In 2022 we have a big opportunity to start implementing a comprehensive Green New Deal for DC. In revisiting this exciting prospect, we should take note of efforts elsewhere.
The global vision expressed by C40, an international network of 100 mayors, seeks “to protect our communities and our ecosystems from climate change, secure a just transition away from fossil fuels, and build equitable, sustainable economies.”
The DC Line
By David Schwartzman
January 31, 2022
In the U.S., there is growing support for Green New Deal (GND) programs. Michelle Wu won election as mayor of Boston based at least in part on her invocation of a Green New Deal for her city.
DC is already a recognized leader for climate and clean energy programs such as Solar for All. But big challenges remain in reducing our substantial wealth and income inequality and the associated negative impacts on health, particularly for low-income residents. Trickle-down austerity budgets for the last 20 years have resulted in shockingly high racial and economic disparities, including income and wealth inequality, life expectancy, poverty (especially child poverty), and homelessness.
In 2016 DC had a bigger life expectancy gap between white and Black residents than any state in the nation: Black males in DC had a life expectancy 17 years shorter than white males; for Black females, it was 12 years less than for white females. These are increases from 2000, when the gap was 15 years for men and 10 years for women — a particularly telling change. Given the disproportionate death rate from COVID-19 of Black residents, this racial gap in life expectancy is almost certainly even greater today. This fact alone demonstrates the utter failure of the DC government’s trickle-down economic policies to address persistent racial and economic disparities. Robust evidence demonstrates that income inequality drives bad health.
Thankfully, last summer the DC Council — despite the initial opposition of Mayor Muriel Bowser and Chairman Phil Mendelson — took a historically important step in creating the capacity to address these disparities by hiking DC’s income tax rates for wealthy residents. This was a long-overdue overhaul of our tax structure that moves it toward more progressivity. Owing to broad community support, this legislation was passed unanimously without a mayoral veto. Make no mistake, this tax hike was a clear rejection of the long-standing agenda of the Federal City Council, the powerful lobby of the big corporate, banking and development sector; it may well be the first significant defeat of that agenda in many years, if ever. As such, it opened up a potential path to a just recovery that would make DC into a global leader among cities in environmental, economic and social justice.
While DC statehood remains elusive for now given the current political context, implementing a GND for DC in the meantime would reduce longtime disparities, empower the struggle for statehood, and create a more just foundation for the new state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.
In order to build a stronger and more assertive local movement, we need to center the ongoing struggle for economic, social and environmental human rights in DC. By doing so, we may be able to make the denial of our fundamental political rights even more of an embarrassment nationally and internationally — much as segregation and lynching were during the Cold War, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. We should take note of the truly visionary constitution of 1982, drafted by a convention of elected delegates and approved by DC voters. We must make sure that the same rights are included in any new constitution to be created by elected delegates at a convention no more than two years after achieving statehood (for more on this, see my video “Forward to a Just Recovery and DC Statehood!“).
What follows are potential initiatives that could be components of a GND for DC. It is important to recognize the interconnections between these projects and proposals, as well as the imperative of a broad, bottom-up process of review and participation in their implementation.
Political:
- The passage of a rank-the-vote system in our elections would undercut the heavy weight of campaign financing from big-money interests, complementing the present opportunity for public financing of DC’s elections. It would also provide more political diversity in our local elected government. At-large DC Council member Christina Henderson has introduced a bill on the subject.
- DC should finally implement a vote for non-citizens for local elections, starting with those having green cards for permanent residence, following the example of New York City. Last June, Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau introduced a bill to make this possible.
Economic:
- The DC Council’s repeal of voter-approved Initiative 77, which would have raised pay for tipped workers, is now being challenged with the collection of registered voters’ signatures for a new ballot measure — Initiative 82. This initiative seeks to eliminate the sub-minimum tipped wage of $5.05 per hour, and ensure all tipped workers receive DC’s full minimum wage of at least $15.20 plus tips on top.
- Initiatives for public banks have been gaining momentum around the nation, with efforts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New Jersey among the most notable. The DC Public Banking Center succeeded in getting the DC Council to commission a feasibility study. The results were released in May 2020 and, among other findings, indicated potential benefits to using a public bank to leverage DC tax revenue in partnership with local banks and credit unions to promote green affordable housing and jobs. This opportunity should be followed up ASAP. Let’s bank our tax revenue locally instead of keeping it in Wall Street banks with little benefit for our local community.
- Now that DC has launched a pilot project for guaranteed income, boosting the income support for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) would be an important step in achieving a basic income. Inadequate income support for TANF is a policy failure that allows the persistence of child poverty in DC — a serious problem, especially in wards 7 and 8, with a lasting negative impact on children and their families, as well as the whole DC community. Child poverty and homelessness are major factors in undermining school performance. The 2021 TANF income benefit in DC was 36.0% of the federal poverty level. Corrected for inflation, the DC TANF income benefit has declined 6% since 1996. Coupled with the already scheduled increase in the DC Earned Income Tax Credit, a long-overdue boost in TANF income support would be an important step toward an unconditional guaranteed basic income, funded by both local and federal sources.
Affordable housing and homelessness:
- Social housing offers a great opportunity to provide desperately needed affordable housing to all income groups, particularly those in the low- to middle-income bracket. The concept combines government financing with affordable rents going to maintenance rather than developer profits. Attorney Will Merrifield, an independent at-large DC Council candidate in 2020, provided a valuable introduction to this critical initiative. If combined with community land trusts such as the one already at work in Ward 8 and elsewhere in the city, social housing could provide a way to break with the failure of trickle-down solutions to solve the affordable housing crisis in DC.
- Merrifield’s campaign also proposed solutions to the crisis of homelessness in DC. Key among them are ending developer giveaways, clawing back their subsidies, and repairing public housing to green standards with local dollars supplemented by federal funding — a proposal inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a “Green New Deal for Public Housing.”
- Implementing the District Opportunity to Purchase (DOPA) program focusing on the 3,000 vacant or blighted properties in DC could provide a sizable amount of affordable housing for the homeless. The District already has the tax base to end chronic homelessness, as emphasized by Christy Respress, executive director of Pathways to Housing DC.
- The type of luxury development favored by the new DC Comprehensive Plan only perpetuates the process of gentrification and displacement, harming longtime District residents while benefiting out-of-town developers, politically connected insiders and a fortunate few. To move toward truly equitable and green development, we should take some lessons from the failures that led to the current McMillan redevelopment project. In doing so, we should revisit the flawed development approval process; require competitive bidding that emphasizes acknowledgment of and respect for the history and culture of the site and surrounding area; mandate that development plans at McMillan (and elsewhere) consider environmental impact; and include low-income housing and community-focused features like libraries and recreational spaces.
Environmental:
- After an unsuccessful attempt to block Exelon’s takeover of Pepco in 2016, activists have shown growing interest in municipalizing DC’s utilities to serve the public’s interest rather than shareholders’ profits. We Power DC — “a coalition of community members and organizations fighting for public power in the District” — seeks to provide public power to ensure that a clean, affordable and equitable energy system is available for every DC resident.
- Beyond Gas, another ongoing effort, seeks to replace DC’s dependence on natural gas — the fossil fuel with the highest greenhouse gas footprint — by shifting to electric heating and cooking systems. A recent study shows that DC’s gas leaks to the atmosphere are worsening compared to seven years ago.
- Recent research documented that residents in DC’s predominantly Black wards — the site of commuter routes such as New York Avenue NE and DC 295 — bear the heaviest burden from air pollution, most of which is generated from driving. The transportation sector’s air pollution and carbon emissions could be sharply reduced by shifting ridership from cars to public transit, especially if service is powered by electricity derived from wind or solar sources. Providing free and accessible public transit would be a strong incentive for this shift in ridership. Ward 6 DC Council member Charles Allen proposed legislation in 2020 to give DC residents $100 monthly to use for public transportation. Though the pandemic intervened, he reintroduced the bill this past fall with broad support from his colleagues, as shown by co-sponsorship by 10 of the council’s 13 members.
- While federal funding is now available to speed up the removal of lead-based paint as well as lead pipes in DC’s water supply, the DC government has lagged woefully behind in addressing this challenge. The city must speed up its implementation of lead removal efforts, at the very least supplying public housing residents with lead-free bottled water while mitigation is ongoing.
- Evidence has emerged that fish and shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River contain high levels of PFAS — widely used perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoralkyl “forever” chemicals, which don’t break down in the environment and are linked to cancer. Unlike most states, the DC government has not established regulations for PFAS in food, water and household products. It should do so.
Cultural:
- The New Deal of the 1930s brought any number of cultural innovations. Drawing inspiration from this history, the DC Statehood Green Party’s perennial candidate for mayor — the late Faith — promoted a New Deal concept for arts and culture in DC, focusing on programs in DC’s public schools. Strengthening the existing programs in DCPS, in partnership with the Kennedy Center and the DC Collaborative, would be a strong step to realizing this vision.
This is an ambitious array of proposals for a Green New Deal for DC, requiring considerable discussion and fine-tuning for implementation. However, initiatives addressing the health of DC residents — particularly children — and those already with pending legislation and existing support both deserve and need priority attention. There is a tremendous amount of untapped energy within our population that could be channeled toward creating a more just DC. I look forward to an ongoing dialogue that moves us toward that goal.
David Schwartzman chairs the DC Statehood Green Party’s Political Policy & Action Committee.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Mike Papantonio: Julian Assange has been granted the opportunity to appeal his extradition to the US, to the UK’s highest court. Thank goodness. Here’s what this, this story. I, every, you know my, you know my angle on this story is here we have these liberal snowflake types that used to love Assange when he was disclosing that the CIA was, was, was spying on us, or when he talked about mass surveillance, or when he talked about disclosing drone killings where we were using drones to kill people, or when he disclosed financials, where people are keeping money offshore. He was their hero. He was the snow, he was the snowflake liberal hero. Then what happens? They blame him for the Hillary loss, Hillary lost because she’s just incompetent. But they blame him and now all of a sudden he’s a villain. What’s your take on it?
Farron Cousins: I, I, I mean, the man has already spent essentially nine years locked up, right. You know, through his time in the Ecuadorian embassy, he has now been in prison for going on three years in conditions that even, you know, international human rights groups have said, what’s happening to him over in the UK right now is torture. There is no question, this is torture, what’s happening to this man. And they’re trying to lock him up because all he did was publish the documents from other individuals as an outlet. You know, outlets have all kinds of privileges here in the United States, but we don’t want to give it to him because he exposed the secrets about how horrible the government really can be across, you know, Democrat and Republican administrations.
Mike Papantonio: But Hillary takes him and he, Hillary wraps him around Russia, wraps him around this is the only reason I lost the election because of Assange.
Farron Cousins: The Podesta emails.
Mike Papantonio: And all the liberal snowflakes buy into it. Never ask the question, what did he do to disclose what was going on in this country? That never would’ve, it’s just like, it’s just like, it’s just like Snowden. It, it’s, it’s just like Manning. These people, or Dan, Daniel Ellsberg. So they’re villains? They’re villains because he takes, he didn’t intend to destroy Hillary’s election. She destroyed herself. I think she’s gonna do it again, right?
Farron Cousins: Yeah. It’s actually looking like that. And an important thing to remember is that after WikiLeaks published those Podesta emails that made him, you know, hated with the Democrats, her poll numbers didn’t move. Her poll numbers did not move downward in a real negative way till late October, when Comey came out and did his press conference. You can see it correct, you know, absolute clear as day correlation. It wasn’t because of him.
Mike Papantonio: Yeah.
Farron Cousins: And we all need to understand that these attacks on him, if they are successful and unfortunately they, they probably will be, it’s not gonna end with him. They’re not gonna say good. We got him. This is all of journalism that is at risk right now.
Mike Papantonio: Totally.
As the lead attorney for the New York Times in the “Pentagon Papers” case in 1971, I’ve been doing a slow burn ever since over the government’s behavior in that instance: lies, disregard of court rules, arrogance, destruction of documents. All of this was brought to mind earlier this week when a British court hinted in the Julian Assange case that the U.S. government has acted in the same way once again.
It asked Britain’s supreme court to determine the appropriateness of a late filing by the government that completely undercut a ruling that Assange could NOT be extradited to the U.S. This followed British trial court Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who was hearing Assange’s extradition case, ruling that Assange might commit suicide if held in a U.S. prison in solitary confinement under what is called Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) and, so, he could not be extradited.
As soon as she announced her decision, the U.S. government filed assurances that Assange would not be held in that kind of detention, although it reserved the right to revoke the assurance if circumstances changed.
The judge was unmoved by this assurance, but she was reversed on appeal. The U.K.’s supreme court has now asked to consider the timeliness of this filing.
I do not believe the U.S. government’s assurances are worth the paper on which they have been written. Its behavior in this case has been rampant. Most outrageously, the CIA discussed a plot to kidnap Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was holed up, and to kill him. The CIA also tapped into conversations in the Ecuadorian Embassy, including those with Assange’s lawyers.
There is not much question whether all of this is true. There was testimony about it in open court, and Mike Pompeo, the CIA director at the time and later secretary of State during the Trump administration, has conceded that there is “some truth” in the foregoing.
I do not pretend to be particularly familiar with the extradition laws of the U.K. But common sense tells me that you deliver highly important documents about a case — such as government assurances — before the case begins, not after it has been decided. U.K. counsel representing the U.S. disagrees, saying he can deliver documents when he wants and if he loses the appeal, he will start the extradition proceedings all over again.
This is the very same arrogance that was on display in the Pentagon Papers case, in which then-U.S. Solicitor General Erwin Griswold said the usual rules of evidence did not apply. His view of the law manifested itself in his introduction of new evidence in the case anytime the government was so moved. The claims were always extravagant: Publication of the new evidence would be a disaster for the country’s national security, etc., etc. They never were. Indeed, most of them turned out to be previously published.
Four French MPs are pushing for Julian Assange to be offered asylum in France amid the WikiLeaks founder’s ongoing fight against extradition from the UK to the US.
Jennifer De Temmerman, Jean Lassalle, Cedric Villani and Francois Ruffin are due to speak at a press conference in Paris on 1 February where they will explain why Assange -- currently in prison in the UK -- should be given sanctuary in France.
Pak is famous for his NFT sale of the artwork Mass hosted by Nifty Gateway which in theory made him the most expensive living artist, knocking Jeff Koons off the top spot.
In the curiously designed sale, which brought in $91.8 million, 28,000 buyers bought 266,445 units of a Pak artwork that could, in theory, be combined into a single NFT owned by a single buyer worth the eye-popping, multimillion-dollar total.
Julian Assange is an Australian editor, publisher and founder of WikiLeaks. Earlier, the US charged him with hacking government computers and espionage after he obtained and published hundreds of thousands of classified documents between 2010 and 2011. However, Assange won the right to ask the Supreme Court to block his extradition to the US, allowing his lawyers 14 days to make their case.
In the latest comments, al-Sadr, who leads Sadrist Movement, reiterated his previous stances on the cabinet formation. In a televised speech, he openly opposed ex-PM Nour al-Maliki's participation in the new "national majority government." He held that he asked Hadi al-Amiri and Qais al-Khazali, leaders of two large blocs, to join the government but not al-Maliki, a proposal they turned down. The powerful cleric now seems more self-confident in confrontation of his rivals after federal court last week ruled the outcomes of the first session of the parliament were legal and thus not annullable.
To al-Sadr's frustration, however, the Shiite Coordination Framework (SCF), a bloc of Shiite parties excluding Sadrist Movement, insists on al-Maliki's role in forming the next government, and its leading political figures have stated that either al-Maliki will be part of the majority coalition or they will not join the government.
Ali al-Fatlawi, one of the leaders of the Fatah coalition, announced on Friday that the SCF has refused fo join a coalition government with al-Sadr and Sunnis without al-Maliki and informed al-Sadr of the decision. Now more than any other time in the past, Sadr-Maliki differences are on the Iraqi politics surface and this raises questions about the future possibilities and the reason behind al-Sadr's opposition to al-Maliki.
Continuation of differences or unwanted ceasefire
The tension between two leaders in the current situation makes unlikely any agreement and reconciliation between them, and the Sadrists, along with their Sunni and Kurdish allies, intend to form a national majority government, excluding the SCF. But looking at the history of politics and governance in different countries, there is a golden rule that suggests there is no permanent friendship and enmity in politics. Therefore, despite the current differences, it is also possible that a ceasefire takes place between al-Maliki and al-Sadr. A clear example of this is the alliance of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) with the National Freedom Party in Turkey, once political enemies, in 2018. Despite their conflict of views, the two Iraqi political leaders are not unlikely to reconcile.
-
-
-
Science8 hours ago
-
Sad times9 hours ago
-
So grossly disappointed in the ACLU9 hours ago
-
-
Howard Hessman9 hours ago
-
-
What will Joe do now?10 hours ago
-
-
TV: Choices and realities10 hours ago
-
Weekend box office10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment