Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
United Workers Stand Up for Transparency
Baltimore, July 27, 2011
Many Baltimoreans were stunned by the recent revelation that the metro area is one of the most expensive places to live in the nation. Low-wage workers serving Harbor Place and other tourist venue employers have known and dealt with this fact for years. They organized to address their plight collectively. The result of this organizing is United Workers, a collective of “low-wage workers leading the way to poverty’s end.”
United Workers and allies protested at the headquarters of Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC) over the lack of transparency in dealings between the Corporation and real estate developers. The Cordish Company, “one of the largest and most respected developers in the world” has sought from the BDC rent concessions on other property it leases from Baltimore City totaling $3 million in exchange for improvements it intends to make at Power Plant Live which it leases from the city for $1,000.00 per year plus 22% of net profits. United Workers has a problem with this because there has been no public notification or input concerning the negotiations on the proposal.
Wages and Benefits from Greg Cundiff on YouTube.
The workers call for implementation of what they call “fair development” when developers utilize public funds or resources in their planning process. Unfortunately when development plans are goals are held secret there is no medium for public input. United Workers released a paper called, “Hidden in Plain Sight” which documents the need for fair development and the barriers to its implementation.
The Baltimore Development Corporation, created under former mayor William Donald Schaeffer, is a so-called quasi-public organization. It seeks funding from city government as any other public agency while maintaining the secrecy of a private company. The theory proposed by quasi-public development organizations is the secrecy is needed to conduct sensitive business negotiations. Community organizers counter that this secrecy keeps the public from knowing how public funds are used.
For background on how the development process works in Baltimore, please see Betty G. Robinson’s article, The Walmart Struggle in Baltimore – An Organizer Reflects on Addressing Public Money Giveaways to Corporate Power.
Many Baltimoreans were stunned by the recent revelation that the metro area is one of the most expensive places to live in the nation. Low-wage workers serving Harbor Place and other tourist venue employers have known and dealt with this fact for years. They organized to address their plight collectively. The result of this organizing is United Workers, a collective of “low-wage workers leading the way to poverty’s end.”
United Workers and allies protested at the headquarters of Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC) over the lack of transparency in dealings between the Corporation and real estate developers. The Cordish Company, “one of the largest and most respected developers in the world” has sought from the BDC rent concessions on other property it leases from Baltimore City totaling $3 million in exchange for improvements it intends to make at Power Plant Live which it leases from the city for $1,000.00 per year plus 22% of net profits. United Workers has a problem with this because there has been no public notification or input concerning the negotiations on the proposal.
Wages and Benefits from Greg Cundiff on YouTube.
The workers call for implementation of what they call “fair development” when developers utilize public funds or resources in their planning process. Unfortunately when development plans are goals are held secret there is no medium for public input. United Workers released a paper called, “Hidden in Plain Sight” which documents the need for fair development and the barriers to its implementation.
The Baltimore Development Corporation, created under former mayor William Donald Schaeffer, is a so-called quasi-public organization. It seeks funding from city government as any other public agency while maintaining the secrecy of a private company. The theory proposed by quasi-public development organizations is the secrecy is needed to conduct sensitive business negotiations. Community organizers counter that this secrecy keeps the public from knowing how public funds are used.
For background on how the development process works in Baltimore, please see Betty G. Robinson’s article, The Walmart Struggle in Baltimore – An Organizer Reflects on Addressing Public Money Giveaways to Corporate Power.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Everyman Theater
It seems like forever ago that I stumbled upon the new location for Everyman Theater. Then it was just a sign on the wall. Things are now starting to take shape. Construction fences and workers scrambling around signal new life in the neighborhood. I am so looking forward to the curtain opening on the first production in the new venue.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
AARP & Gutting Social Security
This info is courtesy of Firedog Lake:
AARP’s Long History of Supporting Social Security Cuts
The Wall Street Journal recently reported the AARP will support benefit cuts to Social Security. The AARP responded by saying that “our position has not changed on Social Security.”
That’s actually true. For years, the AARP has been open to cutting Social Security benefits. Below is the proof of AARP’s clear willingness to cut Social Security.
Read the facts, and forward this email to your friends and family. Don’t forget to sign our petition to protect Social Security from AARP:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
----
1. AARP did not deny the Wall Street Journal’s report; its response even showed the AARP is open to “changes in benefits.”
In the Wall Street Journal article, AARP policy director John Rother was clear that he’s willing to support Social Security benefit cuts, saying, “The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens.” Current AARP CEO A. Barry Rand called the WSJ piece inaccurate and misleading, but didn’t clarify what he thought was inaccurate. Rand’s statement even reiterated AARP’s belief that “changes” need to be made to Social Security benefits.
Sources: Wall Street Journal, 6/17/11; Huffington Post, 6/17/11
2. AARP officials admitted the organization was discussing benefit cuts for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
While trying to spin the AARP’s exposed to scheme to support Social Security cuts, AARP legislative director David Certner said the AARP was “never seeking this kind of publicity” for its position. Certner said AARP officials had discussed benefit changes for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
Source: Politico, 6/21/11
*****
Protect Social Security - click here to add your name to a petition to AARP now.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
*****
3. AARP was willing to raise the retirement age during George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security in 2005.
Then-AARP CEO William Novellli put raising the retirement age “on the table” in 2005.
“‘There’s a lot of opportunity for common ground. If we could get the private accounts, the carve-outs, out of the way I think we could get to solvency fairly quickly.’ That includes discussion over an increase in the retirement age, said Novelli. ‘We are willing to consider it,’ he said. ‘It ought to be on the table.’”
Source: Bloomberg News, 4/11/05
4. In 2005, AARP CEO William Novelli called adjusting benefits a “reasonable step.”
“’Social Security does not need a radical overhaul,’ AARP Chief Executive Officer William Novelli said in speech at the National Press Club. ‘Reasonable steps such as these, including possibly adjusting benefits, are enough to strengthen Social Security for the long term.’”
Source: Reuters, 2/9/05
*****
Protect Social Security - click here to add your name to a petition to AARP now.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
*****
5. An AARP memo suggested “changes in benefits” as a solution for “Social Security solvency.”
An AARP official provided the Huffington Post a 2005 memo that outlined the organization’s position on Social Security. The document shows the AARP offered “changes in benefits” as a positive position for the organization to take in the Social Security fight at the time.
Source: Huffington Post, 6/21/11
6. An AARP official flippantly dismissed those who opposed Social Security cuts.
AARP policy director John Rother dismissed people who said they wouldn’t support Social Security cuts. “I know all these people personally and they’ll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate...I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements,” Rother said.
Source: Wall Street Journal, 8/20/10
Now that you know the facts, please forward this email to your friends and family.
Join our campaign to protect Social Security from AARP.
AARP’s Long History of Supporting Social Security Cuts
The Wall Street Journal recently reported the AARP will support benefit cuts to Social Security. The AARP responded by saying that “our position has not changed on Social Security.”
That’s actually true. For years, the AARP has been open to cutting Social Security benefits. Below is the proof of AARP’s clear willingness to cut Social Security.
Read the facts, and forward this email to your friends and family. Don’t forget to sign our petition to protect Social Security from AARP:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
----
1. AARP did not deny the Wall Street Journal’s report; its response even showed the AARP is open to “changes in benefits.”
In the Wall Street Journal article, AARP policy director John Rother was clear that he’s willing to support Social Security benefit cuts, saying, “The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens.” Current AARP CEO A. Barry Rand called the WSJ piece inaccurate and misleading, but didn’t clarify what he thought was inaccurate. Rand’s statement even reiterated AARP’s belief that “changes” need to be made to Social Security benefits.
Sources: Wall Street Journal, 6/17/11; Huffington Post, 6/17/11
2. AARP officials admitted the organization was discussing benefit cuts for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
While trying to spin the AARP’s exposed to scheme to support Social Security cuts, AARP legislative director David Certner said the AARP was “never seeking this kind of publicity” for its position. Certner said AARP officials had discussed benefit changes for “months” with the Wall Street Journal.
Source: Politico, 6/21/11
*****
Protect Social Security - click here to add your name to a petition to AARP now.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
*****
3. AARP was willing to raise the retirement age during George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security in 2005.
Then-AARP CEO William Novellli put raising the retirement age “on the table” in 2005.
“‘There’s a lot of opportunity for common ground. If we could get the private accounts, the carve-outs, out of the way I think we could get to solvency fairly quickly.’ That includes discussion over an increase in the retirement age, said Novelli. ‘We are willing to consider it,’ he said. ‘It ought to be on the table.’”
Source: Bloomberg News, 4/11/05
4. In 2005, AARP CEO William Novelli called adjusting benefits a “reasonable step.”
“’Social Security does not need a radical overhaul,’ AARP Chief Executive Officer William Novelli said in speech at the National Press Club. ‘Reasonable steps such as these, including possibly adjusting benefits, are enough to strengthen Social Security for the long term.’”
Source: Reuters, 2/9/05
*****
Protect Social Security - click here to add your name to a petition to AARP now.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/aarp-facts?source=fwd&subsource=autoreply
*****
5. An AARP memo suggested “changes in benefits” as a solution for “Social Security solvency.”
An AARP official provided the Huffington Post a 2005 memo that outlined the organization’s position on Social Security. The document shows the AARP offered “changes in benefits” as a positive position for the organization to take in the Social Security fight at the time.
Source: Huffington Post, 6/21/11
6. An AARP official flippantly dismissed those who opposed Social Security cuts.
AARP policy director John Rother dismissed people who said they wouldn’t support Social Security cuts. “I know all these people personally and they’ll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate...I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements,” Rother said.
Source: Wall Street Journal, 8/20/10
Now that you know the facts, please forward this email to your friends and family.
Join our campaign to protect Social Security from AARP.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Saturday, October 16, 2010
President Obama to Sign $600 Billion Border Protection Bill
I ran across this piece on UrbanTwist.com this morning:
President Obama Will Sign $600 Billion Border Protection Bill | TheUrbanTwist.com
http://bit.ly/cNwE66
Of course it is political. Everything is political these days. You can just bet that none of those billions will provide care and services to people lured by the prospects of employment.
It matters little how much money we spend on boots on the ground if we do nothing to address why people are coming in the first place. Jobs. It is cheaper and more profitable to hire undocumented immigrants to toil in western meat factories. The hours are long, the work is dangerous, the conditions are largely unhealthy. The workers don’t complain. They don’t feel they can complain - complaints bring retaliation, jail, and deportation. This goes on because Americans demand $1.00 burgers and other cheap meat products.
If Americans want to stem the tide of immigration - end corn subsidies and the factory farming they support.
President Obama Will Sign $600 Billion Border Protection Bill | TheUrbanTwist.com
http://bit.ly/cNwE66
Of course it is political. Everything is political these days. You can just bet that none of those billions will provide care and services to people lured by the prospects of employment.
It matters little how much money we spend on boots on the ground if we do nothing to address why people are coming in the first place. Jobs. It is cheaper and more profitable to hire undocumented immigrants to toil in western meat factories. The hours are long, the work is dangerous, the conditions are largely unhealthy. The workers don’t complain. They don’t feel they can complain - complaints bring retaliation, jail, and deportation. This goes on because Americans demand $1.00 burgers and other cheap meat products.
If Americans want to stem the tide of immigration - end corn subsidies and the factory farming they support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)