Posts
The City Limits September 2010 issue focuses on New York City's shift away from grass athletic fields in its parks to artificial turf. NYC spent $300 million over 12 years building artificial turf fields in its parks, and that investment may have been a mistake. We encourage you to purchase the September issue of City Limits and absorb the detailed investigation and analysis it contains.
Dangerous Conditions
City Limits begins with a look at the decaying conditions of the turf fields that NYC has installed in recent years. The $300 million was invested in approximately 200 fields, and approximately half of the fields analyzed by City Limits were found to be unacceptably dangerous because of a lack of maintenance. City Limits found "gaps, tears, and holes forming obvious trip hazards."
In Upper Manhattan, City Limits discovered that the artificial turf fields within Riverside Park were in good condition but that Eugene McCabe Field on the east side had a large sinkhole. On the Lower East Side of Manhattan, City Limits determined that Baruch Playground was in poor condition and was dangerous for those making use of it.
Purchaser of City Limits will benefit from an in-depth look at the impact of the lack of maintenance of NYC's artificial turf fields.
Lack of Resources
After reaching a high of nearly eight-tenths of one percent of the New York City budget in 1988, the spending on our parks has fallen now to its lowest point at approximately four-tenths of one percent. Our city spends less per capita on its parks than nearly all of the other largest cities in the United States, but our city actually has a larger percentage of its land devoted to parks than nearly all of those cities.
Also, while the headcount of the Parks Department is growing, it is still far below the levels it achieved in the 1980's, when the overall New York City budget was far smaller.
For our fields, both artificial and natural grass, we need a strong Parks Department with adequate resources and personnel. To the extent that the massive investment in artificial fields was driven by a desire to reduce annual maintenance costs, the calculations have proven to be flawed. Artificial fields needs greater maintenance and attention than natural grass, and we need to support an increase in the resources of the Parks Department in order to create safe and enjoyable public spaces for athletic activities, irrespective of whether the fields are made of grass or synthetic materials.
Artificial Turf's Health Risks
Even when an artificial field is properly maintained, it brings dangers that natural grass fields do not.
New York City uses a type of artificial turf that utilizes ground tires to simulate dirt and create a softer cushion in and around the artificial grass. But, those tires can contain dangerous chemicals and high levels of lead. Tires are not designed for children to lie on them or play with them for hours each week.
The artificial field in Upper Manhattan at Thomas Jefferson Park had to be removed because it had lead levels that exceeded the acceptable limits set by the EPA. In some parts of the field, the lead levels were four times higher than the EPA limit.
While New York City has declared that all of its artificial fields are safe (now that the Thomas Jefferson Park Field has been replaced), City Limits found that 23 fields had levels that exceed the limits set by California for its fields. There are also critics who claim that New York City's testing approach is flawed in that it averages the results of multiple samples from a given artificial field instead of accepting that "hot spots" of lead contamination that exceed the EPA limit need to be addressed even if the average lead level from multiple samples is within EPA guidelines.
Buy City Limits and Advocate for More Resources for the NYC Parks Department
We encourage you to purchase the September issue of City Limits and use the information to advocate for greater investment in our city's parks as well as a renewed appreciation for the superiority of natural green grass over synthetic field surfaces.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
New York's Massive Sexual Abuse in Prisons and Low Graduation Rates in High Schools
Last week, the Justice Department released its report on sexual in our nation's prisons and jails. New York State emerged as the state with the most sexual abuse in its prisons and jails. Also, we learned this week that New York is the worst state in graduating its Black males from high school. Shockingly, in NYC, only 28% of Black males graduate from high school. NYC is amongst the worst performing major cities in terms of graduating Black males from high school.
New York State Fails High School
A new report by the Schott Foundation teaches us that less than half of all Black males in the US graduate from high school and that New York State and New York City are amongst the worst performers in the country in terms of Black male graduation rates. In New York State, only 25% of Black males graduate, and New York City is only slightly better than the state-wide average with 28%. Our state's 25% graduation rate for black males is the worst of all of the 50 states.
We can predict a lack of success for the Black community in New York State when we see that New York State's Black males are entering adulthood without a high school diploma.
Our failure to graduate Black males from high school in New York State should make us think very seriously about our prisons. A lack of education often leads to criminal behavior, and those without formal educations are most easily incarcerated when they've committed no crime at all.
Unfortunately, our state's poor performance in high school graduation rates is matched by poor quality prisons.
Justice Department Report
The US Department of Justice released a report by its Bureau of Justice Statistics with extensive analysis of sexual abuse in prisons and jails in our country.
The study is based on an anonymous survey of those incarcerated in our country. The findings leave us disappointed and concerned.
More than four percent of those in prison and more than three percent of those in jail have suffered sexual abuse. The rate on inmate-on-inmate abuse was more than twice as high amongst women inmates than amongst men in prisons and jails. Guard-on-inmate sexual abuse is far more common than inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse, and female guards abusing male prisoners is the most common type of sexual abuse in our prisons and jails.
The study suggests that sexual abuse of prisoners tends to begin very early in an inmate's time in prison or in jail and that individuals who have been sexually abused before their incarceration are more likely to abused during the incarceration.
Unfortunately, New York State's prisoners are abused more than any other state's prisoners.
New York Prisons and Sexual Abuse
Unfortunately, the sexual abuse problems we see across the country are at their worst in New York State's prisons. The Justice Department report found that three of New York State's prisons and one county jail have high rates of guard-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Having four of the worst facilities in New York State makes New York State the worst in the country for sexual abuse of its incarcerated population.
New York State Fails High School
A new report by the Schott Foundation teaches us that less than half of all Black males in the US graduate from high school and that New York State and New York City are amongst the worst performers in the country in terms of Black male graduation rates. In New York State, only 25% of Black males graduate, and New York City is only slightly better than the state-wide average with 28%. Our state's 25% graduation rate for black males is the worst of all of the 50 states.
We can predict a lack of success for the Black community in New York State when we see that New York State's Black males are entering adulthood without a high school diploma.
Our failure to graduate Black males from high school in New York State should make us think very seriously about our prisons. A lack of education often leads to criminal behavior, and those without formal educations are most easily incarcerated when they've committed no crime at all.
Unfortunately, our state's poor performance in high school graduation rates is matched by poor quality prisons.
Justice Department Report
The US Department of Justice released a report by its Bureau of Justice Statistics with extensive analysis of sexual abuse in prisons and jails in our country.
The study is based on an anonymous survey of those incarcerated in our country. The findings leave us disappointed and concerned.
More than four percent of those in prison and more than three percent of those in jail have suffered sexual abuse. The rate on inmate-on-inmate abuse was more than twice as high amongst women inmates than amongst men in prisons and jails. Guard-on-inmate sexual abuse is far more common than inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse, and female guards abusing male prisoners is the most common type of sexual abuse in our prisons and jails.
The study suggests that sexual abuse of prisoners tends to begin very early in an inmate's time in prison or in jail and that individuals who have been sexually abused before their incarceration are more likely to abused during the incarceration.
Unfortunately, New York State's prisoners are abused more than any other state's prisoners.
New York Prisons and Sexual Abuse
Unfortunately, the sexual abuse problems we see across the country are at their worst in New York State's prisons. The Justice Department report found that three of New York State's prisons and one county jail have high rates of guard-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Having four of the worst facilities in New York State makes New York State the worst in the country for sexual abuse of its incarcerated population.
Nearly seven percent of those incarcerated at Bayview Correctional Facility and Attica Correctional Facility reported being physically forced or threatened into engaging in sexual activity by prison guards. Ten percent of female inmates at Bayview and seven percent of male inmates at the Elmira Correctional facility were forced into performing sex acts by those running the facilities.
New York State's Black Males
This week presented an unflattering snapshot of the state of our state. We live in the worst state in the country for graduating Black males from high school, and we also live in the state that permits the largest amount of widespread abuse of its incarcerated population by those empowered to control our prisons. Both results are unacceptable, and both results show how our public policy approach in New York State leaves Black males at a disadvantage.
We will not be able to be reach our potential as a state until we cease to treat Black males as a disease to be eradicated. Right now, we refuse to offer educational opportunities to Black males in New York State, but we are very effective at sending Black males to prison to be sexual abused by employees of New York State.
Our next Governor must make improving the prospects for our state's Black males our state's top priority.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Schneiderman for Attorney General
With the Democratic Primary three weeks away, we endorse State Senator Eric Schneiderman for New York State Attorney General.
New York Times Concurs
Senator Schneiderman is the only Manhattan candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, and he is also the candidate with the best record of taking courageous and correct positions on the key issues facing our state. Not only has he taken the correct positions, he's been a leading advocate for the biggest achievements of the State Legislature, including the historic repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The New York Times endorsed Senator Schneiderman for Attorney General late last week, and they did so for the right reasons.
"We endorse Senator Schneiderman in the Democratic primary because of his sound judgment, legal expertise, political independence, and long history of fighting for government reform."
Amsterdam News Adds Its Support
In a lengthy and detailed endorsement of Senator Schniederman, the Amsterdam News focused directly on how Schneiderman has consistently proven his ability to lead on the criminal justice issues that have been the focus of those of us who live in Upper Manhattan.
"While in the State Senate, Schneiderman has been instrumental in passing legislation that directly affects the lives of our community. From a Clinic Access Bill to the legislation to increase the minimum wage, to his most recent legislation focusing on how inmates in upstate penitentiaries are counted by the United States Census, he has been there fighting for us."
No candidate can claim to have a record of achievement as Attorney General; Schneiderman's competition has no one it who has held statewide office or been Attorney General. But, evidence of the independence, judgment, leadership, and sense of justice needed to become a successful Attorney General is abundant in Senator Schneiderman's record as an elected official. As the Amsterdam News observed, Senator Schneiderman has proven that he has the right skills and the right values to be successful as Attorney General. We look forward to seeing him in that role.
Rice is Wrong
Andrew Cuomo is supporting Kathleen Rice in the Democratic Primary, but she is not an acceptable candidate. She opposed the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws; she refused to register as a Democrat, and she refused to vote in elections until recently. Her lack of leadership, her unwillingness to be a Democrat and her unwillingness to vote in elections demonstrate that she is not the best choice for the Democratic Party in 2010. Senator Eric Schneiderman is the best choice.
New York Times Concurs
Senator Schneiderman is the only Manhattan candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, and he is also the candidate with the best record of taking courageous and correct positions on the key issues facing our state. Not only has he taken the correct positions, he's been a leading advocate for the biggest achievements of the State Legislature, including the historic repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The New York Times endorsed Senator Schneiderman for Attorney General late last week, and they did so for the right reasons.
"We endorse Senator Schneiderman in the Democratic primary because of his sound judgment, legal expertise, political independence, and long history of fighting for government reform."
Amsterdam News Adds Its Support
In a lengthy and detailed endorsement of Senator Schniederman, the Amsterdam News focused directly on how Schneiderman has consistently proven his ability to lead on the criminal justice issues that have been the focus of those of us who live in Upper Manhattan.
"While in the State Senate, Schneiderman has been instrumental in passing legislation that directly affects the lives of our community. From a Clinic Access Bill to the legislation to increase the minimum wage, to his most recent legislation focusing on how inmates in upstate penitentiaries are counted by the United States Census, he has been there fighting for us."
No candidate can claim to have a record of achievement as Attorney General; Schneiderman's competition has no one it who has held statewide office or been Attorney General. But, evidence of the independence, judgment, leadership, and sense of justice needed to become a successful Attorney General is abundant in Senator Schneiderman's record as an elected official. As the Amsterdam News observed, Senator Schneiderman has proven that he has the right skills and the right values to be successful as Attorney General. We look forward to seeing him in that role.
Rice is Wrong
Andrew Cuomo is supporting Kathleen Rice in the Democratic Primary, but she is not an acceptable candidate. She opposed the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws; she refused to register as a Democrat, and she refused to vote in elections until recently. Her lack of leadership, her unwillingness to be a Democrat and her unwillingness to vote in elections demonstrate that she is not the best choice for the Democratic Party in 2010. Senator Eric Schneiderman is the best choice.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Islamic Center Remains At Center Stage
We discussed the planned Islamic Center for Lower Manhattan previously, and we return to it as President Obama and the Republican Party have unwittingly collaborated to legitimize the Islamic Center controversy as a national discussion topic. Also, we noticed (but were not surprised) that the New York Post is confused about Black entrepreneurs - perhaps the New York Post would say that all Black entrepreneurs look alike.
Obama Weighs In
President Obama decided to discuss his views with regard to the Islamic Center planned for Lower Manhattan, and his remarks left us more confused than enthused.
On Friday of last week, President Obama said that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. Mayor Bloomberg and other New York leaders cheered the support from the President for religious tolerance and interpreted his remarks as a bold declaration of support for the Islamic Center planned for Lower Manhattan.
However, the President clarified his remarks to indicate that he was not commenting on the wisdom of the project but simply endorsing freedom of religion.
The Republican Party has seized on the President's remarks about the Islamic Center to suggest that he is out-of-touch with America.
Let us hope that the President supports more than simple freedom of religion. He needs to support Manhattan as it leads our country to a better relationship with people of faith and people whose faith is Islam.
Manhattan Welcomes the Islamic Center
As we have stated:
"Manhattan NEEDS a mosque at Ground Zero. Manhattan needs to rededicate itself to embracing all faiths, finding ways to love each other's differences, and building bridges of understanding between different groups of people and among people from different parts of the world.
We need to learn to embrace (rather than simply tolerate) our brothers and sisters whose life experiences, beliefs, and values differ from ours. Anyone who comes to Manhattan to establish a peaceful community center is trying to make Manhattan better."
The New York Post Confuses Its Black Entrepreneurs
Yesterday, the New York Post attacked Desiree Rogers, the former White House social secretary for joining forces with Obama critic and BET founder Bob Johnson. But, Ms. Rogers accepted a position as CEO of Johnson Publishing, which has no connection to Bob Johnson.
Johnson Publishing, the publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines, was founded in 1942 by John H. Johnson and his wife Eunice W. Johnson. Their daughter, Linda Johnson Rice, will move from the CEO role to the Chairman role as Ms. Rogers takes the CEO position.
Bob Johnson is not John H. Johnson (who passed away in 2005). Bob Johnson was born four years after Johnson Publishing was founded. By the time Bob Johnson got to high school, Ebony magazine was a must-read in nearly every Black household in the United States. The New York Post was correct that Bob Johnson is alive and leads several businesses; Ebony and Jet happen not to be within the Bob Johnson empire.
The New York Post should apologize to Ms. Rogers, the family of John H. Johnson, Bob Johnson, and all of the rest of us for its wrong-headed and silly attack on Ms. Rogers and for its disgusting ignorance of the difference between two of the most respected Black entrepreneurs in history.
Obama Weighs In
President Obama decided to discuss his views with regard to the Islamic Center planned for Lower Manhattan, and his remarks left us more confused than enthused.
On Friday of last week, President Obama said that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. Mayor Bloomberg and other New York leaders cheered the support from the President for religious tolerance and interpreted his remarks as a bold declaration of support for the Islamic Center planned for Lower Manhattan.
However, the President clarified his remarks to indicate that he was not commenting on the wisdom of the project but simply endorsing freedom of religion.
The Republican Party has seized on the President's remarks about the Islamic Center to suggest that he is out-of-touch with America.
Let us hope that the President supports more than simple freedom of religion. He needs to support Manhattan as it leads our country to a better relationship with people of faith and people whose faith is Islam.
Manhattan Welcomes the Islamic Center
As we have stated:
"Manhattan NEEDS a mosque at Ground Zero. Manhattan needs to rededicate itself to embracing all faiths, finding ways to love each other's differences, and building bridges of understanding between different groups of people and among people from different parts of the world.
We need to learn to embrace (rather than simply tolerate) our brothers and sisters whose life experiences, beliefs, and values differ from ours. Anyone who comes to Manhattan to establish a peaceful community center is trying to make Manhattan better."
The New York Post Confuses Its Black Entrepreneurs
Yesterday, the New York Post attacked Desiree Rogers, the former White House social secretary for joining forces with Obama critic and BET founder Bob Johnson. But, Ms. Rogers accepted a position as CEO of Johnson Publishing, which has no connection to Bob Johnson.
Johnson Publishing, the publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines, was founded in 1942 by John H. Johnson and his wife Eunice W. Johnson. Their daughter, Linda Johnson Rice, will move from the CEO role to the Chairman role as Ms. Rogers takes the CEO position.
Bob Johnson is not John H. Johnson (who passed away in 2005). Bob Johnson was born four years after Johnson Publishing was founded. By the time Bob Johnson got to high school, Ebony magazine was a must-read in nearly every Black household in the United States. The New York Post was correct that Bob Johnson is alive and leads several businesses; Ebony and Jet happen not to be within the Bob Johnson empire.
The New York Post should apologize to Ms. Rogers, the family of John H. Johnson, Bob Johnson, and all of the rest of us for its wrong-headed and silly attack on Ms. Rogers and for its disgusting ignorance of the difference between two of the most respected Black entrepreneurs in history.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Attacking Prison Gerrymandering in NY State
Prison Gerrymandering, a the process of drawing electoral districts that consider incarcerated people to be residents of the prison towns, has worked against New York City for many years, and the New York State Legislature has finally taken action to reduce its impact in our state.
Prison Gerrymandering
As we have stated in the past, the Census Bureau counts prisoners as residents of the town where the prison is located rather than as residents of the town where they lived prior to becoming incarcerated. That approach causes large numbers of problems, including the predictable shifting of electoral power to prison towns. Prison towns are able to count non-voting incarcerated individuals as part of their voting districts, thereby giving the voters in those districts more electoral power than people living in areas that do not include a prison.
As we stated almost exactly two years ago:
"While, as of 2002, only 24% of those incarcerated in New York State are residents of Upstate New York, 91% of the prisoners are in that part of the state. Manhattan loses the votes of those incarcerated and must subsidize the education and lifestyle of upstate communities. Manhattan subsidizes the parks in upstate communities, and Manhattan's ability to fight back is limited by the increased voting power of upstate communities. In fact, many Federal program dollars are allocated based on the number of low-income residents in a given community, and the Census results in those dollars being provided to upstate communities who don't use the funds to aid those incarcerated individuals whose presence in their communities creates the windfall from the Federal Government.
It is worth noting that 80% of New York State's prisoners are Black or Latino, while the state's prison locations are nearly all in areas with very few Black or Latino residents. Though illegal drug use is equally common outside of communities of color as it is within communities of color, ninety percent of those incarcerated based on drug offenses are Black or Latino. Therefore, this theft from Manhattan is also part of a broader crime against ethnic minorities and people of color who reside in New York State. The impact of the diluted voting power and reduced resources that result from this theft is concentrated in neighborhoods where Black and Latino residents live in the largest numbers."
New York State Legislature Attacks Prison Gerrymandering
Last week, the New York State Legislature sent to Governor Paterson a new law that would count prisoners in their home communities rather than in prison communities for the drawing of local and state legislative districts going forward. All of those local and state legislative districts will be redrawn in 2011.
This new law is a wonderful achievement and a testament to the benefit of having the Democratic Party control the State Legislature and the Governor's Mansion; the commitment to true representative democracy is reflected in legislation.
Broader Problems Persist
The sad reality of this achievement is that it is narrow. Federal dollars will still be distributed based on prison Gerrymandering. Congressional districts will continue to be drawn using prison Gerrymandering. But, New York is improving the situation by correcting the problems it can correct. The full solution must come from Washington, DC.
Prison Gerrymandering
As we have stated in the past, the Census Bureau counts prisoners as residents of the town where the prison is located rather than as residents of the town where they lived prior to becoming incarcerated. That approach causes large numbers of problems, including the predictable shifting of electoral power to prison towns. Prison towns are able to count non-voting incarcerated individuals as part of their voting districts, thereby giving the voters in those districts more electoral power than people living in areas that do not include a prison.
As we stated almost exactly two years ago:
"While, as of 2002, only 24% of those incarcerated in New York State are residents of Upstate New York, 91% of the prisoners are in that part of the state. Manhattan loses the votes of those incarcerated and must subsidize the education and lifestyle of upstate communities. Manhattan subsidizes the parks in upstate communities, and Manhattan's ability to fight back is limited by the increased voting power of upstate communities. In fact, many Federal program dollars are allocated based on the number of low-income residents in a given community, and the Census results in those dollars being provided to upstate communities who don't use the funds to aid those incarcerated individuals whose presence in their communities creates the windfall from the Federal Government.
It is worth noting that 80% of New York State's prisoners are Black or Latino, while the state's prison locations are nearly all in areas with very few Black or Latino residents. Though illegal drug use is equally common outside of communities of color as it is within communities of color, ninety percent of those incarcerated based on drug offenses are Black or Latino. Therefore, this theft from Manhattan is also part of a broader crime against ethnic minorities and people of color who reside in New York State. The impact of the diluted voting power and reduced resources that result from this theft is concentrated in neighborhoods where Black and Latino residents live in the largest numbers."
New York State Legislature Attacks Prison Gerrymandering
Last week, the New York State Legislature sent to Governor Paterson a new law that would count prisoners in their home communities rather than in prison communities for the drawing of local and state legislative districts going forward. All of those local and state legislative districts will be redrawn in 2011.
This new law is a wonderful achievement and a testament to the benefit of having the Democratic Party control the State Legislature and the Governor's Mansion; the commitment to true representative democracy is reflected in legislation.
Broader Problems Persist
The sad reality of this achievement is that it is narrow. Federal dollars will still be distributed based on prison Gerrymandering. Congressional districts will continue to be drawn using prison Gerrymandering. But, New York is improving the situation by correcting the problems it can correct. The full solution must come from Washington, DC.
Monday, August 2, 2010
ADL Attacks Manhattan
Last week, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) broke our hearts. In opposing the planned mosque for lower Manhattan, the ADL likely did more damage to itself than to the effort to bring the mosque to the area near Ground Zero.
Embracing Rather Than Tolerating
In the end, how we treat the mosque proposal will define us. Anyone opposing the mosque project will lose the ability to oppose bigotry in the future. When the mosque is built, it will be a shining symbol of the religious freedom available in the United States as well as a vibrant example for non-Muslims of how valuable the Muslims community is in Manhattan as well as all over the our country.
Manhattan NEEDS a mosque at Ground Zero. Manhattan needs to rededicate itself to embracing all faiths, finding ways to love each other's differences, and building bridges of understanding between different groups of people and among people from different parts of the world.
We need to learn to embrace (rather than simply tolerate) our brothers and sisters whose life experiences, beliefs, and values differ from ours. Anyone who comes to Manhattan to establish a peaceful community center is trying to help make Manhattan better. We should have a strong bias in favor of supporting such efforts.
Disappointing Support For Bigotry
The ADL has stood against bigotry consistently throughout its history. Its stated mission is to fight all forms of bigotry, but, in this instance, admitted that is was supporting a position that it would typically consider bigoted. In opposing the building of a mosque near Ground Zero, the ADL stated that the pain of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks justified the bigotry embedded in the ADL's position. That position is shameful, illogical, and disgusting.
The ADL and many other groups have proclaimed themselves to be defenders of minority groups. There is no more obvious minority group needing support in our country than believers in Islam. Islam remains a beautiful and peaceful religion, and Muslims remain under attack all over our country. The ADL's attack on the mosque project is backwards. The ADL should be leading the non-Muslim support for the mosque as part of their fierce opposition to bigotry. Instead they have sided against Manhattan and with the bigots.
In opposing the mosque project, the ADL has severely damaged its own credibility, but it has likely not harmed the mosque project's chances of success. New York City is better than the ADL. We believe in our own principals, and we truly love our fellow New Yorkers. Our opposition to bigotry is not a slogan. New Yorkers oppose bigotry every day as we offer subway directions, a helping hand crossing the street, aid in getting a stroller up or down subway stairs, and a word of encouragement to people we don't know and whose skin color, attire, and/or language suggest they are different from us in some way. We do not views these daily activities as political statements because we live in New York City. We practice what we preach.
NYC's Leaders Rise to the Occasion
Our Mayor, our Borough President, the local community Board (by a vote of 29 to 1), and all of the key elected officials have all expressed their support for the mosque project. In that regard, our elected officials and community leaders have shown more consistency, better morality, and superior common sense when compared to the ADL. Perhaps New York will lead the way, as it has so often, toward freedom and away from hatred and bigotry, even as it is opposed by the ADL.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Rangel: Proven Effectiveness and Presumed Innocent
With the Ethics Committee in the US House of Representative unable, thus far, to reach a settlement with Representative Charlie Rangel regarding allegations of ethics missteps, we look at Gabe Pressman's view and continue to hope for a settlement.
Settlement Hope
We hope that the US House and Upper Manhattan's Charlie Rangel can settle the Ethics case without a trial. Representative Rangel is accused of missteps that are nearly all self-reported and nearly all paperwork snafu's. The accusations themselves have always suggested sloppiness rather than greed. He is not even accused of any behavior that would have harmed his constituents, and he has not been accused of any sort of cover-up. Both the Rangel camp and the US House should recognize that a trial benefits no one, and the US House should not ask Representative Rangel to suggest that he knowingly committed any ethics violation.
We have highlighted previously that the US House has a record of targeting African American members of Congress for ethics investigations; in November 2009, we learned that 100% of the members of the US House of Representatives under investigation were African American, even though many non-African American lawmakers had been referred to the Ethics Committee for its review.
Presumed Innocent - Proven Effective
Charlie Rangel continues to have a presumption of innocence. He also has a record of achievement that eclipses that of any current member of Congress.
Gabe Pressman assessed the situation well last week. Charlie Rangel has served with dignity and effectiveness for 40 years.
He is a war hero who brought $5 billion of funding specifically to urban areas across our country. He has consistently served as the voice of those whose voices are often ignored. He has made our country stronger, and he has made Upper Manhattan stronger through his decades of service.
Charlie Rangel should not leave Congress this year. He was elected by the people of Upper Manhattan. We Upper Manhattan voters are the only people who should decide whether the member of Congress who represents us should be replaced. We have decided 20 consecutive times that Charlie Rangel is the best person for the job. On September 14, 2010, we will decide again who represents us. No one in Congress should suggest that he or she has better judgment than we do. We've been right 20 times in a row.
Settlement Hope
We hope that the US House and Upper Manhattan's Charlie Rangel can settle the Ethics case without a trial. Representative Rangel is accused of missteps that are nearly all self-reported and nearly all paperwork snafu's. The accusations themselves have always suggested sloppiness rather than greed. He is not even accused of any behavior that would have harmed his constituents, and he has not been accused of any sort of cover-up. Both the Rangel camp and the US House should recognize that a trial benefits no one, and the US House should not ask Representative Rangel to suggest that he knowingly committed any ethics violation.
We have highlighted previously that the US House has a record of targeting African American members of Congress for ethics investigations; in November 2009, we learned that 100% of the members of the US House of Representatives under investigation were African American, even though many non-African American lawmakers had been referred to the Ethics Committee for its review.
Presumed Innocent - Proven Effective
Charlie Rangel continues to have a presumption of innocence. He also has a record of achievement that eclipses that of any current member of Congress.
Gabe Pressman assessed the situation well last week. Charlie Rangel has served with dignity and effectiveness for 40 years.
He is a war hero who brought $5 billion of funding specifically to urban areas across our country. He has consistently served as the voice of those whose voices are often ignored. He has made our country stronger, and he has made Upper Manhattan stronger through his decades of service.
Charlie Rangel should not leave Congress this year. He was elected by the people of Upper Manhattan. We Upper Manhattan voters are the only people who should decide whether the member of Congress who represents us should be replaced. We have decided 20 consecutive times that Charlie Rangel is the best person for the job. On September 14, 2010, we will decide again who represents us. No one in Congress should suggest that he or she has better judgment than we do. We've been right 20 times in a row.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)