March 6, 2008 Issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified Chestnut Hill Local Don't Miss an Issue, Tell us what you see or Winner of Two |
Opinion
Rate increases the right move Though some expressed fear that such increases might price us out of reach of some, rising costs made the moves necessary. The vote to increase rates was the right one. The Local’s rates will increase from $20 for a year’s subscription to $28. The single-copy newsstand price will go up from 50 cents to 75. Membership in the association, which includes a subscription to the Local will be increased to $50 from $30 per year. These increases are the first for both the Local and the association since 1996. Why, you may ask, are the association and Local raising their rates now? It should come as no surprise to regular readers that both organizations have been running at razor-thin margins of solvency for a long, long time. In fact, numbers contained in the recently completed audit for the fiscal year ending March of 2007 revealed the combined organization was $26,701 in the red. (Obviously, that fiscal year ended almost a year ago and the financial situation has changed; we just won’t know by how much until the 2008 audit is complete.) The financial picture has not been rosy. The challenge of these rate hikes was to balance the need of the association and the Local to be self-sustaining with the commitment of both organizations to be as inexpensive, and thus as inclusive, as possible. With increasing costs for both organizations, however, what was once possible is no longer so. The time to act had arrived. For the Local, the newsstand price puts us in the company of much larger papers (e.g. The Philadelphia Inquirer). The subscription rate, however, will remain far below the average of most community weeklies. For the association, $50 brings its membership rate in line with most other civic associations in the area. And no other membership that I know of includes an annual subscription to a weekly newspaper. The bottom line is this: increasing the rates of the association and Local was not approached lightly. Both organizations should remain committed to offering their services for the lowest price possible. And readers and members can be sure these rate increases are not going into anyone’s pocket. They reflect only the rising cost of business. A generous gift It’s worth recognizing Chestnut Hill Hospital for again making the largest donation to the Chestnut Hill Community Fund. The $12,500 it gave this week is the largest donotion to the fund by $7,500. The hospital is certainly not the only organization that is generous with its money, but it’s good to know that an out-of-town business that caused some dismay when it purchased the hospital several years ago, is still capable of contributing to the community. Pete Mazzaccaro
Opinion: Why I fight (it’s my job) In this one I will be serious. I will explain it all without sarcasm, obscure references or gonzo flourish. Because it is about to get serious. After last week’s CHCA board meeting, someone I like and respect told me that because of the things I write, I was making her job difficult. Her job? Getting people to join and support the CHCA. As someone who appreciates the problems of workers, I took this criticism seriously because I was given a job once, and I took it seriously. The job was given to me by the CHCA board, when it formed the Oversight Committee. We got the authority to investigate mismanagement on the board. The committee included two lawyers and a former banker. I admit that members other than myself did the vast amount of the work, but I reviewed the findings and contributed my opinions. It was my job. The findings, vetted by the attorneys, included, but was not limited to, bank fraud, defrauding a government agency and improper disbursement of funds to members of the board. If you found this out, what would you do? We did our job, wrote the report and presented it to the board. When we presented the report, the newly elected board did not act on our findings but rejected them out of hand, without contrary evidence. Many members of the new majority who rejected the findings had been implicated in the wrongdoing. The board then disbanded the Oversight Committee, which had by then completed less than half of its three-year term. For doing its job. At this point, those on the committee who were more reasonable on this matter than I, felt that the CHCA should be allowed to resolve these problems internally. We proposed a forensic audit. The board refused. We offered to pay for it with outside funds. The board refused. We instituted legal action to allow the forensic audit to proceed. The board fought it, with the help of one of the trustees of the Chestnut Hill Community Fund. But our attorneys have been successful, and the forensic audit will take place. The stonewalling actions by the board point to this conclusion: that this audit will corroborate the committee’s findings, not only that board members committed the actions listed in the report, but that other board members, many of whom are now in control of the board, are involved in a cover-up. I found this out while I was doing my job. If you knew this, what would you do? I continued to ask questions about this unresolved and serious matter at meetings and in print. At meetings, I have been ignored by the chair, gaveled down with prejudice while others have been allowed to speak at length in opposition to me without interruption, shouted down and cursed at. I understood this, because most of those who did so were either involved in the aforementioned acts, were friends of those who were or involved in the cover-up. But there is another group of people who disapprove of my actions. They say that criticism of the board keeps people from wanting to be involved in it, that it reduces their desire to support the CHCA. We certainly know that this argument has merit. How many of us have become disenchanted with governmental organizations at all levels because of all the criticisms we have heard? And how many of us, in particular how many members of the board itself, would refrain from criticizing the war, or energy policy, or the state of our civil liberties because it might erode support for our armed forces, industry, or the Justice Department? But how can we keep silent? In a democracy, it’s our job. Allow me to make a counter argument, one that many of you share, for you tell me about it every single day. The reason that so many of you do not attend meetings, (predating any of my “disruptive” activities), do not join, or support, or care about the CHCA and its board, is because you think it is run by a combination of patrician prigs, social climbers who wish they were, vest pocket political bosses who can’t make it in the big time, flim-flam artists, small time business hustlers trying to make a buck off CHCA connections and lonely power freaks who get off pushing the rest of us and the Local around. And a small minority that tries to stop the excesses and inevitably gets plowed under. And further, if you know, as many of us do, that CHCA moneys have been used to pay for services that were based on relationships between board members rather than needed expenditures, why would you give them any money at all? (A word to the wise: All CHCA contributions can be earmarked for particular programs — a fact I tried to get included in the brochure, but they blocked it. What does that tell you?) The people who already disdain and distrust the board don’t come to meetings, so the board thinks they don’t exist. But their very absence proves my point. If they liked or even cared about what the board did they would be there to admire and support it, in numbers higher than six. But you stop me on the street, in stores, bars and restaurants, and tell me to keep it up, to try and stop them from hurting the neighborhood, stop them from bowing to developers, to banks and to Snowden. And to expose and prosecute those who broke the law and try to cover it up. So with much respect to one who feels that my actions make her efforts more arduous, I must continue to do so. Because that’s my job. And now, since I can’t be at the Mommybar meeting on Thursday night, let me tell you what I think Sanjiv’s up to. You may think it’s just about Moms getting wasted while the kids get saliva on communal plastic and strangers. But here’s the skinny. The extra floor space (and liquor license) he wants will give him enough square footage to rent to a chain restaurant when the inevitable end comes to this bold new direction in child care. “Welcome to Applebees! My name is Sean. Can I offer something frozen and packaged thousands of miles from here”?
Words are cheap — or are they? Recently we’ve heard the phrase frequently in Hillary Clinton’s speeches, as she tries to contrast herself with Barack Obama. As I’ve listened to her, and to his responses, I’ve been thinking that those three simple words aren’t as simple in meaning as one might suppose. First, words indeed can have motivating power. And though I hate to say it, sound bites sometimes do, too. “Give me liberty or give me death” was a rallying cry for American independence over 200 years ago. Second, “mere” words have consequences. When they are words of gossip, they affect others, sometimes irreparably. There’s a story in the Jewish tradition that goes something like this: In a small village lived a man who gossiped a lot. The people in the town were upset with him because of the things he said. He went to the rabbi to see how to repair the damage he had done. The rabbi asked, “Do you have a feather pillow at home?” The man nodded. “Come back tomorrow and bring that pillow with you,” said the rabbi. The man found the request strange indeed, but he did what the rabbi asked and returned with the pillow. The rabbi proceeded to take a knife and cut the pillow open. Feathers flew everywhere, carried by the wind in all directions. Then the rabbi told the man, “Go collect all of the feathers and fix the pillow.” “But I can’t!” the man cried. “There are so many feathers and they have flown so far away! I will never find all of them.” “That is the point,” said the rabbi. “Just like the feathers cannot be gathered from the wind, so the unkind words you’ve uttered have spread throughout the village. You can’t take back your words once someone has heard them.” Sometimes words have dire consequences for the speaker — as when a religious leader criticizes the business practices of a major donor, or a journalist digs deep into government corruption, or a neighbor reports a crime to police. Some words — even though they are true — result in imprisonment or even death. You can bet that the fat cats of his day took careful notice when the prophet Amos (4:1-3) said: Hear this word, you cows of Bashan On the hill of Samaria — Who defraud the poor, Who rob the needy;… My Lord God swears by His holiness: Behold, days are coming upon you When you will be carried off in baskets,… And taken out [of the city]… And flung on the refuse heap. — Thus declares the Lord. Barack Obama has said that he would talk with foreign political leaders even if they are “enemies” of the United States. He has been criticized for that stance. Apparently to some, even just talk is just too expensive. That’s an attitude I have never been able to understand, whether on a personal or an international level. I figure that if my perspective is sound, I have nothing to lose but an argument. It wouldn’t be the first time. A couple months ago I was invited to join other religious leaders on a Compassionate Listening trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Among 20 Delaware Valley clergy and religious activists leaving on March 24 for nine intensive days are Rev. Clifford Cutler, of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Chestnut Hill, and Imam Abdul-Halim Hassan, of Masjidullah in West Oak Lane. With my presence, we will represent three major “Abrahamic” faiths of Northwest Philadelphia. In Israel and the West Bank we will meet with such figures as a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), an Israeli settler in the “occupied territories,” Jewish and Palestinian parents who have lost children in the recent Intifada, peaceniks, Arab citizens of Israel itself, rabbis working with interfaith groups — a whole range of people. While we have received a lot of support for what we are doing, there are some who are quite disturbed at the notion that we would talk to “enemies” — especially that I, a rabbi, would meet with people who “want to push us into the sea.” I figure that, since refusals to talk, issued on both sides of the Middle East conflict for 40 years, have not led to peace, trying to talk can do no worse. We will return with a snapshot of what life is really like for the people we meet, and hopefully with insights about what kinds of contact might lead, even if slowly, to peace. The least we can do is listen. [Rabbi George Stern is the Executive Director of Neighborhood Interfaith Movement (NIM), a coalition of 60 Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Unitarian congregations and faith institutions dedicated to building a more just and sensitive community through learning, service, and advocacy. NIM is located at 7047 Germantown Avenue.]
Opinion: Foreclosures point to national economic crisis The sub-prime mortgage scheme results in another huge transfer of wealth from poor and working people to wealthy lenders. Some of the lenders go broke; others amass greater fortunes. Sub-prime loans are those that are offered at a rate above prime to individuals who do not qualify for prime rate loans. Even though the rate may start at only 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent higher than the prime rate for mortgages and other large loans, each loan translates into thousands of dollars of additional interest payments. In the fine print of the loan agreements are clauses that let the rates go even higher. When families miss payments at the high rates, the families are threatened with evictions. Not only are victims cheated, but the transfer of wealth brings the nation closer to depression levels. The answers are simple: Issue a moratorium on foreclosures, place strict controls on lending, and embark on a major jobs program. However, the simple solutions have detractors. As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said, “The mortgage crisis of today is that rare public policy that lends itself to a simple and utterly foolproof prescription: Just stop it. End it. Shut it down. Right now, we need a moratorium on sub-prime mortgage foreclosures. Guaranteed, that will dam the flood of Americans losing their homes and their life savings. Government can do this — and fast. Instead, however, we’ve got the Bush administration letting the business community control what happens to working families. The results are more ‘voluntary measures’ for people with a huge self-interest in not stepping up to volunteer.” Instead of consulting groups representing home buyers — like ACORN, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, Neighborhood Housing Services, and the Center for Responsible Lending — the White House met with and took the advice of those that would gain from the crisis. Included in that advice was a warning, “Government restrictions would close needy people out of the home-buying market.” According to Barclays Capital, only 145,000 borrowers, 12 percent of the victims, would be eligible for Bush’s plan to freeze rates. Wall Street lobbyists called for covering only money-making mortgages. The Bush administration complied. The White House plan would freeze mortgages for those that are still paying, resulting in continued profiteering for lenders but disaster for the remaining homeowners. Furthermore, Bush’s plan is voluntary. Rather than disallow excessive mortgages, amounts that were far more than house values, the White House criticized homeowners for making “reckless decisions.” Many families who negotiate with lenders still will not be able to make the payments. Profits are a higher priority for the Bush administration than families facing foreclosure. Deregulation allowed the profiteering and is the direct cause of the foreclosure and housing crisis. AFL-CIO President Sweeney prescribed the remedies, “Moratorium is a first step, lending controls and jobs to stop impending crisis should follow. Bush and his allies have different opinions.” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) called the surge in sub-prime lending a “natural experiment” to test theories of those who favor deregulation of financial markets. Their experiment failed. Rep. Frank wrote in the Boston Globe, “To the extent that the system did work, it is because of prudent regulation and oversight. Where it was absent, the result was tragedy.” Lending laws that would have prevented the housing crisis were destroyed in the Reagan Administration. Those laws helped home buyers for nearly 40 years. However, under deregulation, mortgage brokers were said to act like drug dealers in a lending chain. That chain leads to “some of the most respectable Wall Street firms.” Large mortgage finance companies and banks, including Countywide, New Century, Option One, Fremont, Washington Mutual, First Franklin, RFC, Lehman Brothers, WMC Mortgage, and Ameriquest, accounted for $284 billion (59 percent) in sub-prime loans. Wall Street investment firms set up special investment units to purchase and resell the loans. While more than 80 mortgage companies folded and there were billion-dollar losses on Wall Street, the executives and officers of some mortgage finance companies cashed out before the market crashed. Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, the largest sub-prime lender made more than $270 million in profits selling stocks and options from 2004 to the beginning of 2007. And the three founders of New Century Financial netted $40 million in stock sales. The chief executives of Merrill-Lynch and City Group were paid $73.6 million. “It’s very disappointing,” said Michael Shea, executive director of ACORN Housing, a national group that provides homeownership counseling for low-income consumers. “Wall Street has made billions and now they’re hardly paying anything at all” for their role in the sub-prime crisis. While Wall Street profited, families lost their homes, vacant housing presented targets for crime, and cities lost tax revenue. One hundred thousand workers lost their jobs in construction, building supplies, real estate, and mortgage financing. Bush sides with the profiteers, and not one of the Republican candidates disagree. Even with the threat of national economic crisis, there are no signs of the Bush administration agreeing to solutions for the unemployed. Before the housing crisis, recession and depression were averted by high military spending and by borrowing against home equity. High interest rates limited the borrowed cash, and high military spending brings about war and poverty. As AFL-CIO President Sweeney writes, “It’s time to do much more than worry about an impending recession. It’s time to rebuild America with investments to create and keep good jobs here in this country, with an end to international trade structured to beat down working people across the globe, with health care reform that covers everyone and forces no one into debt or bankruptcy and with restoration of every persons basic human right to join together in unions and bargain collectively to improve their lives.” ush and each of the Republican presidential candidates oppose the AFL-CIO solutions; each prefers to cater to the “market” and let the nation suffer the consequences. Lou Incognito lives in Mt. Airy.
|
