While the supposed benefits of the the community benefits agreement ACORN et al signed are great and universally needed- affordable housing and good jobs - the signing organizations represent a narrow section of the affected community and the agreement only addresses a fraction of the issues provoked by this development. They need to redo the CBA with a wider, more representative group of organizations at the table, and put ALL of the issues on the table.

When community organizations play the real estate development game, the people who made up the game- real estate developers- will always win.

Kudos to you Mark for daring to say what so many of us have only considered in hushed tones in fear of making the wrong people angry.

Ratner can't be trusted. The main tennant at Metrotech is the city. That means he paid the city to fund a development project so bad that only the city would buy office space in it. So he got paid by the city twice!

That's not a partner you can trust in a Community Benefits Agreement.

Then,
May 9,2000 demonstrators marched outside the Atlantic Center Mall to demand better wages and benefits for workers in all of malls operated by Forest City Ratner, the city's largest retail developer. Al Sharpton led the chants, but the protest was organized by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now--better known as ACORN. The group, organizer Bertha Lewis explains, wants heavily subsidized, "big box" retail developers like Bruce Ratner to make mall tenants agree to pay decent wages and benefits. "If you are feeding at the public trough, then you must at least pay your workers a living wage," she says.

Ratner's company, Lewis readily admits, is no worse than any other developer. They all have the same "dead-end, low-wage, non-union, no-benefit jobs," she says. ACORN singled out Ratner because he's one of the biggest developers in the city, and because he is currently receiving more than $20 million in city subsidies. ACORN plans to use the issue of public subsidies as a litmus test during next year's City Council elections, asking candidates to commit to passing a living wage law.

Now,
Bertha Lewis, executive director of the activist organization ACORN, lauded Ratner for pledging to set aside 10% of the residential units developed at Atlantic Yards for senior citizens, and offer community residents preferential treatment for jobs and housing.

Lewis called Ratner "the first developer who ever said we need housing for everyone," adding, "These are things that have never been done before, but they are happening in Brooklyn."

Acorn = Sellout

What's the point of 50% "affordable" housing when a) they're evicting people who own homes already and b) no one will want to live in a congested nightmare that is going to become, as if it were even imaginable before, an even more congested nightmare?

Mark,

I applaud both your style and your willingness to point out embarrassing realities.

Everyone knows I have opposed the Atlantic Yards project since its inception for a variety of reasons, so I will not rehash that issue here.

Most folks know that I have been generally supportive of ACORN and very supportive of the Working Families Party (I've been a dues-paying member since 1998), despite the fact that I oppose Atlantic Yards and despite concerns I have regarding some of the WFP's political decisions (e.g. - denying Fernando Ferrer the ballot line in the mayoral election.)

The continuously unfolding real tragedy, however, is the manner in which political energy is sapped by our "system."

Housing is a primary example. Throughout Brooklyn the cost of shelter has dramatically increased and dominates everyone's concerns. It is clear that this trend (which The New York Times recently highlighted as counter to the national trend) will result in the displacement of many "traditional" Brooklynites over the next 10 to 20 years. Along with this demographic shift, particularly a decrease in the number of African Americans in Brooklyn, will come political shifts as well.

One would hope, therefore, that the political leadership -- particularly Black leadership -- would be working overtime to use public policy as a counterweight to the housing market. This has not been the case; "development" has gone wild. And, as implied by Mark, many Black -- and white -- elected officials and advocates pride themselves on "cutting the best deal" with developers on a given project.

Why is this? Corporate power in America has rocketed upwards over the last forty years and the power of money in politics has come to dominate so-called "rational" thinking. Elected officials, in particular, feel that they are at the mercy of the next big contributor: that's one more or one less phone call that needs to be made. People power, or "democracy", is not a primary consideration.

Whether one is in elected office, appointed office or a self-appointed "guardian of the people", the temptation to find happy mediums with those who can fund your activities has become too great to resist. Even the non-profit sector has less credibility due to its dependence upon philanthropy, particularly from corporations. You are not considered "sophisticated" or "in the big leagues" unless you both understand and buy into this business model.

For there to be more real grassroots mobilization and true empowerment of poor people, for example, there must be a willingness on the part of communities and leaders to hold corporate power accountable. There must be faith that things can change when people stand up. There must be laws that create tools for change -- laws that few incumbent elected officials are interested in passing. And there must be a new emphasis on "equality" -- not "equal opportunity" -- as the standard for success from a public policy perspective.

What made the TWU strike so important was not so much the results one way or the other, but that the union leadership headed straight into the storm and reminded the world that organized labor was and can be truly committed to giving workers a voice. The union demanded sacrifices from its members and was willing to pay a stiff price itself for the opportunity to stand strong against corporate power as expressed through New York's municipal government, which includes both Democrats and Republicans. When your back is against the wall, you can't always play it safe!

This same attitude must accompany the mobilization around real affordable housing and appropriate development, for example, as well as a real commitment to and changes within public schools, and a real understanding and respect for environmental issues as they play out in our communities.

ACORN's leadership knows how to play the game, as does Rev. Sharpton and many others. It is time, however, for the game to change.

Thank you, Mark, for providing this opportunity to discuss an important issue.

Chris Owens

Candidate for Congress

11th Congressional District

Brooklyn, New York

718-604-7500

I think what's equally upsetting about the WFP is the fact that they endorsed Ratner's best friend Marty Markowitz in that very same election. Markowitz should be punished just as much as Bloomberg for supporting this (future) disaster.

But Chris Owens all the way, baby...

To be precise, it's not "50% of the proposed residential units as affordable housing," it's 50% of the *rental units*. The NewsHour had it wrong, and that makes a big difference--and so does the definition of "affordable."



The developer and ACORN signed the Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 5/17/05 to great fanfare at a press conference 5/19/05. A week later, at a 5/26/05 City Council hearing, Forest City Ratner announced plans to increase the amount of housing by 1,500 or perhaps 2,800 for-sale units. (Ultimately, they chose 2,800 condos.) That makes for about 31 percent affordable housing. The evidence suggests that Forest City Ratner had the condo plan in the cards for a while, but wanted ACORN on board first. After all, the Memorandum of Understanding regarding housing acknowledges that Forest City Ratner could change the size of the project if the developer deemed it "economically necessary." See details here:
http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2005/11/times-and-lupica-address-jobs-and.html.



When I mentioned to Marty Markowitz that Ratner had added market-rate housing to skew the 50 percent affordable housing promise, he barked back, "50 percent of the rentals." True, that is the letter of the housing Memorandum of Understanding but not the spirit: when the housing deal was announced, Marty and the press described it as 50 percent of *all* apartments at Atlantic Yards. (At that point, the project consisted only of rentals.) At the time, Marty cited a "commitment to build a full 50 percent of Atlantic Yards housing as affordable."
Details here: http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2005/11/marty-markowitz-stays-on-message.html.



Also, while Bertha Lewis told the New York Times (see my first link above) that the addition of off-site condos would push the ratio back towards 50%, she unequivocally declared in the developer's Brooklyn Standard pseudo-newspaper that there was a "50-50 balance for affordable housing." She also said the project would fight gentrification, even though--and this is an important aspect that deserves its own analysis--the affordable housing is 60% middle-income (1,350 units) and 40% low-income (900 units). Total rentals: 4,500. Total units on site: 7,300. There is a potential for 600-1000 off-site condos, but "a majority of the affordable for-sale units will be sold to families in the upper affordable income tiers," according to the Housing MOU, meaning people earning up to six figures.
See http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2005/10/dissecting-fall-2005-issue-of-brooklyn.html and http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2005/10/courier-life-on-builds-denials.html.

Mark. Amen.

But it's even worse than you write. Bertha's big kiss was about a 50% housing deal. One week after that big kiss, Ratner increased the number of housing units from 4,500 to 7,300 without maintaining the 50% ratio. But of course the 50% mantra already settled itself in the thing we call the press.

ACORN and the press took the bait, Ratner then switched.

Yes, Ratner will say that his original agreement with ACORN was that 50% of the RENTAL units would be so-called "affordable." That would mean 50% of the 4,500 rental units. But Bertha didn't give that big smooch to Bloomie and Bruce over that narrow reading. The big kiss was for 50% overall, not some parsed reading of a sloppy agreement.

Instead there are now 2,250 so-called "affordable" units and 5,050 luxury units. That's instant gentrification on a massive scale to paraphrase Charles Barron.

So, what do we have now? A 31-69 so-called "affordable" housing plan, which is even WORSE than the "affordable" housing deal struck for the Williamsburg/Greenpoint rezoning. And less than 12% of all the units will be for truly low-income residents, those making the Brooklyn median income or less.

I thought that low-income people were supposed to be ACORN's core constituency.

This is what Bertha kissed these guys for? ACORN's actions are so shortsighted it's astounding. With so many luxury units and so few truly affordable units in relation, the "affordability" of housing in the Prospect Heights vicinity will be a wash at best.

Never mind the serious question of how any "progressive" organization claiming to represent low-income tenants can support the use of eminent domain and the ugly use of so-called "blight" to justify it. It's beyond my comprehension (besides pure, wrongheaded Machiavellianism-the ends perhaps being the management and selection contracts) how any group can call itself a "community" organization signing a "community benefits" agreement, while supporting eminent domain, displacement of rent-stabilized and rent controlled tenants, massive environmental impacts, the total subversion of democratic processes, massive taxpayer giveaways for an arena and mainly luxury housing, etc. etc. etc. The bedrock of communities is: family, homes, small businesses, and the democratic inclusion of genuine community input into its future. The Ratner plan is an egregious affront to these foundations of community.

I guess ACORN thinks that it can screw people this time, and that the numerous issues they are ignoring here won't come back to bite them elsewhere.

(But ACORN, in my view, gave away its right or claim to represent the community when it comes to "Atlantic Yards" when they signed their housing agreement which includes this clause which contractually obliges them to :
"Take reasonable steps to publicly support the Project by, among other things, appearing with the Developer before the Public Parties, community organizations and the media as part of a coordinated effort to realize and advance the Project and the contemplated creation of affordable housing." That is called shillship, not leadership. ACORN is a business/media/PR partner of the developer now. Bertha has now made ACORN the "animated prop" in Ratner's "setpiece," just as you claim, correctly, that she has done to its members.)

I know that ACORN is split over the issue. And I know that the WFP is split over the issue as well (and utterly silent in public about it) And you may notice that ACORN and Bertha have been unusually silent on Ratnerville since the summer, when it became clear that 50-50 was not going to happen.

As for jobs:

There is office space proposed for 2,300 jobs (once it was 10,000). According to NYEDC calculations at most 700 of those jobs might be new jobs. Many talk about the jobs that the arena itself will provide. Ratner says that there will be about 400 arena jobs. But Ratner's front man for the proposal, VP Jim Stuckey, said that those jobs will be subject to union rules and may be filled with current employees.

For the best print article to date on the subject of the bogus CBA and jobs go here:
http://tinyurl.com/7mc5v

My summation? ACORN has sold out the community along with co-signer BUILD (http://www.dddb.net/BUILD). And now Bertha and ACORN are paying for it, paying for trusting Ratner and paying for their myopia.
The question is, when ACORN doesn't get what they think they were getting, what will the do ? Anything?

Excellent and courageous to explore the apparent contradictions in ACORN, it's leadership and its supposed mission. There are numerous website dedicated to exposing their unjust salaries and milking of high turnovers employees as well and using new immmigrants and less well off people as puppets and pawns in scripted press conferences and demos, usually subverting or contradicting local leadership. For example, two egregious examples in the South Bronx that bolsters the observations of the writer. In the South Bronx, in a sepcial elction for the 17th Council District, the local committee of ACORn voted to endorse a long times housing activist that assisted in getting the govt to transfer ownership of hundreds of units of the Diego Beekman houses to the tenants., The Brooklyn leadership, ie Bertha Lewis rejected this recommendation in favor of a family dynasty. In addition, ACORN has been given preference in the redevelopment of a long time communty space formerly known as casa del sol on 136th street despite the repeated inquiries and communications with HPD to obtain the title and redevelop according to the third part transfer program led by former residents, local leaders and developers. Again, political p ayback to a leadership top down organization entirely out of touch with its stated purpose. Oh, and Bertha Lewsi lived in that building in the 80;s before the landlors bought her out in the disappinted hopes that the growing tenant association would dissolve.

The post -- and comments -- while welcome, seem to miss Acorn's broader agenda that many housing advocates oppose: Inclusionary Zoning. They are pushing this all over town and it's not just an Atlantic Yards issue.

Acorn seems to use people's names without permission in some of their efforts like the bogus coalition Housing Here and Now (but then so did the DDDB opposing Ratner). Acorn has turned in developers landlords (but DDDB gets a landlord eviction lawyer to claim they represent various Brooklyn neighborhoods where they went on record supporting the Olympic bid).

It's a broader issue happening in Harlem, Williamsburg and Manhattan's West Side. The zoning and CBA agendas being pursued by Acorn and the Wrecking Families Party is the same agenda articulated by right-wing real estate funded Michael Schill from the NYC School of Real Estate and adopeted by Rudy Giuliani, peter Vallone and Virginia Fields ... and subsequently adopted by Bloomberg, Miller and now Quinn and Stringer.

The zoning seems to suggest affordabole housing in exchange for huge bulk bonues for developers. but such zoning also destroys neighborhoods and creates intense climates for secondary displacement ... the opposite of what is claimed to be intended. This effects residential as well as small commercial componenets of a community.

So while some poor people may get a small box in a small tower, broader neighborhoods are bulldozed.

To use a worn phrase, it's Voodoo Housing and trickle-down economics.

I am not defending being a shill but at least they got something. As I say in DC, most groups get negotiated out of their underwear without even knowing it... At least the NYT has written some good articles about FCR's active program of co-optation and buying support. Was it the Village Voice that had the great piece about Markowitz?

Anyway, people should check out this handbook on negotiating community benefits agreements.

Mark,

Provocative post, framed as it is around one of the hot-button issues in NYC politics. I see that most of the posters have taken your lead and run with it as well, vis a vis ACORN's role in city poltics and especially on Atlantic Yards.

I am personally wondering a few things about your arguement.

First, I'm wondering what series of "shady, self-profiting, deals with huge corporate interests" ACORN has engaged in to qualify as having a "penchant".

Second, I'm wondering if you have ever been to the ACORN planning meetings that lead up to the events you feel are so stilted and stage-managed. If so, then I find it hard to believe that you would then go ahead and accuse ACORN of using its members simply as animated manniquins in political theatre. If not, then maybe you should ask to be invited to one (or several). It might open your eyes.

Third, I'm wondering what definintion of leadership development and community power you are working from to be able to so baldly and without supporting evidence accuse ACORN of muddying. And, in fact, I'm also wondering why I should accept yours in the first place since you are a self-professed advocate for low-income people and not an actual low-income leader speaking for yourself and your community. Shouldn't the people working the hardest to win and weild power be the ones to define what "leadership development" and "community power" are?

Fourth, your statement, "[b]ut when it comes to community organizing I think New York could use a lot more community agitation, mobilization and low-income people speaking publicly for themselves, and less brokering and deal-making by others claiming to know what's good for the disenfranchised" imnplies that ACORN DOES NOT do any community agitation, mobilization or train people to speak on their own behalf.

Your only support for making this implication is that Bertha Lewis has been in the news regularly talking about Atlantic yards.

Somehow 20 years of militant building take-overs, massive marches (like the one over the Brooklyn Bridge just a few years ago to protest development plans by the Mets or the one to push for better, more accuntable schools in NYC or the one to support immigrant rights), and the literally thousands of smaller actions on slumlords, city officials, school officials, corporations and whomever else to fix things as small as vacant lots and repairs to individual apartments, all gets thrown out the window because the organization has built enough power to inject the priorities of low-income people into the debate around development in Brooklyn.

My final question is, Mark, when and how does "low-income people speaking for themselves" become "low income people wielding power and making decisions that affect the future of their city"?

Sorry, I was wrong. My final question is, who decides what is selling out a constituency and what is weilding power?

Who decides what is selling out a constituency and what is weilding power? The proof is always in the pudding. Did your community organizing efforts really create the benefit proposed?

In most cases our heart and devotion for civil rights serves to energize our community. However, to be successful we also need to demonstrate the economic benefit of our purpose. Unfortunately an ACORN style does little to develop both a social justice and economic argument for change. Rather it becomes a confrotation, which most often results in a compromise that is less than an adequate solution to an economic problem.

If you want to wield power you also need to have an economic argument, then it is more likely that you can serve the low income people that you wish to empower.

Daniel Goldstein, Chris Owens and Mark Winston Griffith miss a central point: the MOU has always been about 50/50 rental housing. That's what it has always said. And that's pretty good.

....actually that's amazing.

The highest proportion of affordable rental in any other city program is 20%. And in neighboring communities like DUMBO and Park Slope developers get 421-a tax abatements as of right to build ZERO affordable / 100% market rate housing.

Maybe the ACORN deal isn't utopia, but it's a hell of a lot better then any other community group has been able to get out of a major developer in this town.

Oh, by the way, why aren't Mark Winston Griffith, Dan Goldstein and Chris Owens saying or doing anything about 421-a reform? Where have they been in the fight over downtown Brooklyn? How bout DUMBO? Williamsburg-Greenpoint?

There's a huge coalition of organizations working on the issue (ACORN being only one of about two dozen). Are any of them involved? No. They're too busy scoring political points by attacking an organization they know
little to nothing about and a deal much better then anything they could have negotiated.

Bottom line. Without ACORN the best thing that would be happening at Atlantic Yards would be 80/20.

But Mark wouldn't know about that - he's too busy working for a service organization that wields zero political power in this town. Must be a nice view from the foundation-funded cheap seats.

Although (a) I am not a supporter of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project, (b) I usually agree with almost every word Mark Winston Griffith writes, and (c) I have had my past disagreements with ACORN -- I still believe that the ACORN-bashing of this post (and of many of the anonymous comments) is neither fair nor useful for advancing progressive politics.

To begin with, I believe it is unfair and untrue to suggest that Bertha Lewis or other individuals are seeking to profit from their organizing work, or from the deals that they cut with corporate and political power-brokers. Yes, ACORN cuts deals -- usually after substantial organizing and confrontation, often mobilizing many more people to stand up to powerful interests than the rest of us. But the goal of their deals is to win concrete, meaningful victories for low-income people: not only affordable housing units, but also better schools (cf. the Alliance for Quality Education), and better jobs (cf. the NYC living wage ordinance).

It is certainly fair to criticize the particular deals they cut (although I think they usually do very well), and to organize against those deals if you do not agree. And I suppose it is fair to criticize deal-making in general, in favor of a more radical or rejectionist politics which might somehow ultimately change conditions so much that new, far bolder things will be possible that seem inconceivable now.

But it is neither fair nor true to suggest some sort of self-dealing. There are lots of people in the world who are straightforwardly in business to make money, and who have become wealthy doing it. And there are people who have made plenty in the "poverty business." But Bertha and other ACORN staffers sure aren't getting rich, and they work extremely hard and long hours every day trying to win real, meaningful, progressive gains.

Second, I do not really see how it helps progressive politics to beat up on ACORN because they have built and can wield power. Take a look at who spends a lot of money attacking ACORN (e.g. http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=1), and you?ll see that it is right-wing and corporate interests (whom they must frighten a good deal). Low-income people, communities of color, and people with progressive politics all have a lot of real enemies who we need to be fighting. Even when we have our differences (which certainly merit discussion), I don't see how beating each other up in public really helps to build a movement or advance a broader agenda.

Like Mark, I share a penchant for small, grassroots, neighborhood-based groups who spend a lot of time doing leadership development and political education. But let's be real about the times we are living in. We are losing on most fronts, and we need every strategy we can muster -- neighborhood organizing, citywide organizing, coalition-building, community development, advocacy, litigation, electoral organizing, even advocacy planning.

You don't have to love them, but ACORN has proved, time and again, that they have an effective strategy for mobilizing low-income people of color (and in my experience, people aren?t duped into attending rallies; they are there because they believe in the cause), for building power, and for winning meaningful progressive victories.

Brad Lander

P.S. Yes, I have worked with ACORN as an ally on a number of campaigns (as I have with Mark, and with several of the groups who oppose the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project).

What Lander and others seem to miss in defending Acorn's alleged motives is that they also defend what Acorn is actually doing: marching into communities and claiming to represent the community in negotiations with developers, who are most happy to use Acorn to undercut community opposition to a project. It's known as Astroturf, or "fake grass-roots."

Brad Lander sees a community as a Barbie doll house. He told the residents of Greenpoint and Williamsburg that Huge buildings were needed for 30% affordable housing and the incentives were too good to pass up. Well guess what. We have yet to see one development announce 30% on site affordable housing since the rezoning was passed. The rest of the affordable housing in Greenpoint and Williamburg is being torn down for new shiny expensive condo's. Brad's great at talking about zoning but has no clue about planning!
As far as Acorn. The Brooklyn Median income is about $35,000.00 a year. The Ratner Plan call for abou 900
units at this price point. Anything above this is not true affordable housing.
Secondary displacement is rampant and will only get worse. We are on the verge of losing another affordable community in Brooklyn for 900
units of housing. Think about it.

Acorn= Sellout

Tenant: to respond to your remarks and answer some of your questions directed at me.

1. No the housing MOU at Atlantic Yards doesn't specify 50% of ONLY the rental units. In some clauses it says that and in others it doesn't. Why should only the rental units be affordable? And if only the rental units are affordable, then, like I wrote, its a 30-70 plan. Ask Bertha if her big announcement and big kiss was about half of only the rental units or half of ALL of the units. As recently as mid-October in the Ratner propaganda paper The Brooklyn Standard, Bertha was touting her 50-50 program, not her 50-50 rental program. As the Times/Ratner blog wrote:

The page six column by Bertha Lewis, executive director of the New York chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) deserves notice for its stubborn commitment to unreality. "ACORN is all about working families," she declares, going on to cite the "50-50 balance for affordable housing, one of our proudest and greatest accomplishments as an organization." Then she writes, "In the years to come, 2,250 more families will have housing in a neighborhood that was moving in the wrong direction... If this project can stem the overwhelming tide of gentrification in central and downtown Brooklyn one iota, then it will have been worth it for the housing alone."

As noted, only 900 units are aimed at those below Brooklyn's median income. The other 1,350 affordable units will go to people with a median income of $75,000, surely not ACORN's constituency. And, as Lewis somehow neglects to notice, there's no longer a 50-50 program for the project as a whole. The 50-50 housing deal covers only the 4,500 rental units. Since then, Ratner has announced plans for 2,800 market-rate condos, surely part of the "overwhelming tide of gentrification."

---------------------


Then you ask me, personally (and why not use your real name since you are calling out others who are willing to do so), where I've been on the fights in Downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg/Greenpoint. Where I've been is at at the hearings on those rezonings and the protest/rallies around them. As well as helping to try to save the Duffield Street homes, faced with eminent domain, which appear to be Underground Railroad sites (what have you or ACORN done about that, an activist pissing match knows no ends). Where I've also been is working on the Ratner proposal 12 hours a day for 2 years. But see, I don't represent myself as one of the country's great low-incoming housing organizations. Do I support truly affordable housing? Absolutely. Do I support selling out whole communities to achieve that housing when its wholly unnecessary to do that selling out? No, I don't.

AND whatever ACORN may be geting out of Ratner regarding housing, it has not happened in a vacumn. Without massive opposition to the project ACORN would not have had the leverage to negotiate the same insufficient housing deal they have negotiated; because ACORN expressed support for the project LONG before they reached their deal. It is the opposition that has put pressure on FCR to make "concessions," insufficient as they are.

So no, I'm not too busy scoring political points. I'm too busy fighting off a corrupt developer, his corrupt political cronies, and the "community groups" that have played along with all of it.

I'll repeat: a housing organization that supports eminent domain is conflicted. And struggling for 421a reform while ignoring that issue and so many others does not excuse ACORN from the criticisms above.

a person trying to defend his right to continue living in a home he has made, and not get bullied off it, is not "trying to score political points" - he is standing up for his personal rights.

the people fighting ratner are doing so in a volunteer capacity. whether or not they have not fought other injustices has nothing to do with the value of the energy they are putting into fighting an injustice that has confronted them. rather than point a finger at them, one should point a finger (assuming, ofcourse, that finger-pointing is warranted) at people who took the easy buyouts at the first chance they got, and left their neighbors stranded with fighting a development that will destroy existing communities. It makes no sense to criticize those who are working on one issue, for not working on other issues. Instead - wake up those who are not working on _any_ issue.

So Danny Denial ..... if all that is true, then why is DDDB calling an Astroturf group on Manhattan's West Side that supported Eminent Domain, resident and business displacement a la Acorn style, as "our allies?" It was right in one of DDDB's newsletters.

Brad. In NYC where all you have are Democrats and kleptocrats isn't it our job to criticize Acorn when Acorn sides with the kleptocrats.

And let's not forget the Whooping Families Party as an extension of Acorn and Bertha Lewis. Look at all the horrible people they have endorsed ... Vallone, Fields, Quinn. These are not people who fight for neighborhoods.

Gotta love them trust funds...

From CRAINS:

"Forest City Ratner, while promising to make every attempt to buy all the property it needs to build its Atlantic Yards project, expects eminent domain will be needed. Three residents in particular have yet to sell their apartments to the developer. Forest City expects two will come to terms, but not Daniel Goldstein, who leads opposition group Develop, Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. He’s the sole occupant left in a 31-unit building in the footprint of Forest City’s proposed basketball arena. The developer believes that Goldstein’s family money enables him to make a stand on principle and that he is determined to do so. Goldstein says that he and others will fight condemnation to the end."

With all due respect to Brad Lander. He's dead wrong. There is nothing wrong with critisizing groups like ACORN that sellout to big developers like Ratner for phony agreements like the CBA. Secondly how dare Acorn or should I say Bertha Lewis claim to represent the community.Show me some ACORN people that live in Prospect Heights.Most of the 8 so called "community groups" that signed the CBA consist of one person being paid by Ratner and half of them aren't even incorporated. Good luck trying to get information on when they came into existence.

Brad Lander makes it sound like everything is black or white, clear-cut, and simple. Criticizing ACORN for some moves they have made is not standing against them--its healthy politics and civic activism. And I hope that ACORN feels the same way and therefore listens to the critics. ACORN's style is evolving dangerously. Showing up when paid or contractually obliged to do so, like at a Boro Hall rally last year, undermines their street credibility big time. A lot of us who have supported ACORN in the past are worried. Certainly I am. I want and expect better of them.

Steve Ettlinger

This is a good & much-needed debate. Thank you mark for kicking us off.

I think over the last 10 years or so that I have been organizing on NYC, I have come to know many people who have posted here. I also have intimate, first hand knowledge & experience both working with ACORN & in neighborhoods they have worked in. Let me give you an example.
About 3 years ago, I was walking down a Brownsville street, popping in & out of buildings, posting flyers about organizing to get repairs. A woman & (I assume her son) asked what I was doing, saw the word organizing & literally chased me out of the building, screaming me at me & saying that I should go back to ACORN & not come back. On several other occasions I was told by tenants that they formerly had a tenant association that was staff-run by ACORN. Basically, they collected dues, ran some meeting with either a landlord or managing agent & then bounced.
There are a lot of folks in the BK that hear the word organizing & loose their mindas bc of their experiences withy ACORN.
I have also worked with ACORN in the past on a joint venture public meeting. ACORN had several members present testimonies, all of whom read the same exact statement that was written by the leade staff on the event. I know this bc both the lead staff & the ACORN members told me directly.
ACORN has spent many years accumulating a considerable amount of power, this is true. But at who's expense? At what cost and what have they done with it that has been significant in providing meaningful change for those they claim to represent?
And why has everyone been hating on Bertha Lewis alone? She doesn't run ACORN alone. After all, she seems to me to be the Condie Rice of Organizing, merely the politically correct vision we all like to see. Brilliantly smart but aligned with the worng crew, IMHO. What of John Kest? He has a larger role in this than we will ever see in the press.
Let's give equal blame to everyone. ACORN has been steamrolling over our movement in ways we dislike & disagree with, taking credit for work they had nothing to do with, incrouching on turf that has been organized by another CBO for decades & all of us who feel like we oppose it, have spent our time talking about it amongst ourselves, looking over our shoulders hoping no former ACORN staff (there are a lot of them out there) is around to hear what we really feel. We should say what we feel when we feel it to whomever it is directed at, at the time. I know I have & have gotten hell for it & eventually got pushed out of a job for it.

I could swear NRM's remarks describe Mike McKee and Tenants & Neighbors. I have seen McKee and T&N waltz into situations organized by other groups and attempt to take credit for them. I have seen them call up reporters and take credit for events organized by others.

While I don't have personal experience with Acorn or their organizing methods, I am more concenred about some of the policies they are pursuing ... community benefits agreements that undermine local efforts, zoning that creates trickle-down housing giving developers huge bonuses, etc.

The danger of all this (and WFP is not excluded from this criticism) is that so-called liberal hacks (usually members of City Council but also other elected officials) use groups like Acorn in order to sell-out their districts and their constituents and create the illusion they are actually working for affordable housing.