Jumping the bandwagon

Speaking of politicians capitalizing on the fears and anxieties of the public, this LA Times article identifies illegal immigration as the most pressing issue within the GOP. That’s right, it even surpasses healthcare and the war in Iraq. Naturally, politicians have accommodated themselves accordingly…I just wonder when the next about-face will occur.

Oh, and do check out my personal favorite, Mitt Romney. After sharpening his stance on the issue with a new series of TV ads and attacks on fellow GOP candidates for being too soft, he was caught hiring illegal immigrants to do the gardening at his multi-million dollar mansion (on that last note, I’m just assuming that it is a multi-million dollar mansion). Apparently, he had been employing these same gardeners for years, as they had also done work on his son’s property nearby as well. Gotta love him.

And now a series of recently-aired, anti-illegal immigration, presidential campaign tv spots:

Campaign ads reaching an all new low

Maybe it’s me, but I just can’t seem to take some of these Republican presidential candidates seriously these days. Case in point, check out this wonderfully “24”-esque television ad from Rep. Candidate and Colorado Senator, Tom Tancredo. Oh, and just for clarification, I’m making reference to the Kiefer Sutherland show here.



Tancredo, “Tough on Terror”? Right. More like, let’s group together what have seemingly become America’s biggest fears: terrorism and the invasion of illegal immigrants deemed as the other. The result is an uber alarm against the two, yet more so a wake-up call to the latter. Literally warning Americans “before it’s too late,” Tancredo is obviously positioned as the answer to it all.

What the ad does in actuality, though, is stereotype all of the 12 million undocumented immigrants estimated by TIME magazine – I’m sorry, that’s 20 million aliens according to the senator – by immediately associating them with the imminent desire to blow up American malls. Moreover, Tancredo targets not only Islamic terrorists (and people of this faith in general), but makes a sweeping reference to Latino and Asian immigrants with the “20 million aliens already taking our jobs.”

What I take issue with then – other than this sensationalist approach of galvanizing political support – is the fact that people like Tancredo often do not ground their assertions in facts. Rather they largely base them off of the public’s trends of anxiety and fear, which is then reinforced by these same politicians in a never-ending cycle.

Thus, it comes at no surprise that such negligence of the truth is drawn into another segment of the national debate on immigration: the costs of undocumented immigrants for the American taxpayer versus the contributions that they make to the American economy. In these recent articles from both the LA and NY Times, researchers have found that in some cases, the contributions far outweigh the costs in healthcare, education and other social services. Adding to that, such expenses are far much less than they have typically been made out to be.

In the LA Times article, the focus of illegal immigrants’ use of public services is on healthcare. According to the Times, UCLA researchers have found that illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50 percent less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California. In this study published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers confirmed that immigrants are indeed less likely to be insured and seek routine and preventive care. The reasons? Not because this generation of illegal immigrants is younger and healthier than the overall population, but rather they do not seek medical treatment out of fear of leaving a paper trail.

Even Alexander N. Ortega, the lead author of the study, agrees in the reluctance of some politicians to acknowledge fact. “The current policy discourse that undocumented immigrants are a burden on the public because they overuse public services is not borne out with data, for either primary care or emergency department care,” said Ortega, also an associate professor at UCLA’s School of Public Health.

In the NY Times article, immigrants, both legal and illegal, are attributed to one-fourth the economic output for New York State. From a statewide immigrant population of 21 percent, contributions to the state GDP were $229 billion in 2005, as stated in the independent study “Working for a Better Life.” The estimates are that 16 percent of the 4.1 million statewide immigrants are residing there illegally.

Again, case in point, “We just felt like there was such a deep misunderstanding about who immigrants were that the political discourse often got far afield from any factual basis of what’s really going on here,” stated David D. Kallick, the principal author of the study.

Put that in your backpack and blow it up, Tancredo.

And since I’ve already jumped back to the ad, I still must give credit to the senator’s brilliant use of the ticking time bomb, images of terrorist attacks abroad, and the suspicious-looking, could be your next-door neighbor, hooded culprit. That said, Tancredo does an excellent job of capitalizing on the fears and suspicions of immigrant-weary Americans. At the same time, I’m just tired of hearing all of the b.s. while people eat it up like it’s candy.

Additional Links and Sources:

(LA Times) Few migrants, much opposition

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-iowaimmig6dec06,1,4384464,full.story?coll=la-news-a_section

A new battle takes to the field

South Central Farmers acquire 85 acres of new farmland in Buttonwillow, California*

*Note: The following information has yet to be published in the media, though its source is confirmed by longtime SCF organizer and advocate, Sarah Nolan.

----------

A week’s work has just ended on a Friday night, and families in South Central climb aboard a small bus to drive for hours into the Central Valley. Not long past dawn, the bus slowly lurches into Buttonwillow where the South Central Farmers will pack another week’s work into one weekend – plowing, sowing and harvesting fresh fruits and vegetables from 85 acres of new farmland.

A year and four months after the forcible eviction from their 14-acre community garden on 41st and Alameda Streets, the South Central Farmers (SCF) now have a new place to call home – well, maybe not home, exactly. In October 2007, the South Central Farmers Health and Education Fund (SCHEF) secured a loan from an anonymous non-profit organization, allowing SCHEF to purchase 85 acres of land in Buttonwillow, California. As such, the farmers maintain that they have only been displaced, not defeated.

“We stood up for the needs of the community and we will continue to develop the work that was done at the South Central Farm,” stated Rufina Juarez, SCHEF president. But this isn’t the first time that the farmers have brought in fresh produce following the eviction. Since summer 2006, SCF has been farming on smaller community gardens throughout Los Angeles and on leased land in collaboration with other agricultural cooperatives in Fresno and Bakersfield.

Yet this new farmland, just east of Bakersfield, resembles little of the 14-acre urban oasis that had served as the foundation of SCF. Without the picturesque setting of massive walnut trees and burgeoning flowers collectively halting South Central’s typically blighted landscape, row upon row of crops frame this farmland. As part of the Central Valley, Buttonwillow is situated in the region that sustains California’s most productive agricultural efforts.

Still, many things remain the same. Dotted by hunched-over wives and husbands or fathers and daughters, the new farm is still the site of toddlers running through the furrows. And as the farmers finish churning the earth, planting and watering seeds, weeding tiny sprouts, and harvesting crops, they must package all of the produce, driving it along Interstate 5 and back into South Central by Sunday. Once here, the fresh, organic produce is sold by SCF at a monthly “Tianguis” (Meso-American marketplace), in which music, dancing and other cultural events also take place.

And the food does not stop here. Nearly a ton of produce – including Swiss chard, radishes, squash, lima beans, broccoli, cauliflower, corn and other crops – is distributed and sold in farmers markets across Los Angeles. All of the excess produce is then donated to Catholic Charities, Food Not Bombs, food banks in Azusa and other local, non-profit organizations.

As such, the South Central Farmers embody all that is grassroots LA. Their continued srength and solidarity despite eviction, displacement and repeated setbacks is exactly what this city needs and thrives on - even if it is the City working against them for most of the time. With the mayor waning in support for SCF since his 2005 election into office and Councilwoman Jan Perry (District No. 9) who has always kept close relationships with city developers for political support, SCF has learned that they cannot depend on these same elected officials to maintain their empty promises.

Moreover, as the lengthy appeals process over the original 14-acre farm continues in the courts, SCF cannot and has not waited to address the needs of the community. While SCF refuses to give up on this land, continuously striving to bring local farming back to South Central, this goal is just one part of a larger objective now. The destruction of the original farm and current displacement of the farmers has not stopped SCF from pursuing its greater mission of bringing healthy food and nutritional consciousness into the city’s most impoverished and neglected communities. According to Sarah Nolan, longtime SCF advocate and organizer, “The fight is not over, it’s just a different struggle.”

----------

Additional sources:

Sarah Nolan
SCHEF
Phone: (888) SCFARM-1
Fax: (302) 370-0612

(USA Today) Dozens arrested at L.A. community garden
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-13-urban-garden_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA

(L.A. CityBeat) Tezozomoc
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1955&IssueNum=98

(BBC News) Actress Hannah in garden protest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5078404.stm

(Washington Post) Farmers vow to prevent garden demolition
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402132.html

The vulnerability index on Skid Row

I know, I know. It’s already been a few days after Thanksgiving, but I’m still recovering from a food coma that just won’t seem to go away. At least I can still spare myself of the Black Friday experience, an Armageddon over the last parking space too small and wool sweater that won’t fit. That said, after the psychedelic trips resulting from copious amounts of turkey, leftovers, and American consumer capitalism, it’s hard to turn back to Skid Row. After all, gluttony and excess don’t necessarily resonate well with the estimated 74,000 homeless individuals in L.A. County.

But in the spirit of the holiday season (which hopefully for all Americans is a time of giving back to those in need), I’ve turned to the county’s new plan to address homelessness in Los Angeles. According to this recent article published in the Los Angeles Daily News, this past Tuesday L.A. County Supervisors approved Project 50, a plan that aims to identify the 50 most vulnerable individuals on Skid Row and move them into supportive housing.

Modeled after projects already underway in New York City and elsewhere, Project 50 hopes to save the lives of “those most likely to die on the streets,” said this recent LA Times article. These are also the same individuals who have run up the biggest bills in the county, costing tax payers millions of dollars in cycling through emergency medical rooms, shelters and jails.

At the same time, these individuals are considered “anchors” or people of authority among the chronically homeless – classified as one-third of the county’s 74,000 homeless people who have lived on the streets for a year or more and have disabilities such as AIDS or mental illness. As a “block captain” on Skid Row, other men and women look up to these people, learning their street smarts them and gaining street cred.

In turn, officials expect that these 50 individuals will inspire others to seek help.

“In the social hierarchy that exists on the streets, these anchors are at the top of the food chain,” said Board Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky. “What's happened in other parts of the country is when the anchors are brought in off the streets, a good percentage of the other people who are marginally homeless access services, too. They kind of follow the lead of the anchors.”

The county has set an estimated budget of $800,000 for services to the fifty people. One homeless individual can cost from $40,000 to $100,000 per year for shelter, incarceration and emergency room care. But in terms of supportive, permanent housing, these costs range from $14,000 to $25,000, said Gary Blasi, a UCLA law professor who has studied homelessness. The City’s Skid Row Housing Trust is set to provide apartment housing for these 50 individuals by February.

Experts say that placing the chronically homeless in permanent housing with ready access to social services is much more effective than providing them with temporary shelter. The chronically homeless are “fragile in terms of both physical and psychological health,” said Phillip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on homelessness. “Delivering the treatment and other services that they need is more effectively done when a person is in a stable location.”

Blasi adds that 85 percent of homeless individuals who live in supportive housing stay off the streets.

Critics charge that the program targets too small of a group of people in what is largely acknowledged as the nation’s largest homeless population. And to that, county officials say that they plan to eventually expand the program across Skid Row and elsewhere, pointing to the strategy in New York City, known as Street to Home, initiated by Common Ground. The Times Square project helped house more than 90% of the homeless people living in that part of Manhattan. Common Ground is currently expanding this model in areas of Brooklyn and Queens.

The expectation that the project will eventually include more people is debatable. And if more individuals are included, will the numbers make enough of a difference in the future? Some homelessness advocates agree, saying that a slow, but steady approach is better than nothing at all.

But is Project 50 the right model for Los Angeles (apparently with the worst homelessness problem in the nation)? Skid Row alone is population to an estimated, but varying 8,000 homeless people, according to this recent article in GOOD magazine. And with that, the faces of Skid Row are changing. Yes, there are the Vietnam veterans, drug dealers, coke addicts, and criminals. But within this city within a city, there are also families living out of cars and single mothers moving their children in and out of the infamous Ford Hotel. And we can’t forget the faces of recent immigrants, unsuccessful white-collar workers, divorced ex-husbands, failed fathers, and the list goes on.

These faces are not only changing, but they are moving – moving around in a county that is approximately 4,060 square miles. As multi-million dollar lofts in downtown continue to be renovated within a spitting distance from Skid Row, luxury BMW’s and Mercedes vehicles drive along San Julian St. – a true testament to the ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor in this city. Moreover, these groups are having to make home elsewhere…and elsewhere again, with current transient trends moving toward Boyle Heights.

Today, young professionals don’t even have to think twice about when and where to find their next, new luxury apartment. Nearby, the homeless residents of Skid Row and L.A. County have been waiting for an eternity for a roof over their head. And with Project 50 underway, it seems that for the remaining 73,950 homeless, they’ll just have to wait some more.

Additional Sources:

(New York Times) Some Respite, if Little Cheer, for Skid Row Homeless
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/31skidrow.html

Gang series: Part I

For leaders of the Mexican Mafia, “stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.” According to this recent LA Times article, much of the gang violence in L.A. starts behind bars – even if prisons are hundreds of miles away. The emphasis here is not so much on the fights and altercations between inmates and rival gang members, but on the orders issued by imprisoned gang leaders.

On the street is where these edicts are enacted, where battles for drugs, money, resources and territory meet concrete with blood. The latest of these calls to battle?

Ethnic cleansing.

Under orders from imprisoned leaders of the Mexican Mafia (La Eme), Florencia 13 (F 13s) gang members allegedly attempted to “cleanse” their neighborhood of rival black gangs. But so much for getting the ‘bad’ guys – or other bad guys, I should say. It turns out that the numerous assaults and murders “extended to innocent citizens who ended up being shot simply because of the color of their skin,” said U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien.

But there were some exceptions to this rule – that is, when money is involved. Latino gangs allegedly sold large amounts of drugs and sometimes guns to blacks, including Crips gang members. At any rate, near the end of October, 102 people – mostly members of Florencia 13, based in Huntington Park and the Florence-Firestone neighborhood – were charged with illegal drug and weapons sales, conspiracy and racketeering.

According to this article in CityBeat, news of these charges comes as a sense of vindication for some and a bitter pill to swallow for others. Many black and Latino community activists have struggled for years to get law enforcement and city leaders to admit that many of the racially-charged murders in the area are intrinsically gang-related – particularly comprising pieces of the Mexican Mafia’s larger plot to cleanse their neighborhoods of the black population. And while law enforcement and prosecutors have admitted before that some Latino gangs have attacked innocent victims based on race, this is the first time that the Justice Department has publicly disclosed the Mexican Mafia’s racist agenda – one that is also against prison blacks and includes known collaborations with the Aryan Brotherhood.

For Florencia 13, one of the largest street gangs in the city, racially-charged murders operate as one function in a complexity of organized crime. Members have been ordered to tax prostitutes, ice cream vendors, taxi operators and dealers of fake green cards. At the same time, networks of shooters, gunrunners and drug dealers rule the streets. And as we’ve just witnessed, organized crime is still just as organized behind bars.

In April 2007, Villaraigosa issued his “Gang Reduction Strategy” in response to the recent increase in gang-related crime (14% from 2006), despite the city’s decline in overall crime for the fifth straight year. In the report, the mayor called for a “comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained” approach to combating gangs. While devoting more resources toward arrest and prosecution of gang members, Villaraigosa stressed that prevention, intervention and re-entry are key tools of the trade.

Funny, this model sounds a lot like what Father Gregory Boyle has been doing in Boyle Heights for the past 20 years. It’s no wonder the mayor’s office has based its strategy on the results of the federally-funded Gang Reduction Program (GRP) that reduced gang-related crime by 44% in the area. Father G and Homeboy Industries were a large part of that success.

But this recent article in GOOD magazine highlights Chief Bratton’s announcement in January that gangs will be met by an “unprecedented collaboration” of resources from the FBI, LAPD and other local agencies. The article also hints that the city’s official plan is to “pursue the most notorious gangs and hope for a trickle-down effect to curb the violence.”

However, with all this emphasis on suppression, it comes at no surprise why gang violence is still a viable option for even younger and younger crowds in Los Angeles. “Cops often overstate the problem,” said Boyle in an interview with GOOD magazine. “[The city’s] treatment plan is bad because the diagnosis is bad. If you can fix what they’re fleeing from, then you’ve done a lot.”

What they’re fleeing from is what the mayor identifies as the most problematic of social conditions – poverty, a failing education system, domestic abuse, negative parenting, child abuse and neglect, and the tolerance of the gang culture. (Of course, as if we didn’t already know this from before). And in addition to calling a war on gangs, Villaraigosa also calls on a war on social ills.

But tough talk on crime and social ills is cheap. Father G once said “building prisons to address crime is a little bit like building graveyards to address AIDS…it’s ridiculous.”

At any rate, I’m just wondering if the mayor’s words and plans can count for much now, several months after the issuance of his report. For some reason – as we’ve seen with organized crime – turning words into action seems to work out better for gangs than civil institutions.

America, the land of selective milk and honey

If it’s one thing that Americans are good at, it’s crushing dreams.

According to our clear understanding of immigration, maybe that’s because we’ve recently decided that what this country doesn’t need is the potential for new doctors, teachers, lawyers and soldiers. Instead, we’ve opted for the persistence of a permanent underclass – the underskilled, undereducated maids, dishwashers, and gardeners of America.

Just short of eight votes, the Senate recently rejected the DREAM Act – the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors – a bill that offers a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants if they serve two years in the military or complete two years of higher education.

By voting down the bill, the Senate also turned down the potential pool of 500,000 new soldiers, their chance at college, the possibility of greater contributions to the economy and any real progress toward immigration reform.

Under the DREAM Act, illegal immigrants who have entered the country before the age of 16 and have lived in this country for at least five years can receive conditional residency status. These children would have to complete high school, possess no criminal records and exhibit a “good moral character.” In the extension of state financial aid to undocumented students attending state universities and colleges, conditional residency status can be lifted if these individuals have spent at least two years in college or in the military. Finally after five years, these individuals can qualify for permanent legal residency, obtaining a green card in the step toward citizenship.

Bi-partisan support of the DREAM Act, including co-sponsor and author Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, hoped that the bill would be one of several, less-ambitious measures to pass, comprising a “compassionate and pragmatic” approach that would eventually lead to more comprehensive reform. But with its rejection, the debate on the immigration issue has yet again taken a nasty turn toward a familiar state of indecision born from bigotry and fear.

Colorado senator and Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo urged the Immigration and Customs Enforecement Agency to raid a press conference in which Durbin featured students who would benefit from the act. Accordingly, Tancredo charged: “I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens.”

Funny, I don’t expect Tancredo to be able to tell the difference between his own racism and xenophobia.

In any event, objections of amnesty were grounded on the extension of benefits to illegal immigrants – the same benefits originally reserved for legal residents. And of course the other principle objection was based on the provision of incentives for more people to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.

But since the failure of the Senate’s proposed measure on comprehensive immigration reform in June, this recent failure of the DREAM Act leaves an even more daunting outlook on this already tiresome issue. After all, if we can’t start with the kids now, how are we to come to any resolution for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants that already live here? And what about the 750,000 people who make their way into the country every year? How are we to arrive at any resemblance of comprehensive immigration reform if we aren’t willing to take the baby steps to get there?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 100,000 children would have been affected by the bill, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates over 500,000. At any rate, these children have grown up on American soil for most of their lives. They have been educated in our schools and already speak English in addition to their language of origin. For them, assimilation has brought them even farther away from a home country that they may no longer know. Deportation, in all irrationality, remains for them. And still we say no.

After a high school education, these children are left hung out to dry. No legal citizenship status means few windows of opportunity. And so the number of people limited to a path of dead-end jobs and a life in the shadows remains large and ever-increasing.

The DREAM Act’s rejection, therefore, is simply another lost opportunity at strengthening the country. We have let go of soldiers and more educated taxpayers, of skilled graduates and the benefits they bring to American businesses. Ultimately, we have forgone potential, talent and principle out of the imminent, yet blinding fear of invaders and displacement of resources.

The DREAM Act had opened a future to those who were deprived of one, simply because of the inheritance of their parents’ undocumented status. Instead the act’s failure criminalized them for a residency status that they were not responsible for – for a stigma that they remain chained to.

And still, in a country that champions the rewards of hard work, the bootstrap model is the archetype. Since preschool (if some of us are lucky enough to have experienced it), we are taught to imagine, dream and be who we want to be. It doesn’t matter who your parents are, or what your past entails. Work hard to overcome difficulties and in time you’ll reach your goals.

But even in America, dreams are discriminatory.

To protect and serve

Maintenance of law and order is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of freedom in our society. Law enforcement is a critical responsibility of government, and effective enforcement requires mutual respect and understanding between a law enforcement agency and the residents of the community which it serves.

-McCone Commission, Violence in the City: An End or a Beginning?

Funny how after six days of burning, looting, and police brutality, this statement was as close to an apology as the LAPD could get. But over 40 years have passed since the Watts Riots of 1965 and the LAPD still hasn’t seemed to get things right. From the May 1^st – Mac Arthur Park melee, to the October 9 report reviewing the LAPD’s conduct at the immigration rally, the department has become significantly better at crafting the apology rather than following through with reform.

Five months of internal investigations have resulted in a surprisingly critical, 100-plus page self-assessment, ultimately assuming the police department’s responsibility over the May Day melee. But for a police department that is infamous for repetitive cycles of misconduct, self-evaluation and “reform,” the lessons learned and apologies made after May 1^st don’t necessarily translate into institutionalized change.

Written by Deputy Chief Michael Hillman, and LAPD Consent Decree head, Gerry Chaleff, the “Final Report on the Mac Arthur Park Incident” provides diagrams, training manual excerpts, and an accurate timeline of the march’s progression into chaos. Ultimately, the department accounts itself for six primary factors, or faults rather, that influenced the turn of events: planning; tactics, including force (e.g. baton and less-lethal munitions); command and control; situational awareness; training and lack thereof; and individual responsibility.

In all fairness, the LAPD’s intense self-scrutiny and recognition of blame is unprecedented. But as the police department’s uncharacteristic candor permeates throughout the report, it’s easy for skepticism and doubt to make room in between the lines.

For the LAPD, chaos and controversy have always prompted lessons to be learned and then disregarded once the next phase of social unrest rolls around. But even before the Watts Riots, December 25, 1951 also marks a signifcant moment of police brutality in LAPD history. In what came to be known as Bloody Christmas, approximately fifty LAPD officers brutally beat seven men in their custody, five of which who were of Mexican-American descent. Yet in disregard of the demands of community activists for police accountability, Chief William Parker launched a reform campaign based on a police professional model that stressed police autonomy by means of internal discipline.

Yes, times were different then. In comparison to today, racism during the 1950s was more overtly expressed, enacted, and unpunished under a thin veil encompassing the slightest standards of any “political correctness.” At any rate, events like this one served as a benchmark, helping to shape the LAPD into what it is today.

The fact is that the LAPD is not just a police department extolling a mission to “protect and serve” without much to show for it. Rather the LAPD is a manifestation of a history marked by police brutality, racism and scandal, embodying an organizational culture that values police authority and independence above the rule of law.

We’ve seen this culture in its finest moments during the Rodney King beatings in 1991, the resulting Los Angeles Riots of 1992, the Rampart scandals of the late 1990s and most recently with May Day. Among the footage caught by the media at the march, one officer was recorded yelling, “I don’t care if they’re not throwing stuff at us now…we get to roll.”

Accordingly, what has often been addressed is the apparent lack of common sense, especially among the Metropolitan Division, regardless of the lack of official crowd control training. For these officers, crowd dispersal – even among peaceful protestors – was immediately equated with brutal force. A peaceful rally resulted with police beating media to the ground; using batons to deliver heavy blows on people who were simply standing; and blindly shooting less-lethal rounds into crowds of women and children.

Not surprisingly, the one thing the report could not provide was any explanation for these policing errors, this grave failure in simple reasoning.

But in actuality, the reasoning is rather simple. Even the slightest bit of power can endow a sense of free reign within an insular and arrogant police culture. At Mac Arthur Park, police forces made plenty of room for their authority to be disposed of at will.

And when the subjects to be “controlled” and “subdued” are not just people of color, but immigrants as well, these people exist as an easily identifiable group, automatically labeled and treated as “the other.” With this type of identification follows the LAPD’s seemingly natural disposition toward establishing power and authority over them. Already socially and economically oppressed, their cries are rendered less significant by a police force that looms over them.

But as Angelenos can attest to, cases like these flare up time and time again. Tension brews between police and oppressed communities until finally something snaps, resulting with the LAPD promising to do better next time. But these are the vicious cycles that make people look over the report with weary eyes. It’s what makes Chief Bratton’s words go in one ear and out the other. And ultimately it’s what makes communities doubtful of a police force that they have been conditioned to distrust and fear.

I’m just waiting for the next time something snaps. I think I’ll be able to set my watch to it so I can tune out the apology that follows.

8th Annual Festival de la Gente - Día de los muertos

Because there's more to Halloween than dressing up as a...well, you get the point.

Entonces, celebra el día de los muertos.

Good music, good eats, good people.

On the streets of Los Angeles at the historic 6th Street Bridge.

Saturday, October 27, 2007
11 am-10pm

Sunday, October 28, 2007
11am-8pm

For more info check out the website at:
http://www.festivaldelagente.org/

Father G and the Homeboys

Check out this powerful film on gangs in East L.A., Father Gregory Boyle and Homeboy Industries. I just saw it last night, but it's playing Friday, October 12 at 11:30 at the Arclight (featured in the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival). If you can't make it then, it will be screened at USC some time this fall. Keep your eyes peeled.

Here's the film's site:

http://www.fathergandthehomeboys.com/

Here's the trailer:
http://www.fathergandthehomeboys.com/trailer/trailer.html

Enjoy.

Events for this weekend

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 4, 2007
Contact: Tezozomoc
818-892-5248

South Central Farmers Tianguis

Celebrating the Continuing Resistance of Indigenous People Around the World

WHAT:
1) Bringing Food to the Hood- Organic produce
2) Workshops and Food Demonstrations
3) Music and Entertainment

WHEN:
Date -- Sunday, October 7, 2007
Time -- 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

(Also…Please Save the Date for our Dia De Los Muertos Celebration on Sunday, November 4th)

WHERE:
On 41st Street (between Long Beach and Alameda)
The SCFHEF Community Center & Gallery
1702 E. 41st Street
Los Angeles , CA 90058

(Metro: Exit Blue Line Vernon Station and walk four blocks North)

WHY:
The South Central Farmers stand in solidarity with the continuing resistance of indigenous people around the world. Specifically we recognize the up coming Continental Indigenous Encuentro in Mexico, Anti-Columbus Day, and the March Against Police Brutality.

WHO:

• Traditional Danza Azteca-Chichimeca & Music
• Children's Workshops and Stories
• Holistic Care & Products
• South Central Farmers Cooking Demo
• And More!

As part of their commitment to keep Bringing Food to the 'Hood , the SCFHEF hosts a monthly Tianguis marketplace in collaboration with various community-based organizations, artisans, and local merchants . Every first Sunday of the month, the Tianguis transforms public space surrounding the original 14-acre farm into a site for healthy eating, healthy economics, and healthy relationships.

Massive sweep deports hundreds...

...more to come on this issue. But for now take a look at this LA Times story that was also featured on NPR-KCRW's "Which Way L.A."

When faith hits the streets in L.A.

Who knew that the Los Angeles Times had a Religion section online? At any rate, in this article, “Religion as a force for good,” opinion writer Ian Buruma expands on the notion that “it is often the faithful who are inspired to do great things.” As seen from the Burmese rebellion, Buruma also draws on this religious inspiration from other faiths and their historic impacts on the international front. At the same time though, Buruma touches on the public intellectual’s tendency to downgrade religion, linking it to “backwardness” and the principle reason for all of society’s ills. Thus, Buruma cites, “It has become fashionable in certain smart circles to regard atheism as a sign of superior education, of highly evolved civilization, of enlightenment.”

Similarly, Stephen Mack illustrates this idea in his article “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as the Public Intellectual.” Focusing on the makings of American democracy Mack states, “Nearly every significant movement for social reform in American history was either started or nurtured in the church.” But while Mack cites national movements, from labor reform and women’s suffrage to prison reform and Civil Rights, Buruma goes abroad. Thus, he gives credit to Catholicism for “People Power” in the Philippines, in opposition to Ferdinand Marcos’ regime in the 1980s. And after attributing Poland’s communist rebellion to Pope John Paul II in the 1980s, Buruma also cites Islam as a basis of resistance against mostly secular dictatorships in the Middle East today.

But in terms of Los Angeles, it seems that this type of convergence between faith and politics is more obscure in passing. Other than the sexual abuse scandals and millions of dollars in fines that forever stigmatize the Los Angeles Archdiocese, how else can Angelenos come across these poignant moments of faith-based movements and community organizing? However small or large, these events and movements are history in the making, all occurring in our own backyard.

One recent example is this past Saturday. Just a few months before, Mac Arthur Park was the setting of chaos – mothers frantically searching for their children, teenagers trying their best to avoid baton blows from police, and protestors lost in confusion as rubber bullets penetrated into the crowd. But still scarred by the May Day March that ended in mass panic, Mac Arthur Park embodied peace on Saturday.

Over 1,000 people walked and listened to the chanting and singing of monks and nuns in a march led by Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh. Marchers joined the Nobel Peace Prize nominee in a peace walk that brought healing and “the art of community building” back to Pico-Union, a neighborhood that has recently experienced yet another increase of violence and homicide.

But in this most recent story found in the LA Times, NPR-KCRW and Downtown News, we see once again where faith meets civil action in Los Angeles. After being forced to move his main facility four times, most recently from a fire eight years ago, Father Gregory Boyle finally opened the new headquarters for Homeboy Industries.

Originally started as a job placement program nearly 20 years ago, Boyle and parishioners from Dolores Mission sought to provide gang members with a chance for a new life. Now in a more upscale facility in Chinatown, Homeboy Industries houses a new bakery, cafe, office building and rehabilitation center, still thriving on the same idea that “nothing stops a bullet like a job.” But aside from job placement, Boyle rehabilitates his clients – both female and male – through free tattoo removal, classes, workshops, and counseling. In fact, here’s Tuesday's class schedule: Financial Literacy, Decisions for Healthy Living, Computer Basics, Anger Management, Alcoholics Anonymous and College Corner.

For Father Boyle, a Jesuit priest, it’s a big change from what he painfully recalls as the “decade of death” – the years from 1988 to 1998, when unprecedented gang violence led Boyle to bury 156 of his L.A. gang ministry. Yet at the same time, in the welcoming of the new headquarters, this change entails even more promising ones just around the corner.

Of course, these aren’t the only instances in which significant local, social movements are born from faith (or at the very least, associated with religion). From the South Central Farmers and School of the Americas Watch (SOAW), to the Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE-LA), the list goes on and on. But the process toward social reform remains an ever-long, winding and tumultuous path – after all, movements don’t produce change overnight. So as many of these groups continue to struggle for positive change, it would be foolish to perceive their religious backgrounds as any indication of backwardness.

And yet “certain smart circles” continue to easily throw in the towel, forfeiting faith and (ironically) damning it all to hell. But what is somehow lost in this process is the acknowledgement that for most of the time, it is even more difficult to believe in something rather than nothing at all. Because what is harder than believing in what you cannot see, hear, or touch, is transforming this faith into something tangible. It’s finding the inspiration and strength from the elusive unknown – whatever or whoever that may be – and using it to create something that serves everyone, believers and non-believers alike.

For myself, it’s difficult to imagine Los Angeles without religion – just as it is difficult to imagine American democracy without its religious origins in the English Puritans. Whether I’m in Pico-Union, Boyle Heights or even Hollywood, I always seem to come across social institutions that have been founded first on the premise of a need in the community, but largely on faith as well. From after-school programs to parks, and free healthcare clinics to food banks, the faithful often take it upon themselves to fulfill the community’s void and provide what the government has failed to do.

So Buruma says it best in that the “Moral power of religious faith does not need a supernatural explanation,” nor does it have to be in a supernatural being, “Its strength is belief itself, in a moral order that defies secular or indeed religious dictators.”

Thus, as Buruma clarifies, in circumstances when “secular liberals are impotent,” moral power from religious faith remains. This is when the visionaries, romantics and true believers are willing to take the plunge and sacrifice much more than what politicians can offer in time, money and advisors. These are the thinkers, movers, and leaders that do it because no one else will. And collectively, this is what faith-based organizations and movements can and do accomplish. It’s their specialty.

Living in L.A. can feel like this at times....

...I still love it, though. You can check more stuff out at the Swerve Festival.

Americans as religionphobes with the public intellectual caught in between

In the way that American democracy operates today, whenever religion is thrown into the mix (or rather, the ever-daunting platform of political discourse) Americans always seem to get their panties caught up in a bunch. Okay, so maybe this is not exactly the case and just a more figurative example. But as Stephen Mack so blatantly points out in “The Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as the Public Intellectual,” there is some truth in the “old adage that religion and (liberal, democratic) politics don’t mix.” However, as Mack suggests, this is not because the two are polar opposites in any ideological and metaphysical sense. But rather, religion and politics are both “vying for the same space in the human imagination” – that is, in the way that we see ourselves in the larger cosmic or social order, ultimately defining how we as humans relate to others and everything around us.

So from where religion and politics meet, what typically results among liberals, the democratic left and even public intellectuals is a “secular bigotry,” as Mack so deems it. Believed among these groups is the acceptance of religion in its influence on your moral values (this of course, has to be positive). But once you bring those religious beliefs into the political forum, uh oh, wait. No, you must stop there and abandon your faith, grounding public arguments solely in reason and evidence. Thus, in an attempt to promote a “diverse democracy” in which a common political language exists, theology cannot speak as people of faith are demanded to “be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence.”

Interestingly enough, where does one draw the line between this secular bigotry and fear of religion? Just watch the film "Jesus Camp" or simply read the title of Christopher Hitchens’ recent best-seller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. And while works such as those from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins link religion to backwardness, I’m beginning to sense a hint of religious phobia here. At the same time though, how can Americans not play into this fear? In an era where the word jihad is immediately associated with suicide bombers and the Los Angeles Archdiocese is coughing up $764 million for victims of sexual abuse, there exists the pressing need for public intellectuals to take the high road (or safer one for that matter) and distance themselves as much as possible from religion.

In a recent TIME article by Michael Kinsley, current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is cited for trying to play the J.F.K. card among voters. In seemingly opting out of his Mormon faith, he tries to persuade the American public in that his religious beliefs are of “his own private affair.” But what Kinsley demonstrates is that “these days presidential candidates are required to wear their religion on their sleeve.” And if religion is so central to their lives and moral values, it cannot be limited to just a private prayer/ personal reflection time before bed – as is the case for many presidential candidates on the left and right.

As Kinsley states, we need to know in what ways a candidate’s religious doctrine forbids or requires action and how she or he must deal with these religious improbabilities. Must we refer back to the times when Bush had said that God led him to his Iraq policy? We deserve to know the extent of which a candidate believes in the doctrines and perspectives of their faith, as this reveals much about their character. After all, a candidate’s “leap of faith” may be admirable or even essential in voters’ minds. On the other hand, some may find it offensive when a candidate’s religious beliefs – and actions based on such values – fail to agree with their own.

But what are Romney and other presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc.) really doing? When it comes down to it, other than standing on deep religious convictions, candidates seem to be playing on the public’s fear toward religion, or apprehension at the very least. In the case of Romney, Kinsley sums it up rather nicely in that:

It will be amusing if Romney is done in by a fear of his religious values because, as near as we can tell, he has no values of any sort that he wouldn’t abandon if they become a burden. But in politics, you are who you pretend to be.

So while candidates seem to be playing on both sides of the fence, the current race to the White House continues to feed into the public’s phobia of religion. Continuing with this fear, of course, is the wicked paradox of the religious public intellectual.

Events to check out for this weekend

For those of you who who are kept up late at night because of the racket that those damn LAPD helicopters make, this may be an event for you. But if this one may be too intense, you might want to try the Los Angeles inauguration for the 2007 Swerve Festival:

Swerve Festival is a new annual festival dedicated to celebrating West Coast creative culture and its community inspired by art, film, music and action sports. The three-day celebration will be held in Los Angeles to bring together a dynamic group of innovators and thinkers and to spotlight some of the most exciting work to come out of these creative disciplines.

Basically good music, good art & film, good eats, good people. Go ahead and get your swerve on. I know I will.

Over walls and beyond borders: Perceptions and immigrant identities in Los Angeles

On April 30, 1992 the corner of Florence and Normandie Avenues transformed into a center stage showcasing the pitiful state of race relations in Los Angeles and 20th century urban America. Americans peered into a city classically plagued by poverty, racism, and police brutality, usually framed within black/white terms. But underneath the media’s stark contrast between black and white, the Los Angeles riots revealed the rise of a “racialized nativism,” one that is fundamentally anti-immigrant and antiforeign in particular. At this point, racial conflict was not concerned with who was white. It was about who was not black. But immigrant identities, much like race as a social construction, “are shaped by the social conditions and moments that reflect the notions of differences among human groups” (Sánchez). Specifically for recent immigrants in Los Angeles, their collective identity, along with their sense of humanity, has been deprived from them. If anything, this void has been replaced by mere perceptions and generalizations, ultimately molded by the xenophobia that still frames the current social and political climate of this city today.

At the time of the riots, television screens across the country lit up with the heavy blows that Reginald Denny suffered, as he was dragged out of his cab, kicked and spat upon. In this depiction, Denny, a white truck driver, served as the antithesis to the Rodney King beating that also graced the television screens just one year before. But on that same corner where Denny’s assault had occurred, at least 30 other individuals had been dragged from their cars and beaten. Of these cases, a Mexican couple and their one-year-old child were struck with rocks and bottles; a Japanese man, having been mistaken for Korean was stripped and bloodied; and a Guatemalan man, after being knocked unconscious by a car stereo, had motor oil poured down his throat (Sánchez).

In essence, the Los Angeles riots were the epitome of racialized nativism beyond the black/white racial paradigm. And while this nativism extends into the current political and social setting of Los Angeles, its existence in the 1992 uprising still stems from “an intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (ie. “un-American”) connections” (Sánchez). In this racial and political discourse, however, it is important to distinguish nativism from racism. Following John Higham’s model in Strangers in the Land, racism can result in “unfavorable reactions” toward the personal and cultural traits and traditions of others. These reactions, however, are not necessarily nativist until they have been integrated with a “hostile and fearful” character (Higham).

In his article “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America,” George J. Sánchez contends that this rise of nativism in Los Angeles is directed toward contemporary non-European immigrants, both legal and illegal, in addition to the generations that follow them. But to wholly understand this xenophobia in the context of Los Angeles today, it is obligatory to trace back to the nation’s earlier experiences with immigration. Thus, in “A Sense of Place: The Politics of Immigration and Its Immigrants,” Kevin Keogan compares such experiences in Los Angeles and New York, two opposing spheres of urban immigrant politics. In this assessment, Keogan identifies the early formations of Los Angeles’ nativist traditions. Ultimately, this begins with identity.

Among Irish, Italians, Jews and other European groups immigrating to New York in the later 19th and earlier 20th centuries, a collective struggle for material wealth and acceptance resulted in a common immigrant identity. Represented through salient landmarks such as Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, this identity transitioned over to later immigrants, mostly from Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. As a result, years of this continuous and changing flow in immigration have fostered an “immigrant origin mythology” within the New York area. Recognized as the foundation of New York City, immigrants here are emboldened by a specific, positive narrative that upholds their historic place in the community. This mythology, therefore, translates into a collective “immigrant as us” identity (Keogan).

Within the past three decades, however, Los Angeles has taken on a “postutopian tone” as a result of large-scale immigration from Asia, Mexico, Central America, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and North Africa. In “California Dreaming: Proposition 187 and the Cultural Psychology of Racial and Ethnic Exclusion,” Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco points out that the romantic fantasies and bootstrap models from previous centuries no longer resonate as strongly in immigrant discourse. Instead, this influx of non-European immigrants has transformed Los Angeles into the new “third world metropolis,” as stated by James H. Johnson Jr. in “Immigration Reform and the Browning of America: Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” And within this transformation, the negative connotations run rampant. In a setting where people of color comprise two-thirds of the metropolitan population, anger and anxieties continue to grow.

In this era’s unique xenophobic environment, recent immigrants are racially identifiable, making them “easily categorized by race into the American psyche” (Sánchez). From here, Johnson recognizes this phenomenon as the steady, increasing fear of the “browning of America.” In this fear stirs a growing intolerance, molded by the perception of an open-door immigration policy in which the nation is unable to stem the tide of foreign invaders. As a result, for most newly-arrived groups in Los Angeles, immigrants are more susceptible to being labeled and treated as a “threat” before anything else.

And as always with immigrant discourse, massive numbers games ensue. Largely centered on what can be measured in terms of the costs and benefits of this phenomenon, how much new immigrants use in social services is often evaluated against what these groups “pay” in local, state, and federal taxes (Suárez-Orozco). But with respect to the volatile formation of immigrant identities, numbers are practically insufficient. What is tangible in this explanation of xenophobia culminates in California’s Proposition 187. Within the passing of this initiative – just two years after the riots – Los Angeles once again reinforced its nativist traditions.

Under the name “Save Our State,” this 1994 ballot initiative gained the support of Californians, with a 59%-41% overall margin. Essentially antiforeign, the initiative sought to punish illegal immigrants by denying them access to social services, non-emergency healthcare, and education for the children of illegal immigrants. Additionally, public agencies were required to report suspected illegal immigrants to state and federal authorities (Suárez-Orozco). But aside from the logistics of the initiative, what is even more disturbingly poignant is the language found in the proposition’s description presented to California voters:

Proposition 187 will be the first giant stride in ultimately ending the illegal alien invasion. It has been estimated that illegal aliens are costing taxpayers in excess of 5 billion dollars a year. While our citizens and legal residents go wanting, those who choose to enter our country illegally get royal treatment at the expense of the California taxpayer (State of California).

Thus, with such ferocity, this language encompasses Los Angeles’ xenophobic core.

Historically “defensive in spirit,” this racialized nativism has undoubtedly set the trend for an exclusionary political climate in Los Angeles today (Higham). From a basic antipathy toward non-English languages to the embodiment of xenophobia in California’s Proposition 187, these exclusionary means describe Southern California’s profound sense and fear of the “decline of the American nation” (Sánchez). Moreover, Los Angeles continues to be haunted by what Suárez-Orozco deems a climate of “frustration and malaise.” Immigrants are not just feared and resented, but they are fabricated and fictionalized in front of a larger backdrop in which the greater problems that plague this city are displayed.

Thus, why immigrants face such hostility is more than just a matter of color, racism and fear. Easily dehumanized, recent immigrants become categorized as the “other,” especially when economic hardship and frustrations ensue. This categorization, however, stems from a need by dominant groups to single out recent immigrants. In this new “transnational malaise,” these groups become the focus of powerful anxieties when both the state and city have failed to solve its most pressing domestic issues: poverty, inequality and justice (Suárez-Orozco).

As “domestic aliens,” recent immigrants are identified with the abuse of social services, the refusal to assimilate, and the breeding of crime in the urban landscape (Suárez-Orozco). Panic and hysteria surrounds these already vulnerable groups, making it easier for “native” Angelenos to render them as scapegoats in times of economic stagnation and political instability. Unfortunately in this rendering, a sense of humanity is lost among them.

What many already know is that most immigrants essentially want to be reunited with their families, seeking better work conditions and wages at the same time. But despite this reality, resentment and anger from “native” Angelenos still follows them. As recent immigrants and minorities continue to grow to become the majority in numbers, they are viewed as a social class that is too self-involved and “out-of-touch.” As the economy declines, they are connected to the “disappearance of jobs” and draining of resources. As education standards fall short, they are responsible for an education system that cannot teach. And as crime rates increase, they are viewed as the cause for a justice system that is already broken (Suárez-Orozco).

To surmise immigration and racialized nativism in Los Angeles, Nathan Glazer says it best in that “economics in general can give no large answer to what the immigrant policy of the nation should be.” After all, figures and statistics can only go so far in explaining how people think, feel, and act in respect with one another. Ultimately, it is always easier to take in everything at first glance, especially by seeing in what we believe.

Perception is everything – be it one-sided, conservative, incorrect etc. But when perception plays into identity, especially group identities, much more is at risk here. For recent immigrants in Los Angeles, perceptions centered on hatred, anxiety and panic have robbed them of the immigrant mythology from centuries past. Though a bit romanticized, at least this collective identity was more accepting, fostering, and encouraging than what newer immigrant groups have been confined to today.

Culminating in the 1992 uprising, perceptions of an invading immigrant class enveloped Los Angeles in a climate of fear, frustration, and anger. At the expense of this racialized nativism, 52 lives were lost, 2,383 people were injured, and over $1 billion of damage was done to residences and businesses (Sánchez). Again, 15 years later, Los Angeles finds itself in another tumultuous and tense political environment. From a failing housing market linked to increased gentrification, to the recent May Day riots that epitomized both police brutality and police distrust, Los Angeles is still plagued by a xenophobic character from which it can’t seem to shake free.

According to Suárez-Orozco, I guess the better question to ask now is if “We can’t deal with ourselves; how are we to deal with others?” But at the very least, in order to better understand – if not “solve” – the larger issue of immigration, it may be more beneficial to look inward as opposed to outward. After all, perceptions and identities from all sides can be misleading.

Works Cited

Higham, John. “Instead Of a Sequel, or How I Lost My Subject Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925.” Reviews in American History. 28.2. (2000): pp. 327-339.
http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/?sid=jstor:jstor&genre=article&issn=0048-7511&eissn=1080-6628&volume=28&pages=327-339&spage=327&epage=339&atitle=Instead%20Of%20a%20Sequel%2c%20or%20How%20I%20Lost%20My%20Subject&date=2000-06&aulast=Higham&issue=2

Johnson, Jr., James H., Walter C. Farell, and Chandra Guinn. “Immigration Reform and the Browning of America: Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” International Migration Review. 31.4. (1997): pp. 1055-1095. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01979183/di009796/00p0315c/0>

Keogan, Kevin. A Sense of Place: The Politics of Immigration and the Symbolic Construction of Identity in Southern California and the New York Metropolitan Area.” Sociological Forum. 17.2 (2002): pp. 223-253. <http://www.jstor.org/view/08848971/sp030001/03x0005e/0>

Sánchez, George J. “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America.” International Migration Review Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans. 31.4 (1997): 1009-1030. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01979183/di009796/00p0313a/0>

Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. “California Dreaming: Proposition 187 and the Cultural Psychology of Racial and Ethnic Exclusion.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 27.2 (1996): pp. 151-167. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01617761/sp050101/04x0225q/0>

Because you can never get enough shopping in LA

For up to $70 million, you too can get a brand new 500,000-square-foot mall and a Lowe’s home improvement store. But wait, there’s more! Today’s package – brought to you by the lovely developers of Midtown Crossing – also includes a wonderful, three-story parking lot. Call within the next 15 minutes and you can get the limited edition Starbucks and Jamba Juice gift set for free!!!

Okay, so this article in the LA Times didn’t exactly use an announcement like this for the new 10-acre retail development that is to be built in Mid-City within the next 16 months. But at the current rate of revival projects that the city is undergoing (Spring St., downtown, USC, and so on) Los Angeles may as well be called “The City of Dislocation.” So a 20 second spot on a late-night infomercial could be somewhat feasible in this sweeping “wave of gentrification.”

Centered on the crossing of San Vicente and Pico, Mid-City has long been a neglected neighborhood after the 1965 riots and 1992 uprising left the area in economic decay. The boarded-up Sears is just one of the artifacts that serve as a testament to the region’s plight. Darnell Hunt, director of African American Studies at UCLA, called the development “momentous” since retailers have always been reluctant to build there.

But while the gentrification has mixed reviews from residents, local business owners, and city officials, Midtown Crossing is already set to bring in the largest and first major project that Mid-City has ever seen. Drawings for the mall already show similarities to the Grove. Great. Good luck finding parking and fending off the hordes at the after-Thanksgiving Day sales.

But in a neighborhood that has been struggling for the past 40 years and is still predominantly working-class, how willing are big-city developers to assess, let alone provide for a community’s needs? Other than increased foot traffic and cash flow (which go hand-in-hand with car congestion), what about current living wages and local businesses? Will the community’s residents be able to reap the rewards? And at what point does “new mall” mean “move out” for the neighborhood’s poor?

An older article from USA Today offers an interesting take on gentrification and how the poor are not really “pushed out.” The 2005 article, however, doesn’t specifically include Los Angeles as an example. LA Weekly published a more recent article on this topic, explaining how Angelenos, poor and rich alike, are no exception to the Ellis Act – or the condominium uprisings and spawn of $4 latte/gelato shops.

I, myself, enjoy a small Salvadoran pupuseria over a Baja Fresh or Chipotle any day.