Since their effort is still very much in the formative
stage, I’m sure the leaders of the Rochester-Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative are
getting tired of being criticized, by me and by others. Clearly, everybody
involved in the Initiative is worried about poverty, wants to do something
about it, and hopes that their effort will be successful.
Maybe it will be. If it is, I’ll be among the first people
to say I was wrong. But so far, it’s hard to be optimistic. Everything I see
indicates that we’re going about this in the usual Rochester way. See a
problem? Form a committee of representatives of the usual institutions and
organizations, talk about the problem, and come up with a plan. Get state or
non-profit funding to seed the initial effort. And then….
And then, despite the enthusiasm and the hope and the
commitment, the problem proves larger than the solutions devised by the usual
organizations and institutions. And the initiative kinda
peters out.
I’m not saying that some of the solutions this group comes
up with won’t be important. I’m sure they will be. But they seem destined to be
things like having local service providers do their jobs well, coordinate their
efforts with one another, and adopt “best practices.”
Unless I’m reading all of the Initiatives’ literature wrong,
and unless I’m completely misinterpreting the conversation I had with its
leaders a couple of months ago, the Initiative won’t tackle the big, big
things: the things that might actually put us on the path to substantially
reducing the poverty that is dooming thousands of Rochester residents and is
holding this community down.
Because we’ve seen this show before.
We’ve tried to combat major community problems previously, in the same way. And
we’ve gotten the same sad results.
So now we’ve launched yet another attempt to solve a major
community problem – this one the biggest problem of them all. This latest
effort has the adrenalin shot of support by the governor of the State of New
York. And it has secured $500,000 in state funding, half of which will go to
pay for… a staff.
The staff will be headed by a director and a deputy
director, who, according to the ads for the position, will report to the United
Way’s president and CEO. They’ll work with public officials, “stakeholders,”
and volunteers and will carry out the initiatives and goals devised by the Initiative’s
26-member steering committee.
Who’s on the steering committee? Social-service agency
leaders, educators, business leaders, elected officials: representatives of
everybody except the poor themselves. It is true that
some steering committee members grew up in poverty – most significantly,
Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren, whose success is both impressive and
inspirational – and that’s important. But those steering committee members
aren’t living in poverty in the inner city right now. They aren’t representatives.
The Initiative’s leaders emphasize that poor Rochesterians will participate in the work groups that are
an important part of the efforts of the Initiative. But they don’t get to sit
at the head table, so to speak. They’re not among the 26 steering committee
members.
I can’t think of a logical reason why they’re not. And
regardless of the intent, the clear message from their omission is this: “The
folks at the head table want to hear from you. They welcome your input. But the
folks at the head table were chosen for a reason. And they know what’s best for
you.”
It’s all so very, um, Rochester, yes?
I so want to be proved wrong about this. I really, really
do. Because the problem of Rochester’s increasing poverty is beyond serious. It
is a crisis. And even if we’re able to keep it bottled up for generation after
generation after generation, it is doing terrible damage to thousands of human
beings every single year.
That is a moral stain on this community.
This article appears in May 20-26, 2015.
All good points. Sadly, though, I doubt that adding people living in poverty to the steering committee will make any difference (though it wouldn’t hurt, either). The concentration of poverty in the city was created by decades of public policy deliberately designed to push poor people in general, and people of color in particular, into specific areas. Redlining, “block busting”, and massive government subsidies for suburban development all contributed to today’s problems. The fruits of those efforts persist today in zoning codes, in Monroe County’s 21 school districts, and in de facto housing and school segregation. Better delivery of services is unlikely to fix the problem because it only addresses symptoms, not causes, and many of the causes are way beyond the city’s control.
It appears more and more that this anti-poverty initiative is not at all about ending poverty. In truth, it is about securing additional funds and power for the United Way. But there is good reason to very skeptical about the United Way’s efforts and leadership in this endeavor. If that agency had been doing such a great job as the wealthy, central funding resource, how did we get so poor in the first place? Now we charge them to fix it? It is also very clear, that suburban elected officials in Monroe County want little to do with this project and that Maggie Brooks involvement, far from being a facilitator, is to block any metropolitan solutions what would require suburbs to actually have a role to play in ending poverty. How can we “cure” poverty without active participation from the suburbs? I will say it is almost impossible. Listening to the UW one would think the problem is just that the non-profits that serve poor people are not doing a good enough job, a variation of standard racist rhetoric to blame the victims and their representatives for their condition of poverty, not any systemic deficiencies. Right now, It is very important for all of us to be cynical of this process, in hopes that the initiative and United Way can restructure and make corrections, otherwise they truly stand to lose whatever tenuous support they currently have. I hope with all my heart that we improve conditions for children in our city, but I just can not yet jump on Weisberg’s happy wagon without a better indication of exactly where this cart is going.
First of all, it’s not a “Rochester thing”. If you’ll notice, everywhere the left is in charge, there’s poverty, crime and hopelessness. Especially Baltimore.
Let’s try the conservative way. Get government out of people’s lives and as often as you can, offer encouragement and enlightenment instead of the doom and gloom and finger pointing this “news” paper normally offers. It will take time. No question about that. Generations even. It will be hard for people, but in the end, they will be stronger, families will be stronger and crime will be far less than today because people will have jobs and self esteem.
Or…….we can continue down the same path as the last 50 years——take from one person and give it to another.
I’ve noticed for years that when I add up all of my payroll taxes and then,
the taxes you pay after already paying taxes. the phone taxes, utility taxes, water taxes, gasoline taxes (about$1 per gallon, BTW), sales tax, and on and on and on.
It’s OVER 50%. You literally can’t take anymore, when you can make more money by NOT working.
Please…… The only people who can eradicate poverty is the people themselves.
.
Concerning needing representation from the poor on the teams — you mention that “It is true that some steering committee members grew up in poverty”, and by that statement, I am assuming that these people managed through hard work to raise themselves out of poverty. Wouldn’t it be far MORE important to have people who were poor but are no longer poor on the team, than have people who are still poor? Who better to figure out what can be done to alleviate poverty, than someone who started life in poverty and found a way out of poverty?
People with conservative political views who are interested in urban and poverty issues might enjoy the American Conservative’s “New Urbanism” section (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/web…). I disagree with plenty of what they say, but they have thought through a lot of urban issues from a conservative perspective. I’d also like to put in a plug for Chuck Marhone of “Strong Towns” (http://www.strongtowns.org/), who takes a largely (small “c”) conservative approach to the problem of creating strong cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
When discussing solutions to our community’s poverty plague, there are really two separate problems to tackle: 1) serving the immediate life needs of the existing poor, and 2) ending the cycle that leads people to poverty in the first place. Generally, we as Rochesterians are relatively competent at addressing the former, more short-term issue. However, we have barely scratched the surface of the more long-term, sustainable approach that might dramatically reduce the poverty level in an sustained manner.
Such a solution to this latter problem requires an intensive and dramatically different strategy for serving our children in particular. As our child poverty rate increases to third-world levels, we cannot afford to continue addressing problem #1 while ignoring the long-term damage of problem #2.
Pay close attention as the anti-poverty initiative congeals. We need real innovation for a change! If we wind up with the same old players trying to find solutions the same old way, but under a different name, then “crisis” is indeed the right word to use.
JSpount,
Old, old “crisis” is already the “right word to use” — regardless of what happens with the current initiative. The CRISIS is real and growing worse daily. And one thing is for certain — if history is an accurate indicator, as I am thoroughly, unequivocally convinced that it is — the powers that be will NOT be ” able to keep it bottled up for generation after generation after generation,”
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/july64/…
Rochester Musician,
You raised some interesting ideas. However, it is critically important to understand that NOT ALL POVERTY is the same, i.e., there are varying degrees and levels of poverty. Thus, some who”started life in poverty and found a way out of poverty” have little to no understanding about the worse, most dire forms and manifestations of poverty. Also, I guarantee you that ANYONE who “started life in poverty and found a way out of poverty” absolutely had some sort of extensive, consistent support-system or mechanisms — something that more and more people, particularly children DO NOT HAVE. It’s a vital element, and a fundamental difference that exists for growing numbers.
Johnny,
You’re absolutely correct — “it’s not a Rochester thing.” IT IS IN FACT A NATIONAL THING. It exists throughout this thoroughly racist, white supremacist nation-state (in every direction — North, East South, and West) — regardless if “the left [OR RIGHT] is in charge.” I am always thoroughly baffled by people who attempt to discuss poverty in terms of “the last 50 years.” Are you kidding me? Do you actually men to suggest that poverty began a mere 50 years ago? What about the nearly 200 years prior to 50 years ago — was there NO POVERTY? In terms of this thoroughly racist nation-state — when (specifically) did some of the most abject, widespread poverty in the world really originate? THINK MAN! With regard to your last sentence, there is no doubt that apparently you mis-spoke (grossly so), or I’m not understanding what you meant. Surely you didn’t mean to suggest that: “The only people who can eradicate poverty is the people [who live in poverty] themselves” — did you? One last thought — it never fails to amaze me when people such as yourself complain about paying too many taxes — you don’t ever seem to connect your unfair burden to realities such as those listed below (amazing) !!!
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tax-cut…
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spend…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/20…
http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/high-on…
.
Yes Howard that is exactly what I said. And here it is phrased differently—If it’s to be, it’s up to me– I am certainly not so arrogant to think that no one can make it in this world without MY help or yours. It’s only when a person tells THEMSELF that they are ready to grow. Of course nurture them, and support them, but don’t do it for them. Then it becomes more about you, the politician, which is a huge problem today.
My old buddy RR used to say “the best social program is a job”
No Johnny,
You and I are NOT saying the same thing. You are saying “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” I am saying your latter quote is nothing more or less than a simplistic, shallow, rhetorical, euphemism.It does NOT explain what must necessarily occur in order to significantly reduce old, old, historic, widespread, entrenched structural, systemic, abject poverty.
I’m absolutely certain that your “old buddy RR” was not the first to think or say “the best social program is a job,” but even that is a simplistic notion — because we know that job preparation, i.e., viable, effective training and placement programs represent a must. This is NOT a time for empty, hyper-rhetoric — nor old, old, tired, “boot-strap” theories, especially when considering that HUGE numbers of people don’t even have boots.
Geneseeds,
You made some excellent points.
However I vehemently and categorically reject the notion that we cannot significantly reduce poverty without the “active participation from the suburbs.” In fact, in some case, the suburbs have been a little too active relative to dictating direction for change regarding City residents.
Part of what needs to happen is that WAY MORE City jobs need to be reserved for City residents. With regard to many jobs, City residency requirements are not as far fetched as many seem to believe. Also, it is way past time for suburbanites to help pay the costs of maintaining services and amenities that they flock to the City to enjoy — ranging from sports and entertainment to street maintenance.. Where there’s a will, there is definitely a way.
Well said Mr Mayer — very well said. I would only change ONE WORD in ONE SENTENCE, i.e., “The concentration of poverty in the city was created by [CENTURIES] of public policy deliberately designed to push poor people in general, and people of color in particular, into specific areas.”
Howard, I said “decades” because it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around “centuries” and because so many of the issues we see today have their roots in the second Great Migration. In 1940 Rochester’s black population was about 7,500, or 2.3% of nearly 325,000 people. My father was a teenager in the 1940s (not in Rochester), so that decade feels much more alive to me.
Jim,
I get it why you “said decades — because it’s hard for [you] to wrap [your] mind around “centuries,” but that’s EXACTLY what we need to do, i.e., is wrap our minds around centuries — because if we don’t, then it is virtually impossible to gain a full and crystal-clear understanding of the deep, deep-seated, historical, STRUCTURAL conditions and “issues we see today,” which absolutely do NOT “have their roots in the second Great Migration.” That is to say, the suffering and history of those, such as my parents, who participated in “the second Great Migration” did NOT begin “in 1940.” On the contrary, their specific history and socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural conditions were directly related to, and in fact, largely a result of the conditions under which their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents lived. That is to say, their foremothers and fathers were not able to leave them inheritances, or even basic, stable conditions, which is why so many of them were glad to flee the Old South where they lived under conditions that were nearly as horrendous as the conditions that their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents had lived under, and which s why hundreds of thousands left the Old South during both Great Migration periods.. The fact that “Rochester’s black population” was small during the 1940’s did NOT make Rochester unique. That was the case for MANY, if not most cities up and down both the Eastern and Western seaboards (prior to the Great Migrations). Gaining clear, comprehensive understanding about the nature, essence and history of old, entrenched, structural poverty within the thoroughly racist, white-supremacist U.S. nation-state has very little to do with the fact that your.”father was a teenager in the 1940s.” And it certainly is NOT about a particular “decade feeling much more alive” to you (ALL DECADES WERE/ARE ALIVE) — whether it “feels” like it to you and me, or not. Thus, the task at hand is understanding how (via many, many decades and centuries) systematic, social, economic, political, and cultural engineering via policies, practices, procedures, rules, regulations, laws, and traditions, many of which were and are racist to the core — we have arrived at the place where we are today — period.
Speaking of the past, are you going to teach that it was Republicans that freed the slaves, that MLK was a Republican or about the left’s affiliation with the KKK, and how the Democrats have always tried to keep the blacks under control? Probably not.
Time to move FORWARD Howard.