the emphasis on intervention and prevention that will save money and lives?  

A month or so ago, I visited one of the Mayor's job sites.  I brought a young man from Roxbury and asked a staffer if they had any leads.  The staffer gave him the run-around and had nothing for him.  Plenty of hoops to jump through, but not one concrete entry-level position she could offer him. A week later, he began working with a volunteer I know and she found him a job in one week.  She also found jobs for two other young men from Roxbury that I know. If she can do this while volunteering part-time and holding down a full-time job, why can't the Mayor of an entire city who has relationships with every big business and CEO in the whole region do this?   

The Bay State Banner recently said that "After the Elma Lewis decision, no self-respecting African American can vote for Menino if he chooses to run again."  In a move typical of Menino Boston, the Mayor nixed a project with widespread popular support in Roxbury because a personal friend was removed as project manager.  Only after the Banner Editorial did Menino appreciate the gravity of what he had done and reverse course.  

Again, this is Menino's Boston, where the club reigns supreme, where symbolic gestures and cushy personal relationships are more important than bringing change to one of the best cities in the world, and where, unless Sam Yoon gets elected, I am probably going to be unemployed and living on the street for the next four years for saying so.  C'mon Sam, we need you.     

IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE THIN AIR, THEN WHAT'S IN THE WAY?

I received a disturbing email this morning, informing me that the legislature is asking the community to jump through hoops if it wants funding that will prevent young people from getting shot and killed:

"Here's the challenge the Legislature is making to us; the gauntlet they've thrown down on us: 

--you will live with massive cuts like our proposed elimination of the DPH Youth Violence Prevention Program, the Shannon Anti-Gang Violence Program, the YouthWorks Jobs for Teens, etc.

OR

IF you organize enough public support in the form of phone calls and letters to us, public rallies against the cuts and for a tax package in local communities and at the State House, and getting media coverage of the impact of these cuts, then we may pass a tax package to lessen these cuts."

It seems to me that they are saying they need phone calls and letters to know that the lives of young people in urban neighborhoods are important.  That they need media coverage to know what the impact of these cuts are, when you can read about a young person getting shot and/or killed in Boston nearly everyday.  

Though they are the ones responsible for having the vision and leadership necessary to demonstrate what their priorities are in a budget document, and for protecting those with no voice, they seem to be flipping the burden back on the most vulnerable. The fact that young people in urban neighborhoods don't have the benefit of police unions or vocal constituencies seems as if its being held against them, when it is in fact the very reason our legislators should be going to the mat to protect this funding in the first place.  

I know that Rep. Marie St. Fleur and Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz support this funding, but I am worried about where the rest of our leaders are on this. This lack of vision will not only result in more violence, but it will cost us a lot more -- both in terms of lives and criminal justice spending -- in the long run.      

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR

The House Ways & Means Committee released its budget today.  If you live in Dorchester, Mattpan, Roxbury, or another community that is touched by violence, brace yourself.

In 2003, when funding for youth jobs in Boston was cut in half, the number of homicides in the next two years nearly doubled, going from 39 to 75 in just two years.   The proposed House Budget not only cuts the Youth Works Public Sector Teen Jobs funding from $9 million to $0, but it also cuts the following:

• The Department of Public Health Youth Violence Prevention Program (Line Item # 4590-1506) funding was cut from $3.5 million to $0.  

• The Shannon Anti-Gang Violence Grant (Line Item # 8100-0111) was cut from $13 million to 0$. 

Interestingly, I also received an email today that the budget for CPCS was level funded.  I am not complaining, because indigent defendants need quality legal representation, but I have to say that I find it odd that as a society we have plenty of money to spend on lawyers for young people after they get arrested, have a criminal record, and pretty much become unemployable, but we don't have money to spend that will help them avoid gangs, find work and lead healthy lives.  

I also noticed that the budget for the Department of Correction is over $527 million, and that the amount allocated for reentry programs, which evidence coming out of Harvard, Northeastern, and every other credible institution that has researched the subject shows are cheaper and more effective than prison, is less than $1 million dollars.  

Let me repeat that: In spite of the fact that every shred of research coming out of the foremost institutions in the world, which also happen to be in our state, indicates that recidivism and prevention spending are more effective and cheaper than prison spending, our Department of Corrections budget section allocates 500 times more for prisons than it does for reentry. 

This is just insane.  It makes no budget sense, common sense or any other sense.  There really is no explanation for ignoring all of the data and wasting money like this.  It's almost like we actually enjoy wasting taxpayer money in this state.

Luckily, the budget process is far from over.  Please call your state representatives and tell them to restore funding for these line items, and to include more funding for reentry.  Please also call your senators and ask them to include these items in the senate version of the bill.  

When they tell you that times are tough and there is no money for these things, reply by telling them that prisons cost four times more than prevention, and that evidence from Harvard and Northeastern proves that what you are asking will actually save money for more important things.  

TEE TIME

Having watched the Masters this weekend, I had no choice but to play nine holes after work at Franklin Park in Dorchester this afternoon.

The sun was shining at that warmer-days-are-ahead-no-seriously-this-time angle. Birds were singing.  Trees were proudly swaying new buds.  People were gathered in the parking lot, drinking and talking.  As I walked across the lot to the clubhouse, distant notes of Tupac leavened the air with excitement.  I was giddy.

 

Far from the only one with such designs, I paired up with two guys from West Roxbury and waited.  We asked Mo the starter to sneak us off the back.  He did.  It was empty.  And it was glorious.

While the four groups ahead of us waited to tee off on the front, we teed off on the back and played six holes with a group way ahead of us and noone behind us.  On the 15th green, two young boys on bikes rode up and started watching us as the sun set.  

"What's good, fellas?" I asked.  "Nuuuthin," one of them replied, as he looked away and did a wheelie.  "You guys wanna try and hit one?" I asked, as the one doing the wheelie looked over to see if I was watching.  "YAAAAAAAHHH!!!" they both roared, jumping off their bikes and running over to the 16th tee.  I handed them a five iron and two balls each.  

The first one, Cal, 13, took a few "practice" swings, and finally made contact, knocking the ball sideways into the woods.  "Move a little closer," one of my new friends from W. Roxbury advised.

  

He did, and knocked one 80 yards down into the brush along the right side of the fairway.  It was Trey's turn.  He was also 13.  He too took a few "practice" swings. One was close.  Closer.  Closer.  BAAAAAAANG!!!  He connected and smashed one 110 yards down the middle.  As it ran down the fairway, we erupted in Ooooohs and Aaaaahs, clapping.  He jumped around and laughed with Cal, both of them utterly plastered in ear-to-toothy-eared grin.  He handed the club back, beaming.   

As we walked to the green, they followed along on their bikes, racing down the hill and then back up again to get the balls they hit.  We let them hit again on 17, and they both laughed uncontrollably as they whiffed again and again.      

I've played some golf.  Been to a few courses.  Observed lots of people on them.   And never in my life have I been to a place where anything like this has been possible.  Not even close.  

I love you, Dorchester.  Sometimes you are just the greatest. 

BATMAN

There is an article in the New York Times today that, in an odd way, is related to the recent tragic murders of a family in Milton and four police officers in Oakland. 

The article is about a guy named Edward Skyler, New York City's Deputy Mayor, affectionately dubbed "Batman" by his colleagues.   In the first paragraph, the article cites one of his recent "crusades":

"Driving through the South Bronx last summer, Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler spotted a man illegally washing car windshields at a stoplight. Enraged, he called the police desk at City Hall from his cellphone (it’s on speed dial), ordered that the man be arrested on the spot and requested a copy of his rap sheet, which, as it happened, was voluminous. It listed 50 prior arrests. Thus began a classic Skyler crusade: Over the next few months, he had two more squeegee men arrested by speed dial. He instructed aides to study their lengthy journeys through the legal system. And he helped draft a law cracking down on repeat offenders, which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled in his State of the City address this year."

This story is interesting because it nicely illustrates the structural forces that cause ex-offenders to become frustrated to the point of breaking.  And though most do not erupt and commit heinous acts like those of the Milton and Oakland murders, nearly all experience unsustainable levels of frustration and rejection that make them dangerous to themselves and the people around them.  

In the story, we have a powerful (proximately powerful, not actually powerful, which is an important distinction when it comes to a politician's ability to understand her/his constituency) Ivy Leauge fencer who likes Star Wars driving through the South Bronx.  He sees a guy washing windows and concludes that the guy is a criminal and needs to be arrested immediately, which he personally makes sure happens.  

Unsatisfied, he has two more squeegee men arrested and then helps write a law that will crack down harder on them.  (All in spite of evidence from his own state showing that get-tough sentencing laws do not work and should be repealed.)   

So here is our squeegee man who has been arrested fifty times, who has serious issues that jail is clearly not solving, and yet instead of selling drugs, breaking into someone's house or stealing their hubcaps, against all odds he is trying to do some honest work.  Pretty much unemployable in a traditional setting, he takes up washing windows to make a little money, which is probably one of the only outlets he can find versus simply begging with a cup.  And for his efforts, rather than applauding or supporting his efforts to work, he is rounded up and shipped off to jail again, where it will cost taxpayers over $100/day and $45,000/year to put him up.  

Skyler is hailed as a hero, the squeegee man a criminal, and on and on this arrangement goes, without anyone stopping and asking whether it's worth it to spend that much money on a guy washing windows, or how many more kicks he will be able take before he breaks.   

BC in DC '06

I had to think for a few days whether to publish this post.  I love the Boston Globe.  I read it every day.  I love Boston.com, and I often check it throughout the day to catch breaking news.  But after a recent editorial, "Incumbents' Paradise," I just can't restrain myself.

In the piece run Saturday, the editorial page discusses the lack of political competition in Massachusetts.  It laments the lack of candidates and the loss of a two-party system here, comparing us to Minnesota: "In Minnesota, candidates jump into races against formidable odds because, well, that's just what one does."

As I read this piece on Saturday morning, I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

In 2005, after almost two years as an Assistant District Attorney assigned to Roxbury Court, I had seen enough.  Your typical white kid from the suburbs, I went into the job thinking I was going to put the bad guys in jail and keep the streets safe.  When I got there, I found something completely different. 

Not knowing what I would do, only that I needed to move on,  I resigned.  I tried to break into the establishment, asking the Mayor and Governor if I could help, applying to the Department of Education, Mass Insight Education, etc.  It's not like I wasn't qualified to work in public policy.  I had worked for a US Representative in college and a State Representative in law school.  But nothing panned out.  The system had too much momentum. In Boston, you are either in the club or you are not.  In 2005, I was definitely not in the club.

Frustrated, and with few options, I decided to run for office.  Why not?  What could be the harm?  Worst case scenario I would raise awareness about the things I had seen.

I announced my campaign for US Representative in March 2006 at the Old South Meeting House.  My campaign was centered on investing in alternative energy sources, balancing the federal budget, reforming the criminal justice system, investing in more cost-effective violence prevention and intervention efforts, etc. (interestingly enough, issues that are all very sexy at the moment).  

I ran as a Republican, hoping to inject some life into a dead party.  I wanted to undo the shame of San Francisco 1964, when the party of Abraham Lincoln abandoned its roots and became a haven for racist white Southern Democrats that were opposed to Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights legislation.  

I wanted to make the party relevant, limiting wasteful spending and investing in smart programming that would save money and lives, particularly because Democrats in Massachusetts have been botching issues that affect urban neighborhoods for years and wasting a ton of money in the process.

Though I was far from the front-runner, I expected some interest from the media.  A long-shot reformer trying to resuscitate an irrelevant party.  A young man that had seen the horrors of a broken system and wanted to change it.  

I had no idea what I was getting into.  My friends and former colleagues distanced themselves from me.  People I didn't know avoided me.  Even the people in the State Republican Party treated me like a plague, looking at me like I was from Mars when I talked about the things I had seen in Roxbury.   

I thought I was being bold and brave and doing something meaningful when I decided to run.  Instead, I now know that I put my career on the line for, well, nothing.  I lost friends and former colleagues, who still treat me like I am a fool for running against an incumbent like Michael Capuano.  In short, I made the biggest mistake of my life, and I would never ever do it again.  

And yet, despite this reality, here is the Boston Globe blithely proclaiming that people should run for office here, as though they will be received with open arms and face no payback from the establishment.

Well, having dealt with the fallout from this decision for the last three years, and having slowly rebuilt friendships and relationships with great effort, I come across a piece like this and I can only shake my head.  After what I went through, why would anyone in their right mind want to run for office here?  Why would anyone take a huge, potentially career-ending leap to try and change things if no one will take them seriously or give them a few drops of ink to get them going?     

Looking back, the saddest part for me is that on the merits my campaign was pretty cool.  We did service projects in Roxbury and Dorchester, cleaning up streets and sidewalks that have all but been left behind by the city.  We supported intensive prevention programs that would target young people long before they were at risk of entering the criminal justice system.  We raised around $20,000 in less than two months.  We did a fundraiser at the Good Life. In sum, we saw a broken system as an opportunity for change, and we wanted to bring new ideas and a fresh perspective to a stale process. But in the end, we -- or I should say, I -- failed.  

After all, this is Massachusetts.  And we are a long way from Minnesota. 

WAITING IN VAN

At 645am this morning, I got a frantic message from a young man from Roxbury.  "Yo B, the police just went to my sister's house at 5am looking for me on a warrant.  I don't know if my sister is messing with me for April Fools but I don't have anything they could be trying to arrest me on.  I have been doing nothing but good for months. I'm sorry it's so early but please please please call me back."  

I called him back.  "You sure there is nothing they could get you on?"  "Positive."  "Do you think someone used your name?  Or that they thought you were present when something happened?"  "No way.  I have been in the house every day.  I haven't been doing nothing but tryin' to get a job.  I went to headquarters at 7am and they told me I had to go to D4 to clear it up."

I called D4 and spoke to the Lieutenant, who was very polite and helpful, and he informed me that, yes, there was in fact a warrant in the system and to bring the young man in.  So we did.  They searched him and took him into custody, all very politely and kindly.  I was actually impressed by all of the officers there; they were all very professional and prompt.   

As I waited for the officer to come back and give me the information about the warrant, a middle-aged man came in and spoke to the woman at the desk.  "Hi, my van was just towed from two streets over.  I stepped into Mass at the Cathedral and I came back and my van was gone.  Do you know where they could have taken it?"

I couldn't believe how calm and kind the guy was.  I mean, you step into church to start your day off right and you come out and find that they towed your car an hour across town into Brighton, which might as well be in Worcester if you are trying to get there from the South End at that hour.

"They took it to Western Avenue in Brighton." "Brighton?  How am I supposed to get all the way to Brighton?  Do you know how much it is going to cost?" he asked in agony, yet still remarkably keeping his composure.  "No, I don't, sorry."  

My heart sunk for the guy, who had declared himself a small business owner, knowing that he would probably have to shell out at least a couple of hundred dollars between tickets and towing fees before this cute litte business was over.  He said thank you and politely walked out.  I marveled at how much of a better person he was than I am and continued to wait.  

I looked outside and saw a towtruck preparing another van for the hook across the street. Curious as to how dirty the streets could possibly be so that all of the cars on them had to be towed, I decided to stroll over and have a look for myself.  Two tow trucks and two city vehicles and a number of city workers were a frenetic bustle of activity, ticketing and towing cars with great haste as the street sweeper whirled impatiently.  As I started to take pictures, one of the guys kept saying, "He's taking pictures.  He's taking pictures."  

With the urgency with which they were working, one would have thought the street sweeper was cleaning up a hazmat emergency or a nuclear waste spill.  Alas, no.  The mess underneath the cars that required all of them to be towed so that it could be swept: a few errant cigarette butts, as can be made out in these pictures of Monsignor Reynolds Way where the cars were being towed as the sweeper waited.

 

I began thinking about this waste of resources, and then realized that for the city this little scam is actually making money.  These guys are getting paid to sweep whether the street is dirty or not, so all of the tickets and fees that they write for these cars are pure income.  

It bothered me that they can so effectively pay workers to perform futile and highly offensive tasks such as towing cars to clean already immaculate streets in the South End, when all I have been hearing lately is how education and violence prevention programs are going to be seeing funding cuts.  

If cleaning streets is such a high priority in Boston, why don't we stop sweeping already immaculate streets in the South End and bring these services to Dorchester, Mattapan and Roxbury, where the streets are filthy and littered with trash and debris.  Would it be so hard to say to the work crews in the morning: "Ok guys, it rained yesterday and last night, so a lot of the streets will be clean.  Go and check the streets you are assigned, and if they are not dirty, don't tow the cars of people that are in church to clean three cigaretts butts.  Instead, take your crew over to Columbia Road outbound of Uphams Corner and pick up the trash and debris that is lining the streets and sidewalks there.  And once you are done, head over to Warren Street in Roxbury.  And then maybe Blue Hill Avenue.  And after that Dudley Street from Uphams Corner to Dudley Square.  Actually, especially there, because it is a mess."  

Would that be so hard?  Rather than sending this poor church-going small business owner and many others like him on wild goose chases way across town to pay small fortunes to pick up their cars and utterly ruin their workdays, wouldn't this be a better use of city resources?  Is that too much to ask of city employees being paid by the same taxpayers whose cars are being towed for no reason?  

I went back to the police station and continued waiting.  After a while, we learned that there had been a mistake.  Someone forgot to take an old warrant out of the system.  The young man was released from the cell and given all of his property back.  We left and drove back to Dorchester, shaking our heads at how much time, energy and money had just been wasted.