Tactical Urbanism

I'm really becoming a fan of Neil Brenner. His book New State Spaces is both enlightening and frightening. But, he also runs the Urban Theory Lab at Harvard where they promote something called Tactical Urbanism, which basically starts with the assumption that global capital is entirely too powerful to challenge on their own turf, an assessment that I agree with. The power of global capital is really unreal. They can, more or less, force governments - from national to local and even sublocal - to create institutional arrangements favorable to the extraction of wealth from local communities. This is what gentrification is all about. The local government and economic development orgs are merely appendages of global capital, which is reshaping Birmingham in profound ways (outside agitators anyone?). The government can no longer challenge this power in any way. The only thing that can challenge this power are institutions of labor.

This could come in two forms. 1) A global labor movement confronting global capital on their own terrain. This is symmetric warfare. This is unlikely because of the difficulty in organizing so many different cultures, languages, etc and because unions have been virtually destroyed. 2) The other option is Tactical Urbanism, which basically means to create institutions of labor on the local level that produce small spaces where the rules of global capital don't dominate or, at least, are lessened. In theory, these would build wealth and grow to the point of being, if not a threat, a real alternative to institutions of global capital and the style of life that they promote. What MCAP does can be categorized as Tactical Urbanism. This is asymmetric warfare.

I think that this is important because it is not possible to lobby the government for any significant changes at this point in history. Cities are pitted against other cities in competition for investment, globally. Birmingham is in competition not just with Chattanooga and Jackson, but also with Acapulco and Timbuktu, which puts global capital in the position to dictate to governments, particularly city governments, how to set up their institutions. This is as much about the Violence Reduction Initiative (privately funded) as it is about Avondale (privately funded). This is also why local leaders are travelling the globe looking for investment capital.

I don't think that this can be understated. A far left party, Syriza won the election in Greece, recently. Greece, which is in debt, and thus in heavy need of global capital held a referendum on whether or not to reject global capital and default. The people voted to default. Nonetheless, Syriza capitulated and accepted all the terms of the banks. If a far-left government has to bend to the whims of global capital, why would our little city be any different? The only option is to use the government the same way that global capital uses the government - for resources. If we can get 5% of what global capital gets in terms of resources, we can build real alternatives.

Global capital has more power than any class of people have had in the history of the planet. We have almost no institutions with which to fight back. We must begin building them

The State of Our World

I feel compelled to write this post because we are at an unprecedented time in human history, and, though it has been said before, capitalism is on the brink.  The capitulation of Syriza was unfortunate, but the distance that it went and the resolve of the people to say "we will take a lesser life if we are independent" is just the beginning of the new age of revolution.  I want to talk about what has us on the brink, which in my view are two interrelated but very specific things.

Debt
Most of the world's economy operates under conditions of debt.  In the U.S., the Federal Reserve Board, a quasi-private institution, buys debt from the U.S. Treasury and lends new money based on this debt to private banks.  The Fed, as it is known, has been lending this money to banks for virtually free since the recession of 2008.  This has encouraged banks to lend, putting more money into the economy.  If the Fed did not do this, which is to essentially print money backed by debt as an asset, the global economy would spin into deflation (a situation of low prices and scarcity of money), caused by the refusal of banks to lend.  It must also be noted that banks lend on the basis of fractionary reserve lending, which essentially means that they can lend more than they hold on account.  If a bank has ten dollars, it can lend as much as $100.  More money created as debt.

This system spins like a top until those who are indebted (non-core countries or cities, individuals) quit paying their bills.  This is what happened in the 2008 crisis - all the value that had been artificially created through derivative trading based largely on the housing market was destroyed when folks stopped paying their mortgages.  However, nothing has essentially changed in the derivative market, which is valued at almost $600 trillion dollars.  To put that in perspective, the GLOBAL GDP is approximately $74 trillion dollars.   That means that the derivative market, based almost exclusively on debt, is valued at 9 times the global economic output!

Enter Syriza.  Syriza, faced with mountains of debt that it did not create, was on the brink of telling the European banks "screw you, we will build our own economy."  This significance of this was that Greece, Syriza, and especially the people of Greece were read to essentially say that they don't care about foreign direct investment, the banks, or the credit rating of their country.  They would have to go it alone.  Greek banks would have to print money to keep the economy going which would lead to rampant inflation, think Zimbabwe.  What it means is that the Greek people were ready to say no to tutelage to international banks and to build their own economy.  If this had happened, and other indebted, non-core countries had followed suit (and there are many) the $600+ trillion in debt, which folks had stopped repaying, would have to be written down.  Banks would stop lending and there would be a worldwide depression that would probably make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.  (In case you think this doesn't connect to Birmingham, global banks walked away with $5 billion dollars in the sewer deal and now Jefferson County basically has water austerity.)

With no real writing down of global debt, the Fed's measures over the last 7 years have basically just slo-mo'd the meltdown.  Nothing has changed and capitalism's contradictions are as dangerous as ever.  It is not a matter of if this debt must be written down; it is a matter of when.

Life
The other major looming crisis at this stage of capitalism is the complete undermining of life on Earth.  Part of the turn to debt-based money from commodity-based money is that capitalism is growing past the ability to legitimately value natural resources.  Global capitalism as so destroyed the natural resource base that there is literally a crisis in every sector of nature: agriculture, water, timber, precious metals, fossil fuels, and so on.  We are literally running out of shit.  This is not primarily because there is not enough stuff on the planet; it is primarily due to lifestyles of core countries, which are fundamentally unsustainable.  Make no mistake - what humans have done technologically is nothing short of amazing.  It has not be available to all, but shooting someone to the moon is an impressive feat.

Combined with the impending collapse of the global financial system and the increasing scarcity of resources, the planet is in for a very significant lifestyle change, especially in the Global North.  We have to create a new economy and a new style of life that is adapted to the precarious situation that we find ourselves in.  That work must be done now, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year.  Now.

I will end with this.  Value in the capitalist system, at this point in history, is based on keeping countries, cities, and individuals indebted, which will wed them to the global capitalist economy.  This indebtedness in turns leads to the over-exploitation of natural resources to pay those debts.  The banks profit and everyone else is their peon.  We have to start being independent and do for ourselves.

Now is the Time: Building Black Wealth and Facing Race in Our Community

Today, I am proud to announce that an organization I co-founded, Magic City Agriculture Project, is introducing a strategic plan to address poverty, racism, and racial disparity in Birmingham.

In a recent column, Mark Kelly pointed out that, in spite of Birmingham's "renaissance," poverty is increasing. He also calls for the city to do something to address it, though he stops short of offering a viable alternative.

What we are proposing is a viable alternative. It is also in line with the city's existing comprehensive and framework plans.

Our plan has four major components:

• Birmingham Institute for Social Change is an anti-racist and community organizing training targeted at white people.  We are currently experimenting with different educational forums to engage in discussions with white folks about white supremacy and racism, including the upcoming "What Can White People Do About Racism? A Forum of Self-Reflection for the White Community" at Beloved Community Church on April 23.  The goal of BISC is basically outlined in my earlier blog, which is to encourage white folks to think about how white supremacy shapes them and how to act meaningfully to address it.

The appropriate role for white organizers, activists, and generally any white person who is concerned about the well-being of our community is to lead in the white community and to help in the black community.

My work and my research, which began in 2009 and led to the founding of Magic City Agriculture Project in 2011, has always been founded on this assumption. Thus, MCAP is positioned on the border of the black and white communities, both literally and figuratively. Our role in the white community is to challenge white folks and organizations to think more critically about their role and position within social change efforts and our role in the black community is to help organizations and groups figure out how to put their ideas into practice. The latter we seek no credit for and you will never see us parading out our "success stories" like show horses.

For the record, our organization is majority black, but because the two most visible people in our organization are white, Rob Burton and myself, it is necessary for us to operate in this manner. I say all this because what I am about to describe is a plan to face race in this community in a real way for the first time in a long time, which, if adopted in a widespread way, would most certainly position us in the uncomfortable position as leaders in this fight. White supremacy shapes our organization like it shapes everyone and every organization and we are not unaware of our contradictions.  Our situation is not ideal, we are not perfect, and we welcome genuine criticism.  Nonetheless, now is the time to move forward.

The next three components in our plan are about creating independent, black-controlled economic institutions that can build wealth in the black community.

While there has been some level of social integration in Birmingham, the situation in the black economic sector is dire.  According to the Birmingham Business Journal Book of Lists, the largest white-dominated private business in Birmingham is Regions Bank.  It has 6000 employees.  The largest black-dominated business in Birmingham is Falls Janitorial Service. It has 80 employees. Only 3.4% of black businesses have employees compared with 25% of all businesses nationally.  There is no way for black people to build wealth in their communities if they do not control the economic institutions in those communities, and clearly, they do not control them.

What we propose is to start building that wealth from the ground up.

• MCAP wants to start a cooperative training center. Cooperatives are worker-owned businesses that keep wealth in the hands of employees. Aquaponics is a highly productive agricultural production system that we believe could help sustain a profitable business.  

Our cooperative training center will educate apprentices on business practices, cooperative economic principles, and aquaponic agricultural production. These apprentices will train at the center for at least two years. The first year they will be employees of MCAP and the second year they will form a cooperative and work under contract with MCAP so that they can develop business skills without being fully exposed to the volatility of the marketplace. We will help the cooperative secure capital to start their own enterprise, probably from the Farm Service Administration, which makes loans to limited resource and minority farmers. It must be stated that after the apprentices are trained and start their own firm, they will be independent of MCAP. We will still operate as consultants and offer technical assistance to them, but they will make their own business decisions and have to survive in the marketplace like any business.

• We also want to create Community Enterprise Zones in partnership with the City of Birmingham.  CEZs have two parts - $10 million in capitalization for a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI), and a tiered job credit plan that favors democratized businesses. The zone will encompass an area of 50,000 low-income people, probably somewhere in west Birmingham. 

A Community Development Financial Institution is essentially a bank that does micro-lending by giving loans of under $250,000 to businesses and individuals for the purpose of community development.  MCAP will insist that a majority of the board of the CDFI include residents from the CEZ. Again, this organization will not be controlled by MCAP, but by residents of low-income communities. We will sit on the board if we are asked.  Micro-lending was developed by Muhammed Yunus in Bangladesh as a form of economic development for the poor.  He won a Nobel Peace Prize.

• Finally, we want to develop a Community Land Trust, which is a tool for low-income homeownership and land use planning. The key feature of a CLT is dual ownership.  The trust owns the grounds upon which a house or business sits, and the homeowner or business owners owns the improvements on those grounds.  Representatives from home and business owners control the CLT allowing them to collectively make land use decisions for their communities. To reiterate, MCAP will help black people create these institutions, but will will not sit on their boards, unless we are asked.

None of this is incredibly radical. The three pieces to creating a grassroots controlled, democratic economy are all included in City of Birmingham's comprehensive plan or in the subsequent framework plans.  The institutions represent, collectively, the three things you need to have a functioning economy - land, labor, and capital.  And, oh, by the way, it costs a fraction of what the city has spent on downtown.

Like Mark Kelly, I believe this city is poised for greatness. I believe that this plan is a step to this greatness, to finally address the single barrier, race and racism, that separates us from our potential.

We want the people of this city to adopt this plan, to take it and run with it. If you want our help, we will help; if you don't, we don't need credit.

We are setting out to achieve this plan because it is the right thing to do, not to pat ourselves on the back, control the city, or build great power. We do it because we have the courage to see white supremacy and to do something about it.

Come with us. Now is the time.

Read the full plan:

White Privilege and Knowledge of Self

Radical educator Paulo Freire argued that the purpose of education was humanization. By this he meant that any form of education must begin from the experience and knowledge of the oppressed, and that the oppressed and oppressors must enter into a community of learning.

It strikes me that the current white privilege discussion breaks almost all the rules of humanization. Privilege fundamentally erases the experiences and knowledge of the oppressors and dictates to them a knowledge that they must adopt in order to be considered members of the social justice community.

We must find ways to humanize both oppressors and the oppressed because both the oppressors and the oppressed are, in fact, human.

Before I get to my arguments about a way to call oppressors to a higher consciousness, I want to first credit the folks that I got this idea from, lest I be accused of appropriation. I am in conversation with a number of black nationalists/radicals. One of those who has had the most influence on me is Zone the Divine Mind, a spoken word artist and community organizer from Birmingham.

In contrast to many white "allies," Zone is about calling folks, mostly black, to a higher plane of consciousness and knowledge of self, meaning an understanding of black history and culture and of the way that government, culture, and economics place black folks within the societal hierarchy.  He is fundamentally positive in the belief that this form of consciousness is liberating and empowering.

What occurs to me is that WHITE PEOPLE NEED THIS TOO and that knowledge of self is the goal of the white privilege discussion, but in a dehumanizing way.

Thus, as opposed to privilege, educators need to talk to the oppressors in a way that calls them to consciousness and knowledge of self.

Instead of essentially telling sinners to repent (privilege), knowledge of self opens a conversation about who oppressors are as a people and how we're placed in society.

In contrast to the visceral anger elicited by the privilege discussion, the oppressors respond with curiosity and puzzlement, which is much more amenable to learning than anger.

The discussion can start something like this:

Person lacking knowledge of self: I am not racist; I treat everyone as a human being.
Educator: Only a white person with no knowledge of self would ever claim that they are not racist.

The accusatory tone is now gone and the person lacking knowledge of self is simply puzzled. They ask, implicitly, "why would being racist constitute knowledge of self?"

The next steps may be more difficult, but the educator must demonstrate that global white supremacy exists and that everyone is subject to it, though they may experience it in different and novel ways.

One way to do this is to provide an example. (This is predicated on dealing with people that actually care about racism; we shouldn't be even trying to educate those that do not.)

Person lacking knowledge of self: Global white supremacy may exist, but I don't support or participate in it.
Educator: How can you not participate?  Your tax dollars support the criminal justice system.

This shifts the terrain from individual racism to how global white supremacy constructs the white racial subject.

In essence, whites, though that may want to be non-racist, are forced through government to participate in global white supremacy through paying taxes, which demonstrates that every white is, in fact subject to, though not oppressed by, white supremacy.

This is the beginning of knowledge of self because it shows that whites are racist vis-a-vis their position in the system instead of their individual feelings or beliefs.

It seems that it is time for positivity in the conversation about white racism and this seems to be a better way to get at who white people are and why as opposed to just telling folks, "you're privileged."

Tanner Colby and the White Postracial Fantasy

I must admit that I hadn't heard of Tanner Colby prior to him being brought to Birmingham to speak at the 2015 MLK Unity Breakfast. I found it interesting that in this moment of renewed racial protest and an increasing focus on institutional racism, especially within the criminal justice system, the organizers of the Breakfast would pick a white guy to talk about race. His topic, residential segregation, is quite timely, especially in Birmingham with its status as most segregated city in the South, 15th in the nation. My interest was also piqued because I have written extensively on residential segregation both in my dissertation and in our paper published in August of 2014.

The conversation of race and urban development is an important conversation to have, but I believe that Tanner Colby's work falls well short of the standard necessary for meaningful change to happen in our region. There are many, many other authors who have written on residential segregation that would have been much better choices for talking about the topic. Douglass Massey and Nancy Denton, both white, wrote the seminal work in American Apartheid and William Julius Wilson has written extensively on what he calls the "underclass."

While I can only speculate, it seems that Colby was chosen for two reasons. 1) Most importantly, he writes about the region and 2) his perspective as a fairly un-self critical white person presents a point-of-view that is palatable to whites in metro Birmingham, while not undermining, and even to some degree supporting, the gentrification agenda of REV Birmingham and the city. While some of the history in Colby's book is probably pretty new for most whites, it doesn't challenge the practices of the white community today in any way, practices which we have documented.

Colby's thesis is fairly simple and based almost exclusively on a naive integrationist assumption. He argues that post-Civil Rights, integration failed because whites abandoned cities. This argument is confirmed in a more or less scientific consensus. However, he argues that integration also failed because the black leadership that was left behind built institutions or took control of institutions, which became a sort of homogenous fiefdom where black leaders would not integrate or relinquish power in the name of integration. I find this reasoning incredibly strange.  Blacks do not control most of the powerful institutions in Birmingham, whites do, still. Think about it:

Universities: mostly white
Media: white
Schools: black
Government: black
Hospitals: white
Philanthropy: white
Corporations: mostly white

Colby states that the failure of integration was due to lack of "money and human capital," but argues that some sort of naive integration is the solution and that black recalcitrance about integration is one of the barriers. This is puzzling. If the problem is one "money and human capital," doesn't it make more sense to get more money and more human capital to distressed communities? It's not that blacks won't give up their institutions for the good of their communities; it's that blacks still don't control the institutions in their communities, whites do. Thus, residential segregation is a situation caused by white flight and the fact that whites remain in control of the institutions of communities that they left.

To take it a step further, look at the money that has been spent in Birmingham over the last 15 years. $36 million spent on the destruction of Metropolitan Gardens, which displaced 2400 black people; $58 million dollars on a baseball stadium patronized by an almost exclusively white crowd; and $57 million dollars spent on an entertainment district and everybody knows who goes there. That's $151 million dollars on urban development projects in downtown that benefit almost exclusively a white audience. Compare that to the recent bond initiative which was $150 million dollars for the WHOLE REST OF THE CITY. And you're telling me there's some rigid, intransigent sector of black institutions?

Finally, Colby makes no argument as to why this sort of naive integration is even desirable. As someone who is a leader in an integrated organization, I can't tell you how much a struggle not to be a stupid white person, and I can also tell you that 99% of the white people in this region have no idea even what I'm talking about. Dissolving all institutions into integrated institutions, a post-racial fantasy, would do nothing but impose white culture on blacks because of the differences in power and social position between whites and blacks. I will tell whites what Malcolm X told whites.  If you are sincere about racial justice, go back to your white communities and challenge people. Become unpopular. Risk your reputation. But, don't try to tell blacks to integrate, when, even by Tanner Colby's own admission, it has failed.

If we want to integrate, blacks and whites must be on institutional and economic parity. Then and only then is integration possible. But then, it's unnecessary.

Tim Wise, Bullying, and an End to Social Justice Warriors

I used to have a lot of respect for Tim Wise.  His book, White Like Me, is inspiring and eye-opening and a must read for whites concerned with racial justice and our place in it.  But, over recent months, I have become increasingly disenchanted with Wise's public engagements in which nothing is more important that his ego.  Wise famously had to apologize to black activists who were calling him out for making money off black suffering, a claim that while maybe hyperbolic, speaks to the perception that Wise is about Wise and pretty much no one else.  He also routinely taunts, abuses, or berates any white person, no matter how insignificant, that he feels threatens him in any way.  He promotes his greatness by never failing to reveal how many death threats that he has gotten or the pressure that he's under.  He's a hothead.

All of this would be fine if the attitude didn't bleed into the crew of Social Justice Warriors now populating the many overheated social media sites on the internet, who stake out the high ground and attack, refusing to engage in anything worthy of the Socratic method and even less worthy of Freirean popular education, the latter of which was designed as a way for advantaged folks to participate the cause of justice.  Instead, SJWs demand to be listened to without reciprocating, claim that it is "not their job to educate," and accuse people that they know only from an avatar of all sorts of crimes against the cause of justice.  Most of this has little to do with justice and everything to do with passing a rigidly scripted litmus test for entrance into the SJW community, the boundaries of which are tightly policed.  I have done this many, many times myself.  It was a mistake.

I suggest that we start judging people by what they do in the real world and not by their proficiency in speaking a language that has become increasingly exclusive.  Instead of assuming a whole host of things about people that we randomly know, let's start engaging in conversations about people's lives and experiences.  I work with many folks of all stripes, all of whom are active in social change projects, and few of whom would actually qualify for the SJW community.  All of them need to be treated like human beings and, in such, and in our friendships, all of us will grow and change.  Social media is a powerful tool, but it is time to step back from the combative and shrill discourse that has permeated social change efforts and focus on using social media to build real, human relationships.  In fact, it is imperative to do this now.

As a means of getting started I want to share my Rules for Talking to White People About Race:

1. Don't make it personal. Telling someone to check their privilege when they have no idea what you are talking about will mostly likely foreclose a conversation. Instead, use scientific fact about white supremacy to demonstrate both the existence of the system and how whites benefit.

2. Teach don't tell. Activists should never say things like "it's not my job to teach you." If that is true, why bring it up in the first place; why not just let sleeping dogs lie. It's the height of assholeness to bring up a concept that people don't understand and then just tell them to go do their own research.

3. Be wary of creating provincial activist cultures that no one understands but insiders. While all forms of culture are in some way exclusive, living only in the safe world created by activists defeats the purpose. Everyone needs a home base; just don't live there.

4. Meet people where they are at. Telling someone that is white and working class that they have white privilege is likely to come across as discounting every experience that they have gone through. Use language and terminology that people understand to communicate why whites benefit from racism. Avoid specialized concepts such as white privilege until people are more familiar with the mechanics of white supremacy. It is more important for people to learn how it works than the correct terms for it.

5. Be humble. If people start to come to you for information about racism that had previously been recalcitrant, treat them with respect and dignity; not everyone is at the same level. Encourage them to dig deeper and realize that what we are doing is working.

Rage, Midterms, and the Birmingham Land Bank Authority aka Bellistan

I've been teaching at Auburn this semester, which I think may be bad for my heart rate and overall mental health.  The place reminds me of the drug and alcohol fueled insanity after the end of my first marriage, yet it brings some of the only warm memories of my childhood since Auburn football was (and is) one of the few things my dad and I agreed on.  The commute is hellacious, especially the miracle of urban planning that is the 280 corridor.  By the time I hit Chelsea, I'm already so enraged from the driving that it's amazing that I don't jump out of the C-Max at 50 miles per hour.

My rage has been fueled lately not so much by the Democrats crushing defeat in the midterm elections, but by the handwringing and the weeping and gnashing of teeth by all the liberal activists on my Facebook feed.  Granted, the GOP victory pretty much guarantees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an egregious example of neoliberalism or the Mark McGwire NAFTA, will pass with bipartisan support and a presidential signature.  Of course, this only proves what I have always said - that when it comes to economics, there is really only one party.

With this general state of despair and overall hatred of all things not Robyn Hyden, I decided to attend the Birmingham Land Bank Authority meeting to appraise how the process was moving and what was happening.  What I saw was a Frank Underwood-esque example of how to manipulate the democratic process to the ends of an authoritarian leader, William Bell.  The community development department ran the meeting, not Heager Hill, chairman of the BLBA.  As one community leader stated, "William Bell is community development."  Phillip Amthor began rather innocuously by presenting the new website, which seemed to pique the interest of board member Adam Snyder, who in the interested of transparency proposed that the BLBA put all relevant documents on the website.  This was warmly received.  Things devolved.  Amthor blew through a presentation about best practices in about five minutes, leaving the distinct impression that all that mattered for the BLBA to be successful was for it to follow his majesty's RISE plan word for word.  No peep from the board members.

Then came a confusing and bewildering set of events.  It happened fast.  Amthor and community development director John Colon presented a plan for the first group of tax delinquent properties to have their titles cleared in preparation for disposal.  The plan asked for approval from the BLBA for 25 properties in Pratt City to go to the judge.  The flimsy justification for this area was that the Red Rock Trail is going through Pratt City, but the real justification is that they can't do more damage than a tornado.  Pratt City is the experiment.  Amthor and Colon skimmed the plan, touching the high points, but never mentioning low-income housing, which would seem to be important in Pratt City.  There was a vague reference on a slide to hiring a financial consultant to make housing affordable, but I left with the impression that they plan to build market-rate housing.  I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression that I got.

Finally, Gwen Calhoun spoke up asking whether the people of Pratt City actually wanted this.  Colon stated that they had gone to 27 neighborhood associations, suggesting that residents were involved in this decision-making.  My sources tell me that community development merely went to neighborhood associations and showed a RISE propaganda video, hard-hitting participatory work by anyone's measure.

Next, Amthor and Colon presented a resolution for the BLBA to vote on.  With almost no debate, Chairman Hill called for a motion on the resolution with the addition that community development had to produce a plan at the next meeting.  Why would the BLBA give the ok on 25 properties without first knowing the details of how they were to be disposed?  Nonetheless, it passed unanimously.  Colon, Amthor, and community development had successfully railroaded the BLBA, an organization without so much as a strategic plan or a vision statement, into approving the agenda of RISE and Bell.

So, where was Bell in all this?  The answer is that he was genuinely disinterested.  He showed up late, checked his phone, his hair, and his fingernails, cracked a couple of jokes, left for ten minutes, and finally chimed in to quash any debate about community development's resolution.  That's what he was there for.

All of this for a plan that, if it creates market-rate housing, is bound to either a) have vacant land or houses for years to come or b) lead to the gentrification of Pratt City, neither of which is acceptable.

I left disgusted, dismayed, and enraged.  The complete and utter disrespect for the democratic process not just by individuals, but by supposedly democratic institutions is enough to lose all faith in this city's ability to respect it's people.  No one, and I mean no one, trusts the city to do the right thing and that's why there is 20% turnout for municipal elections.  What the BLBA does is not nearly as important as respecting the democratic process and rebuilding the trust between this city's leaders and its people.  There are those on the board who have the ability to stop this in its tracks- you know who you are.  It's going to take some guts and some real leadership, but it's time to take a stand and say "we won't take this in our city anymore.  Enough!"