Las Vegas DSA is proud to endorse two socialist candidates for the Nevada State Assembly:

• Val Thomason for Assembly District 10
• Shaun Navarro for Assembly District 34

Bios for each candidate can be found below.

These candidates reflect LVDSA’s commitment to building long-term, diverse, working-class power in Nevada by electing representatives who fight for the needs of everyday people- not corporations, wealthy donors, or political elites.

Endorsements are determined through a rigorous, democratic process. In order to qualify, candidates must be members of the chapter, willing to openly identify as democratic socialists while running for office, and pledge to not take any campaign contributions from for-profit corporations, for-profit corporate PACs, real estate developers or corporate lobbyists. Candidates complete a thorough online questionnaire before answering questions directly from LVDSA members at a town hall. Then, they must receive support of ⅔ of LVDSA members attending a monthly chapter meeting to be endorsed.

Now that these candidates are endorsed, LVDSA is committed to mobilizing volunteers, knocking on doors, making calls, and using people power to help these candidates win.

“An endorsement from Las Vegas DSA means more than just another logo on a flyer; an endorsement comes with a commitment to putting all our organizing power into getting these candidates elected. That’s why our rigorous endorsement process is so important – we can only make that commitment if we’re certain the candidates are just as willing as we are to fight for the working class” says LVDSA Co-chair Tiffany Stoik. “After Zohran Mamdani’s win in NYC, we have been feeling the heightened energy and excitement in Las Vegas as well. People are hungry for change, and eager for leaders willing to stand up and fight for them. We’ll do everything we can to bring these champions of the working class to the legislature.”

---

Val Thomason, Assembly District 10

Val Thomason is a single mother and longtime community organizer. She has been a DSA member for more than five years, joining after her deep involvement in the Bernie 2020 campaign. As an organizer with DSA, she has focused on building support for rent caps in Nevada, going door to door to speak with renters about their rights and needs. Val’s dedication to winning material gains for working people and building a mass socialist movement comes from her lifetime of experience with poverty, her experiences being evicted, and her desire to build a world that works for people like us, not the billionaires.

Visit valfornevada.com to learn more about Val or donate to her campaign, or visit lvdsa.org/val to get involved in LVDSA’s campaign to get her elected!

---

Shaun Navarro, Assembly District 34

Shaun Navarro has been a leader in the community for nearly a decade. As co-chair of Las Vegas DSA, he helped create a monthly mutual aid event for the unhoused community, showing up every last Sunday for 6 years with supplies and volunteers. He helped craft the free brake light clinic, repairing brake lights for free for low income families. He led the charge on Palestine, arranging protests and education years before the horrific events of 2023.

Shaun is a staple in the community, working to organize people to take power back from establishment figures who have let us down time and time again. Shaun is running for Assembly District 34 to continue this work, not as a newcomer but as a seasoned organizer ready to fight for his community in a new forum – Nevada’s legislature.

Visit navarrofornevada.com to learn more about Shaun or donate to his campaign, or visit https://lvdsa.org/shaun to get involved in LVDSA’s campaign to get him elected!

---

For more information about LVDSA’s endorsement process, visit lvdsa.org/endorsements

 

But since my aim was to write something useful for anyone interested … it would be appropriate to go to the real truth of the matter, not to repeat other people’s fantasies. Many writers have dreamed up republics and kingdoms that bear no resemblance to experience and never existed in reality;  anyone who declines to behave as people do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe

Nicos Machiavelli, The Prince

Zohran Mamdani’s victory disrupted politics as they were and inaugurated a new moment for what politics can and should be. It was also “proof of concept” of what socialist strategy might achieve and forced the question: could Mamdani’s strategy be replicated elsewhere? Does NYC provide a roadmap to advance the socialist project nationwide?

This article reviews strategic visions that differ not in ultimate goals but in paths and timing. On one side of the spectrum are those who suggest that conditions favor replicability and a national push now in time for 2028. On the other side, there are those, like me, who suggest that NYC’s campaign is more unique than presumed. Under these circumstances, a national strategy should prioritize expanding power in the most favorable urban areas, consolidating those strongholds, and using them as platforms for expansion when conditions and opportunities allow. 

Replicating the Mamdani strategy where conditions are absent will lead to large expenditures of resources that will likely bear little to no fruit. Yet, consolidation does not mean socialism in one city. DSA can prioritize deepening its influence where: 1) favorable demographic conditions exist, 2) organizational infrastructure is established, and 3) middle-class fracturing creates openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating NYC while expanding in LA or Chicago rather than less viable localities. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic, organizational, and political strategy and readiness.

The question confronting the Left now is which strategy best fits social and political conditions as they actually exist, not as we wish them to be. The Left is particularly susceptible to this error. As partisans, our identities are animated by an optimism that human emancipation remains a material possibility. Nevertheless, the value of our prognoses depend on diagnosing social and political conditions as realistically as we can and moving ahead on such terms.

In search of national replication

 “I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent. —Antonio Gramsci

Many on the left asserted that Mamdani’s candidate profile, message, coalition, and eventual win made clear that the time had come to take the fight for socialism to the national level. At the 2025 August Convention in Chicago, DSA activists enthused about the Mamdani surge precisely because it justified the “universal appeal” of their own foundational principles and norms. One DSA member asserted, “Campaigns like Zohran Mamdani… show that Palestine is a winning issue. That socialism is a winning issue…We can win the Democratic primary in 2028.” At the convention comrades buzzed with ideas about how to “Mamdani” their own locale. Daniel Goulden, an NYC DSA organizer, claimed “I think that the model that we used in New York is 100% replicable.” This sort of bold thinking has an important place in socialist strategy making. At the same time, precision matters.

Antonio Gramsci famously argued, “My own state of mind synthesizes these two feelings and transcends them: my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic.” The challenge consists in recognizing the need to bolster the will of the optimist through statements of faith and solidarity without undercutting the realism needed to exercise the analytical realism of the pessimist’s mind. Confusing desires for what ought to be with real analysis for what is remains a major intellectual pitfall facing all socialist partisans then and now, leading to mistakes that can cost the movement resources, time, lives, and freedom.

The Mamdani Coalition

In a November 2025 Jacobin article, sociologist Vivek Chibber offers a sober assessment of barriers to building a universalizing socialist movement. He explains that neoliberalism is undergoing a profound crisis rooted in both ideological exhaustion and political decomposition. The Left’s ideological evolution magnifies this weakness. Over the last period, much of the Left has shifted toward cultural and identity-centered frameworks detached from material conditions. For Chibber, “real politics…is based on materialism, not on a vibe, not on values.” The Left must therefore reassert economic issues and universal programs rather than relying on moral language or value appeals to drive mass alignment.

Electoral victories only have value if they are a means to building the institutional and intellectual infrastructure needed to sustain the working class as a political force. Mamdani’s win represents an opening to rebuild working-class power, not a shortcut to socialist advance at the national level. A viable socialist strategy must reunite ideology with material interests, rebuild working-class institutions from the ground up, and treat electoral wins as foundations for long-term hegemonic construction. Mamdani’s win proves Chibber’s claims half right. The campaign demonstrated the potency of a campaign focused on material questions. Mamdani won by anchoring his message in tenant protections, redistribution, and public investment.

However, what made victory possible in NYC was not overwhelming support of working-class voters for Mamdani. In fact, he did not win a majority of the poorest workers, nor of homeowners. The decisive class force was in fact made up of those Chibber largely dismisses: overwhelming young renters largely attracted to his messaging on housing, intersectional multiculturalism, and the “values… and vibe” he exuded. This layer of young renters often sees itself as a mutually recognizable, coherent social unit; in fact, it contains white collar workers (teachers, nurses, proletarianized graphic designers, artists, and musicians, etc.), a much smaller layer of few blue collar workers (especially those concentrated in city unions), gig workers, independent contractors, tech professionals, entrepreneurs, low level managers, upper-middle-class urbanists, and even a few aspiring capitalists.

Paths for going national

We can all agree that electability does not require sacrificing socialist principles, as Mamdani showed in practice. However, there are different ways for understanding the when and how socialism improves or undercuts electability across different terrains. Mamdani’s victory generated a surge of momentum that many comrades interpreted as proof of a broader political opening, transforming excitement into a shared belief that the socialist moment had finally arrived. His charisma amplified this feeling: activists saw in him a leader capable of embodying a universal message and carrying it far beyond the city. 

Chibber contends that neoliberalism’s legitimacy crisis has created a rare opening across the entire political landscape, weakening ruling-class ideology and exposing deep unmet material needs. In this context, a leader who articulates clear, class-centered demands can give national shape to working-class discontent. Yet Chibber insists that socialism cannot bypass the long march through organization. National advance requires rebuilding unions, party structures, and working-class institutions capable of sustaining the fight. So what can we take away from Mamdani’s campaign?

A Gramscian case for going national begins not with momentum or charismatic leadership but with the structural demands of the regionally specific “war of position.” [Subsequent Gramsci quotes from The Modern Prince] Because the modern state is fortified through countless institutions (schools, media, courts, bureaucracies, civic networks), any local breakthrough remains precarious unless extended across wider terrains. Gramsci argues that socialism must build national reach precisely because hegemony requires transforming “common sense” at scale, forging a worldview that resonates across regions, classes, and cultural groups. National expansion is not optional escalation but strategic necessity. Yet Gramsci warns that national advance must be grounded in patient construction of a “permanently organized and long-prepared force” capable of sustaining conflict in every trench of the integral state.

Maneuver is an “expansionary” battle within the larger war of position, and any successful maneuver must be followed by consolidation. Mamdani’s campaign represents one such battle: winning the Mayor’s Office captures a single fortification within a vast state lattice of institutions, norms, and counter-powers. Bureaucracies, police, legislatures, courts, and civic infrastructures can all move to neutralize or delegitimize a socialist breakthrough, reminding us that electoral gains do not equal hegemony.

The maneuver phase unfolds through several contingent moments. First, crises inside divided elites create openings when they cannot decide whether coercion or consent will worsen their legitimacy problems. Second, insurgents can generate a surge by communicating effectively, unifying disparate groups, and expanding networks through collective effervescence. Third, the intensity of such a surge can overwhelm poorly prepared adversaries, draining their resources and legitimacy. Fourth comes the actual capture of a government institution, an achievement that remains precarious without deeper foundations.

For Gramsci, hegemonic power means that the dominant norms and values of socialism would legitimize whoever governs, just as New Deal ideology constrained Eisenhower and neoliberalism structured Clinton and Obama. After fifty years of neoliberal dominance, simply winning the White House or a city hall grants position without the legitimacy needed for durable rule. The working class and the socialist movement have clearly not accomplished this at the present time.

Consolidation is therefore critical. In Gramsci’s terms, the “integral state” contains many entrenched sites from which old forces can launch counteroffensives. Electoral victory changes one node of power while leaving most legitimating structures intact. Gramsci warned that old forces concede only to “gain time and prepare a counter-offensive.” Post-victory periods must therefore be devoted to weakening adversaries, securing hesitant allies, and binding an inter-class coalition under a working-class hegemonic vision.

Once consolidated, preparation for the next expansion must begin immediately. Socialism cannot survive in a single city because hostile forces can regroup at higher or lower scales: federal, state, or regional. Class struggle is inherently expansive; withdrawing labor or territory from capital’s circuits creates threats that provoke counter-mobilization. Believing that consolidation alone is enough risks isolation and defeat. For Gramsci, the war of position continues until one side is definitively neutralized or overthrown; there is no stable equilibrium short of that outcome.

Local versus general political conditions

Using Gramsci’s theory of socialist strategy, Mamdani’s campaign is framed as a “war of maneuver” phase within the broader “war of position.” This analysis traces the phases of breaching state power’s outer fortifications, diminished capabilities of repair and closure, and the conditions enabling the campaign’s expansionary surge.

1. Political Crisis Breaches Fortification: Elite Fragmentation Blocks Fast Repair Without Closure

Mamdani’s socialism, steadfast criticism of Israel, and US policy toward Palestine precipitated opposition from key elites within the Democratic Party but not all. The political crisis of the Adams administration and its ties to the Trump administration had already fractured the fortifying power of party elites. The surging popularity of the Mamdani campaign diminished the capabilities of oppositional elites to close ranks in party networks. The result was elite fragmentation and not elite closure. Support from elites came at the cost of some compromises to DSA principles. Mamdani did not disprove the “socialist principles versus electability” dilemma. Rather, contextual factors diminished the capabilities of party elites to “close ranks or tank the game.”

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Elite Fragmentation

Elite fragmentation weakened the capabilities of the Democratic Party to fulfill their fortifying functions but did not deactivate it. Oppositional elites had sufficient power to prolong the campaign, but not enough to close ranks and deny Mamdani support in the general election. Fragmentation proved advantageous: it enhanced insurgent legitimacy at stages of plummeting incumbent legitimacy without costing access to all resources elite gatekeepers control. Mamdani secured approximately 85 elected official endorsements, 12 labor union endorsements, and 15 organizational endorsements, while Cuomo received 7 elected officials, 6 labor unions, and 3 organizational endorsements.

3. Preparatory Conditions: Past Consolidation Sets Stage for Surging Expansion

Past gains through maneuver had been consolidated and used as a platform to prepare and run for the next big expansion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 congressional primary victory mobilized hundreds of volunteers and knocked on enough doors to turn out approximately 25,000 voters in a race where far fewer voters were expected. AOC’s campaign demonstrated DSA’s viability in NYC electoral politics, provided an early proof of concept for the field organizing model, and helped normalize democratic socialism as a legitimate political ideology rather than a fringe position. That win, combined with Bernie Sanders’s two presidential campaigns, catalyzed national and regional debates about socialism, which helped foster recruitment into DSA chapters across the country and region. And NYC DSA’s many years of subsequent work developed strongholds across the city. Consolidation from earlier battles elevated preparation for the next big campaign.

4. Exceptional Expansion: Concentrated Networks as Fuel for Wildfire

Mamdani’s surge remains exceptional. Beginning at 1% in February 2025 Emerson polling when Cuomo dominated at 33%, Mamdani climbed methodically: 16% in April, 22-23% by late May, winning 56.4% to Cuomo’s 43.6% in the final ranked choice count—a 55-point swing in four months. He mobilized 26,000-30,000 volunteers during the primary who knocked on over 644,000 doors, expanding to 76,000 volunteers by the general election with over 500,000 doors knocked and 1 million phone calls. Networks attracted greater resources, labor, monetary contributions, and in-kind support for increasingly sophisticated citywide infrastructure.

5. Messaging: Centering Economic Issues, Sticking Close to Socialist Values

Mamdani’s disciplined messaging on material affordability (rent freezes, free buses, universal childcare) combined with progressive differentiator issues (Gaza, LGBTQ+ protections) helped broaden resonance while solidifying the loyalty of his core base. The message was also refined through constant testing of various iterations in base building politics, deftly exploiting Cuomo’s vulnerabilities from sexual harassment and nursing home scandals to position himself as the honest alternative against a discredited past.

Yet, even accounting for all this, Mamdani secured a thin majority (50.4%), approximately 17 percentage points less than Kamala Harris’s NYC performance in the 2024 presidential election (67.70%). He did not win a majority of votes in Queens, despite large investments of time spent canvassing and money spent on advertising. Mamdani won a plurality in the borough and does not appear to have converted many Trump voters. This was not a blowout or an overwhelming mandate.

Politically, Mamdani’s victory emerged from an exceptional convergence: fractured Democratic Party elites, a delegitimized incumbent administration, and activist networks capable of exploiting the breach. These conditions sharply reduced the Democratic party’s ability to coordinate a unified counteroffensive. Yet such fragmentation is far from national. In most states, party machines remain cohesive, institutional fortifications stronger, and local elites more capable of closing ranks. Without comparable organizational density elsewhere, a national offensive would confront far more fortified political terrain.

Breaking down Mamdani’s votes

Mamdani’s winning coalition reflects trends powering other DSA candidates into city council seats across the country, even if he is the first DSA member to win a mayoral race in a major city. The electoral coalition consisted of:

1. The Youth Vote: Powerful but Not Dominant

Approximately 75-78% of voters aged 18-29 supported Mamdani, compared to 19% for Cuomo and 5% for Sliwa. Young women aged 18-29 were more unified at 84%, while young men gave 68% support—a 42-point margin over Cuomo among young men who had shifted significantly rightward nationally. Youth turnout was strong at approximately 28%, nearly double the 14% in the previous mayoral cycle. The key was not that young voters became dominant but that they turned out at higher rates and voted with near-unanimous support.

2. Recent Arrivals: The Most Overrepresented Group

Among voters in NYC five years or less, 85% supported Mamdani—his most unified demographic group. Recent arrivals constituted 15-20% of his coalition while representing only 8-10% of NYC’s voting population. Mamdani’s coalition was young, mobile, renters. His message about rent freezes, universal childcare, and free buses resonated with direct economic self-interest.

3. Middle to Upper Middle-Class Coalition

Mamdani won the majority of voters earning $30,000-$299,999 annually. Those below $30,000 and above $300,000 favored Cuomo—a salient inversion for a democratic socialist. His strongest performance was among voters earning $100,000-$200,000, where he won 55% to Cuomo’s 37%. His coalition consisted of people with financial stability to care about cultural and affordability issues but not so wealthy as to be insulated from housing cost concerns.

4. The Multiracial Coalition

Mamdani won approximately 60% of white voters, 52% of Black voters, and 60% of Latino voters. White people make up only 31.3% of NYC’s population but roughly 40-45% of Mamdani’s voters. This reflects the concentration of recent arrivals, college-educated professionals, and gentrifying neighborhoods (heavily white) in his coalition. Mamdani also significantly overperformed among young Black voters (83% according to CIRCLE data) and in heavily Black neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn. Latino voters showed mixed support at 60%, which was 7% less than Kamala Harris’s 67% of the vote. Given Latinos’ share of NYC’s population (28.4%), this suggests that Latino voters split more evenly with Cuomo than other demographic groups. This split likely reflected class divisions and regional variation; working-class immigrant communities in some areas of Queens and the Bronx proved more responsive to Cuomo’s message. Mamdani won 49% of Asian Americans but 70%+ among young Asian voters. Approximately 90% of Muslim voters supported Mamdani, making this by far his most unified demographic group. He won only 31-33% of Jewish voters, creating a 29-point deficit compared to Cuomo.

5. LGBTQ+ and Gender Dynamics

82% of the 14% of voters identifying as LGBTQ+ supported Mamdani, translating to 10-12% of his coalition despite LGBTQ+ voters representing only 5-7% of NYC’s population. Young women aged 18-29 voted for Mamdani at 84%, compared to young men at 68%—a 16-point gap particularly striking given young men’s national rightward shift.

6. Partisan Alignment

Mamdani won 66% of Democratic voters compared to Cuomo’s 31%, demonstrating remarkable partisan cohesion. Among Independents, the race was tighter: Mamdani won 43% compared to Cuomo’s 34% and Sliwa’s 18%—a potential vulnerability in his coalition.

Socially, the coalition relied on demographics distinctive to large urban centers with high “culture industry” concentrations: recent arrivals, highly mobile renters, young multiracial professionals, LGBTQ communities, and culturally progressive middle and upper-middle class segments. These groups are overrepresented in New York but sparse across small cities, suburbs, and rural regions. Nationally, the working class is older, more rooted in place, more likely homeowners, more religious, and more culturally conservative. The social base powering Mamdani’s campaign is geographically concentrated, making national replication difficult without first reshaping broader conditions.

Urban conjuncture and the new socialism

A distinct urban conjuncture has emerged in a handful of U.S. cities, producing conditions far more favorable to socialist advance than those found nationally. These cities combine soaring housing costs, generational displacement, fractured middle-class interests, and dense networks of activists, tenants, and young professionals. It is within this alignment that Minneapolis, New York City, Los Angeles, and similar metros have become laboratories for new socialist politics.

For decades, American cities operated under a stable class coalition: developers received profitable construction areas while white middle-class homeowners secured low-density neighborhoods with appreciating property values. As housing became unaffordable, a younger generation—including both workers and middle-class professionals—found themselves priced out of homeownership. Housing became the central issue introducing intra-middle-class conflict within a class demonstrating remarkable unity since the 1980s. This generational conflict precipitated splitting of the urban middle class into three factions: NIMBY (dominant older fraction), YIMBY (market-oriented professionals), and DSA (abandoning homeownership aspirations, aligning with the working class for non-market solutions).

These divisions characterize New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other expensive cities where the young middle class cannot afford entry into the housing market. Mamdani’s coalition in NYC mirrors this pattern: his strongest support came from young renting professionals and workers who had defected from traditional middle-class politics. And this is not the first time we have seen this pattern: between 2010 and 2021, Minneapolis’s City Council shifted from three progressives to eight, driven by gentrifying neighborhoods with concentrated university-educated millennials. Similar dynamics are reshaping NYC electoral politics. 

However, Minneapolis reveals a crucial limitation: despite sweeping political victories and near-unanimous City Council support for upzoning legislation, the old homeowning middle class used its structural resources to block implementation through planning offices, county jurisdiction, courts, and the state legislature. Technical policy solutions, even progressive ones, cannot overcome fundamentally political problems rooted in lack of hegemony. Winning elections does not automatically translate to policy implementation when economic elites maintain veto points throughout governmental and civil society institutions.

The pattern is replicating in NYC. Mamdani won through coalition with young renters and recent arrivals, yet the old neoliberal coalition still controls courts, real estate boards, and bureaucratic institutions. His ability to govern will depend on constructing sufficient hegemonic power to overcome structural veto points.

So what is to be done? Mamdani’s victory was inspiring and points to a better future for socialists. Using Gramsci as a guide, the answer should be clear: we must fight a war of position, not maneuver. Why?

First, this was a very narrow victory with almost no margin for error at the national level.

The narrowness (50.4%) meant minimal margin for error. Loss of just 1%, approximately 10,000 votes, would have resulted in plurality victory with ranked-choice complications. Alienating even smallest fractions of constituent groups would have cost the majority—far more difficult to replicate in northern Wisconsin than Brooklyn.

Second, potential fickleness in the coalition.

Vulnerabilities were distributed unevenly. Loss of 15-20% of young voter support would have cost 25,000-30,000 votes. The greatest vulnerability appears in working-class support, which Mamdani split with Cuomo rather than dominating. A shift of 10% of working-class voters could have changed the outcome.

Third, the local trap and why the coalition cannot scale nationally.

The relative youth of his coalition (20-22% under 35 compared to 15-18% nationally), higher proportion of renters (67% in NYC versus 35% nationally), college-educated concentration, and high proportion of recent arrivals suggest demographic foundations specific to cities like NYC. A candidate replicating this strategy in suburban or rural areas would face different terrain. Homeowners (70% nationally versus 30% in NYC) would be significantly less likely to support rent control and wealth-taxation policies.

Fourth, he needs to improve margins with Black, Latino, and working-class voters.

He won a majority of the Black vote but not margins as large as past Democratic candidates. More concerning: Latino vote at lower margins than Harris in 2024, with Latino support for Democratic candidates dropping nearly 10% every election cycle.

Fifth, uncertainty regarding the left message.

Strident left positions drive high turnout in large global cities, especially among young gentrifiers, but may repel centrist blocs in suburbs and rural areas. Strong commitment to his critical position on Israel cost a large share of Jewish votes. His strong embrace of socialism resonated with youth but lost homeowners, many ideologically conservative Latinos and immigrants. In NYC, this trade-off worked because renters comprise nearly 50% of the city. Nationally, the split is 70:30 favoring homeowners. These positions admired in NYC may repel certain voting blocs while offering only limited reservoirs from which to extract new voters.

Conclusion: consolidate political territory, not just geographic territory

The fight for hegemony is a war, not a single battle. Electoral victory constitutes one engagement in a protracted struggle.

1. The goal of all parties is to achieve a socialist hegemonic project nationally; the point of debate is which strategy is best suited for achieving this end goal. This analysis suggests a strategy of scaling up to the national level through consolidating regional hegemony and using consolidated regions as leveraging platforms to propel expansion to the next opportune battle.

Mamdani’s coalition depends on specific structural conditions: high concentrations of young renters, recent arrivals, gentrifying neighborhoods, and university-educated populations facing permanent exclusion from homeownership. DSA should prioritize deepening its foothold in cities and regions where: 1) these demographic conditions already exist, 2) DSA has established organizational infrastructure, and 3) the fracturing of the middle class has created openings for working-class/renter coalitions. This could mean consolidating in NYC while contributing to expanding power in LA or Chicago, rather than upstate NY, if the political terrain is more favorable. The point is not geographic contiguity but demographic and organizational readiness.

2. Once a battle is won, consolidation of position becomes imperative through three simultaneous processes: securing the consent of civil society institutions, bolstering domination throughout the state apparatus, and neutralizing political enemies by extracting them from the structural conditions that enabled their power.

Enemies of socialist forces never truly disappear; they retreat into the shadows, awaiting opportunities for counter-offensive. 

Building our first instances of regional influence therefore requires simultaneous forward and backward movement: looking forward to construct intellectual and political leadership across an expanding and increasingly indomitable coalition, while looking backward to extract reactionary enemies waiting in the shadows, sabotaging and scheming for restoration.

In New York City, this challenge is complicated because political enemies come in multiple guises and display little consistent loyalty. This ambiguity blurs the line between friend and enemy when clarity is most needed. Mamdani’s dependence on a substantial Democratic base complicates efforts to target enemies within the party apparatus itself. However, he currently enjoys extraordinary levels of public support, which makes Democratic elites less inclined toward outright sabotage and more inclined toward a cynical strategy of appropriating his charisma and momentum for their own purposes. Recognizing this temporary advantage, Mamdani must move with strategic urgency to establish Democratic dependence on him for their political futures rather than the reverse.

3. Mamdani’s symbolic power is at its peak now and will wane. Maximal consolidation sooner will avoid closure and restoration later.

This moment provides his greatest leverage to consolidate asymmetric power relations over potential rivals within the Democratic apparatus, establishing himself as indispensable rather than replaceable to their political futures and livelihoods. With other enemies (reactionary business interests, the police bureaucracy, the real estate establishment) different tactics apply. These are the fickle constituencies least bound by party loyalty or ideological coherence. They respond to power and the credible threat of counter-power, not to appeals to shared governance or compromise. The tempo of consolidation matters enormously. Delay allows enemies to regroup, rebuild coalitions, and mobilize their substantial structural resources. The question facing Mamdani in his first months in office is whether he recognizes that electoral victory opened a war, not concluded one, and whether he possesses the strategic clarity and ruthlessness necessary to consolidate his position before the inevitable counter-offensive begins.

4. Hegemony must guide tactical choices over consolidation and expansions: Until a political bloc emerges capable of bridging these divides and constructing the intellectual and moral leadership necessary for genuine cross-class hegemony, urban governance will remain volatile and ineffective.

What is needed is not merely electoral victory but a transformative political project that unites diverse constituencies around a shared vision of the city as a common good and reorganizes civil society according to socialist principles. For DSA chapters, this means the painstaking work of organizing across class and racial divides to create hegemonic blocs capable of challenging the commodification of housing at its root, not merely winning individual campaigns but systematically constructing “the permanent organization of the intellectual strata” necessary to build durable, transformative political power. The Minneapolis experience demonstrates that without such systematic hegemonic construction, even left-wing electoral victories will be neutralized by the counteroffensive of established economic interests defending their structural position.

(October 2025)

Across Ecuador, Indigenous, peasant, and working-class communities have risen once again to defend life, dignity, and sovereignty in the face of a government that governs for capital, not the people. The Noboa government has answered peaceful resistance with systematic state terror—deploying thousands of troops to occupy Indigenous territories, firing live rounds and tear gas indiscriminately at protesters and residents alike, and criminalizing the very act of defending one’s community. The Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee extends our unconditional solidarity to the families of those killed and wounded, to the hundreds detained, and to the peoples of Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo, and every territory now under siege.

1. We join their demands

We endorse the demands articulated by CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), UNORCAC (Union of Indigenous Peasant Organizations of Cotacachi), FICI (Federación Indígena y Campesina de Imbabura), and allied popular organizations:

• Immediate repeal of Executive Decree 126, which raised diesel prices more than 50% overnight and deepened poverty across Ecuador.
  
• An end to militarization, emergency decrees, and curfews imposed under the false pretext of “public order.”
  
• Neutral, civilian-led humanitarian corridors, coordinated with the Red Cross and human-rights monitors — not military convoys disguised as relief.
  
• Freedom for all detainees, the dropping of “terrorism” and related charges, and full reparations to the victims and families of state violence.
  
• Independent, international investigations into killings, disappearances, and the criminal use of live ammunition against demonstrators.
  
• Guarantees of non-repetition: training, command accountability, and civilian oversight of the Armed Forces and National Police.
  
• Protection of Indigenous and community media, including Radio Ilumán, TV MICC, and Apak TV, whose journalists have been attacked or censored.
  

2. We reject the authoritarian referendum

President Noboa’s referendum is not a democratic exercise but a tool to consolidate executive power, criminalize protest, and entrench the neoliberal model that produced this crisis.

In solidarity with CONAIE and Ecuador’s social movements, we support the campaign for a nationwide “No” vote and affirm that true democracy lives in the assemblies, cabildos, and territories of the organized people—not in plebiscites designed to legitimize repression.

3. We affirm an internationalist duty

We call on the U.S. government to end all forms of military and police cooperation that enable repression in Ecuador.

We urge labor unions, Indigenous federations, and left organizations worldwide to send observers, condemn the violence, and amplify the media of the Ecuadorian movement.
We encourage DSA chapters and members to:

1. Circulate this statement through your chapter’s mailing lists, internal communications, and social media channels to raise awareness about the crisis in Ecuador.
2. Contribute to neutral humanitarian funds identified by CONAIE and UNORCAC.
3. Pressure their elected officials to demand an end to militarization and to support international investigations.

As we stand with the First Nations here, we stand with the Indigenous peoples of Ecuador — one struggle for life and sovereignty.

In Conclusion

Ecuador’s uprising reminds us that austerity and authoritarianism are two faces of the same project. The struggle against neoliberalism in Ecuador is inseparable from our fight in the United States for public goods, workers’ rights, and socialism.

From Quito to Chicago, from Cotacachi to New York, our struggle is one.

¡Ni un paso atrás! We stand with the peoples of Ecuador in defense of life, territory, and dignity.

DSA Declaración de solidaridad con el pueblo de Ecuador

(octubre de 2025)

En todo el Ecuador, las comunidades indígenas, campesinas y la clase trabajadora se han levantado una vez más para defender la vida, la dignidad y la soberanía frente a un gobierno que prioriza al capital, no al pueblo. El gobierno de Noboa ha respondido a la resistencia pacífica con un terror estatal sistemático, desplegando miles de soldados para ocupar territorios indígenas, disparando balas reales y gases lacrimógenos indiscriminadamente contra manifestantes y residentes por igual, y criminalizando la defensa de sus comunidades.

El Comité Internacional de los Socialistas Democráticos de América extiende su solidaridad incondicional a las familias de los fallecidos y heridos, a los cientos de detenidos y a los pueblos de Imbabura, Cotacachi, Otavalo y todos los territorios que ahora se encuentran sitiados.

1. Nos sumamos a sus reivindicaciones

Respaldamos las reivindicaciones articuladas por la CONAIE (Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador), la UNORCAC (Unión de Organizaciones Campesinas Indígenas de Cotacachi) y las organizaciones populares aliadas:

• Derogación inmediata del Decreto Ejecutivo 126, que aumentó los precios del diésel más de un 50 % de la noche a la mañana y agravó la pobreza en todo Ecuador.
• El fin de la militarización, los decretos de emergencia y los toques de queda impuestos bajo el falso pretexto del «orden público».
• Corredores humanitarios neutrales y dirigidos por civiles, coordinados con la Cruz Roja y observadores de derechos humanos, en lugar de convoyes militares disfrazados de ayuda humanitaria.
• Libertad para todos los detenidos, retirada de los cargos de «terrorismo» y otros relacionados, y plena reparación para las víctimas y las familias de la violencia estatal.
• Investigaciones internacionales independientes sobre los asesinatos, las desapariciones y el uso criminal de munición real contra los manifestantes.
• Garantías de no repetición: formación, responsabilidad del mando y supervisión civil de las Fuerzas Armadas y la Policía Nacional.
• Protección de los medios de comunicación indígenas y comunitarios, incluidos Radio Ilumán, TV MICC y Apak TV, cuyos periodistas han sido atacados o censurados.

2. Rechazamos el referéndum autoritario

El referéndum del presidente Noboa no es un ejercicio democrático, sino una herramienta para consolidar el poder ejecutivo, criminalizar la protesta y afianzar el modelo neoliberal que ha provocado esta crisis.

En solidaridad con la CONAIE y los movimientos sociales de Ecuador, apoyamos la campaña por el «No» a nivel nacional y afirmamos que la verdadera democracia vive en las asambleas, los cabildos y los territorios del pueblo organizado, y no en plebiscitos diseñados para legitimar la represión.

3. Afirmamos un deber internacionalista

Hacemos un llamamiento al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos para que ponga fin a todas las formas de cooperación militar y policial que permiten la represión en Ecuador.

Instamos a los sindicatos, las federaciones indígenas y las organizaciones de izquierda de todo el mundo a que envíen observadores, condenen la violencia y amplifiquen los medios de comunicación del movimiento ecuatoriano.

Animamos a las secciones y miembros de la DSA a que:

1. Difundan esta declaración a través de las listas de correo, las comunicaciones internas y los canales de redes sociales de su sección para crear conciencia sobre la crisis en Ecuador.
2. Contribuyan a los fondos humanitarios neutrales identificados por la CONAIE y la UNORCAC.
3. Presionen a sus funcionarios electos para que exijan el fin de la militarización y apoyen las investigaciones internacionales.

Así como apoyamos a las Primeras Naciones aquí, apoyamos a los pueblos indígenas del Ecuador: una sola lucha por la vida y la soberanía.

En conclusión

El levantamiento de Ecuador nos recuerda que la austeridad y el autoritarismo son dos caras del mismo proyecto. La lucha contra el neoliberalismo en Ecuador es inseparable de nuestra lucha en Estados Unidos por servicios y bienes públicos, los derechos de los trabajadores y la democracia descolonizada.

De Quito a Chicago, de Cotacachi a Nueva York, nuestra lucha es una sola.

¡Ni un paso atrás! Nos solidarizamos con los pueblos de Ecuador en defensa de la vida, el territorio y la dignidad.

The post DSA Statement of Solidarity with the People of Ecuador appeared first on DSA International Committee.

by Daniel F Systems are grinding down this city And unrest is risingA small group fights against passivityAnd is organizing At the heart of this group was a friendwith colorful charmThey fought against hate and oppression And shut down harm Their sense of humor was very fastand often sidesplittingThey planned events that were a blastand always welcoming […]

by Harlow Sinclair The dominant narrative is that police make our communities safer than anything else could. The biggest lie the devil ever told, they say, was convincing the masses he didn’t exist. The greatest farce is the idea that the police are the only thing standing between you and chaos. We accept policing on […]

While you were picking up your kids from school, Joe Hogsett, backed by Statehouse Republicans, and billionaire lobby groups decided that a democratically-elected school board isn't profitable enough.

This is an opinion piece written by an individual member and was not voted on by membership. Opinion pieces from members do not reflect the opinions of other members and are not chapter approved statements.

On November 27th, 2025, Now This Impact made this post on Instagram: “Karoline Leavitt’s family member was just taken by ICE,” with the caption, “The media war has only just begun … and you thought your family drama was bad …”

I want to talk about this because, as a leftist, no scratch that, as a human being, anytime I hear about these disgusting occurrences of kidnapping by the Trump administration and its army of racist terrorists, my heart breaks and my blood boils. 

You’d think that on a post by Now This Impact, a Left-leaning news and entertainment page, you’d find the same reaction to this; that you’d find people upset that yet another immigrant has been snatched up by ICE. 

Well, to an extent, you and I would be wrong. 

If you go into the comments, you have some reasonable reactions to a situation like this:

But once you start reading more of the replies to this—in my honest opinion, unempathetically captioned—post, you have comments like the following:

Obviously, I think the Trump family is terrible; I believe those serving in the administration are fascists. However, if you are genuinely anti-deportation and pro-immigration, what kind of backward logic is it to cheer for ICE terrorism when it happens to, mind you, the extended immigrant family member of someone in the administration? 

Imagine if you were taken by these masked cowards, thrown into a detention center, and facing deportation. Later, it came out that your ex-partner’s dad voted for Trump. Then, because of that, people said heinous stuff like this and cheered on your deportation. It just doesn’t make sense. 

Even if this person is a Trump supporter*, yes, as humans, we cannot help but feel justified in seeing our points of view and our fears come to fruition, no matter how horrifying (there’s the whole leopards ate my face subreddit), but to all of a sudden be cheering on the deportation of immigrants just to squeeze in an “I told you so!” is bizarre.

*As of writing this, WMUR Manchester has reported that Ferreira, “…has no bad blood with the Leavitt family, and has deep respect and admiration for the White House press secretary…” 

And the worst part of siding with the fascists is that, if we’re being completely honest, there is a 0% chance Karoline Leavitt genuinely cares. Do you really think this hateful person is losing sleep over their brother’s ex-fiancée, an immigrant, may I remind you, being detained by ICE? 

Absolutely not! She’ll just slip into her white robes like any other night and sleep like a baby.

Look, I’m not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but you even have people in the comments theorizing that maybe it was even Leavitt herself or someone else within the family orchestrating this so that the ex-fiancée can take full custody of their child.

To be honest, I don’t know whether there’s a custody dispute happening or what that situation is; it doesn’t really matter. We’ve seen that the people serving and supporting this administration have no morals and no empathy for anyone or anything.

I just got a weird, unsettling feeling from some of the reactions to this. It’s similar to people cheering about people losing health care, SNAP benefits, and other crucial social services. Why are we celebrating the dismantling of what little the capitalist elite allows us to have? It’s fair to be outraged, it’s fair to dislike people for their terrible views, but why the need for fireworks and party hats at the expense of the working class?

Leftist YouTuber Kavernacle recently made a video about racism on the left and how some liberals and leftists are fine with being racist as long as it’s toward someone with whom they disagree. If you want to see a different, perhaps more well-organized, point of view toward a similar topic, I’d recommend watching it.

We already know the people voting for conservatives are voting against their own interests, and yes, it is incredibly frustrating. I cannot forgive that a lot of these people do it out of disdain for immigrants, refugees, the native peoples of this land, LGBTQ+ comrades, women, and other marginalized groups, but do we really need to cheer on these horrible anti-human policies?

And look, I’ve taken part in this in the past; at times, I was reactionary to these situations because I thought, “Why should I show any empathy for people who obviously don’t give a shit about me?” But we have to realize this is not how we’re going to build solidarity within the working class. 
This is not me calling for centrism or “compromise”, not even a little bit, but please do not give these horrible people credibility by agreeing with fascism when it’s egotistically convenient!

The post On Liberal Hypocrisy   first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.

I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day.  When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have  talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice  of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind. Armistice Day has become Veterans’ Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans’ Day is not. So I will throw Veterans’ Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don’t want to throw away any sacred things. What else is sacred? Oh, Romeo and Juliet, for instance. And all music is.

-Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Tacoma seemed to bloom on November 11th, 2025. Beautifully painted clouds permitted plenty of sunshine to cast down on city streets. A lively crowd numbering just over one hundred trickled into the plaza bringing flags, or signs, or wearing a reminder of service. They all brought their fears, hopes, gripes, and their ideas about themselves and the land they grew up walking. It was a gorgeous backdrop for the city to recommence the annual observation of Armistice Day. The crowd respectfully encircled a motley group of tattooed, long-haired, sometimes bearded, always opinionated veterans wearing fatigues and patches. No dress uniforms, no military drills. It was about leaving all that behind.

Armistice Day opened with a land welcoming ceremony led by veteran Toby Joseph, Sr. He performed a moving rendition of his father’s love song and reflected on militarism from an indigenous perspective. Veterans spoke to pressing problems such as Veterans Affairs and LGBTQ+ medical care, the right to refuse illegal orders, and the history of active duty resistance. In one of the more memorable moments a physician and current conscientious objector spoke poignantly about his courageous decision to choose peace. Flanked by veterans stoically holding large pictures of Zahid Chaudhry in uniform and with family, Melissa Chaudhry delivered a tour de force keynote about her husband, moving me and many others to tears. Melissa sharply defended Zahid, elucidated the militarism that led to his detainment, and articulated beautifully the meaning of Armistice Day.

Zahid is a disabled veteran and immigrant; he is the President of Veterans for Peace 109 and for years has been an immovable fixture of the peace movement. He didn’t get to see the beautiful sky that day. He has been a comrade of mine for over a decade, going back to when I began organizing against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Zahid is wrongfully detained in the concentration camp known as the Northwest Detention Center on the Tacoma tideflats, two miles and a world away from city hall. As I write this, Zahid is experiencing cruel medical neglect and risks blindness if he is not released for required medical procedures soon. We would agree every person deserves excellent healthcare. It’s just especially cruel that a disabled veteran, with private health insurance in Olympia, risks blindness in the unnecessary custody of the U.S. government.

The day concluded with a memorial ceremony led by Pastor Shalom of First United Methodist Church. It was a wholly dignified ceremony that seemed to me life-affirming, peace-affirming, and inclusive. The enhancement of the remembrance ceremony to include not just our WWI veterans but all victims of militarism was beautiful, and only natural, given the armies can’t seem to keep the wars to themselves. The ceremony honored the original purpose of the day as imagined by folks like Kurt Vonnegut, while maintaining the universality that so many must have felt in the wake of the Great War. It is a high standard that future remembrance ceremonies will be based upon.

The weather was great for Armistice Day. The political climate was another matter; we gathered on stolen Puyallup land against a backdrop of hegemonic struggle, military belligerence, terror campaigns, genocide, and the rise of the authoritarian right across the breadth of the international system. At home we face surveillance, extra-constitutional policing, mass deportations, wanton nuclearisation, and the militarization of our streets. Political assassinations are on the rise. There is a massive military build up off the coast of Venezuela and already western operatives on the mainland. Domestically, our coffers are ransacked and public institutions are seized. Homeland Security has been allocated an unprecedented wartime budget to terrorize immigrants and urban dwellers for the delight of an increasingly openly white nationalist base. Trans rights are being ripped away. Peace is questioned as a value, human rights as a cause, and the worthiness of empathy itself is mocked by our leaders. The U.S. regime foolishly stokes dormant embers in the Caribbean and saber-rattles in the Pacific. The United States has funded, provided intelligence and abundant material support, and suppressed public knowledge of Israel’s genocide. We face a very real and imminent threat of ethnic cleansing and a collapse of LGBTQ+ and women’s rights. We face war.

So we celebrate peace. But we cannot simply enjoy the peace there is; we are without peace. It is only through resistance that we can create peace. It is only through solidarity that we can resist. And it is through love that we find solidarity. So we celebrate Armistice Day: Peace through Resistance.

by Eric Ard

The Oregon White Oak, also known as the Garry Oak (Quercus Garryana) is the only native Oak species in Washington state. A keystone species needed for endangered lifeforms like the Western Gray Squirrel, Garry Oaks occurs in the endangered South Sound Prairie ecosystem, and as such are also called Prairie Oaks by a select few enthusiasts. Prairie Oaks grow slowly in open areas, and support more species of wildlife than any other tree species in the region. This is due to the abundant food they produce (acorns), and their tendency to form cavities that become homes for various types of wildlife. On average, Prairie oaks don’t begin producing acorns until 30 years of age. 

The city of Lakewood in Pierce County is home to one of the highest concentrations of these oak trees in Washington state, once part of a vast oak prairie stretching beyond Pierce County into Thurston, Lewis and Skamania counties, then on into Oregon. There are isolated groves of these oak-prairies around Puget Sound as well in Shelton, Port Townsend, and Whidbey Island. The town of Oak Harbor on Whidbey proudly exclaims its oaken character, providing a map of the towns catalogued oak trees, and serious protections for these trees. Their resident Garry Oak Society successfully created a culture of appreciation for the gnarled specimens that dot the town. The state of Washington designates oak stands critical habitat for conservation, and in 2020-2022, I was a part of an effort to develop priority tree protections for Lakewood’s oak trees. 

None of this has stopped the proliferation of warehouses in Pierce County, who often set up shop on prime oak habitat. 

During the covid pandemic, a global logistics market that was hurdling towards more online shopping went over a ledge. Millions of people were stuck and home, and a new warehouse boom began. WallStreet firms read the writing on the wall, and invested big in logistics. Private Equity and investment firms rallied behind a new concept: the speculative warehouse. That is a warehouse built with the hope of attracting tenants. Many of these warehouses have been built and sit empty in Lakewood.

In 2023, Lakewood activist Christina Manetti saw her worst fears realized. She had sparked the effort to save Lakewood’s Garry Oaks after learning of a speculative warehouse slated for the Springbrook neighborhood that would cut down over 50 oak trees in the floodplain of Clover Creek. Some of these trees were over 150 years old. Bisected by I-5 and the McChord Air Force Base, Springbrook is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Pierce County, and is considered overburdened by air pollution. In spite of protests, the project broke ground, and put the oaks under the axe. This marked a string of defeats for oak activists in Pierce county, as we watched concrete and cement seal over our aquifer for more Wall Street speculation for the fourth or fifth time. In spite of protections for the rare Prairie Oaks, our laws do not allow us to truly get in the way of capitalism. The developers pay minor mitigation fees, and the habitat is lost for the next hundred years. 

The State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) allows a permitting body (city or county) to authorize an environmental review and request mitigation. It also authorizes these bodies to waive this process via a determination of non-significance. 

As chair of TDSA’s Ecosocialist committee, I learned of a proposal to build one of the largest warehouses in Washington state in south Tacoma, and organized our small membership to build opposition to the project. We knocked doors and drove turnout to a public hearing, where we learned just how far along the project already was.

The Bridge Industrial Warehouse was fast-tracked by the city of Tacoma as the lead permitting agency, and we quickly learned the limit of the state’s environmental protections laws. The project, which is now under construction, seals over even more of our non-glacially fed sole source aquifer with 2.5 million square feet of warehouse. We had no path within the law to defeat the warehouse. 

Front and Centered, a Washington-based legislative advocacy group introduced a bill in 2023 that would have created a lever to stop the Springbrook and Bridge Industrial warehouses. The CURB Act would effectively create a veto option for communities suffering from the cumulative effects of environmental harm. Lack of tree canopy and green space, air pollution from I-5 and Air Force Base McChord, and the existing burden of polluting industry would all be taken into account, as well as public voice. This bill did not make it to the house floor for a vote, in spite of democratic party control of the house, senate, and governor’s office. 

Bridge Industrial, the company behind the South Tacoma warehouse, rode a new trend: developing polluted land. Companies like BI offer municipalities a path to clean-up EPA-designated pollution sites that they couldn’t afford to remediate on their own. The “South Tacoma swamps”, where BI is constructing its mega-warehouse, is one such EPA superfund site, a former dumping ground for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail company. Companies like BI also peddle public safety, turning sites that function as homeless encampments and illegal dumps into trucking, concrete, and jobs. While this makes communities shudder, this offer makes neoliberal politicians and economic planners salivate. Under this form of capitalism, all economic growth is considered good growth, and even helps fund the government through new tax revenue to appease even some moderate social democrats. Never mind that they’re allowing Wall Street to carve up our communities and economic destinies how they please. 

Neoliberal economics has been the name of the game for some time in the county. Under the leadership of the Master Builders Association, a powerful developer lobbying group, Pierce County has consistently chosen to forget environmental protections in favor of economic development. The MBA fielded several County Charter Review candidates this cycle, and until recently held the seat of County Executive under their lobbyist Bruce Dammier. The unincorporated Pierce County community of Fredrickson is a prime example of this legacy. Designated a new industrial and logistics hub, Fredrickson today is more asphalt than anything else. Here the headwaters of Clover Creek, once the main drinking water source for the city of Tacoma, is besieged by a massive Amazon warehouse, Boeing plant, and the Niagara bottling facility, devastating the natural recharge of the aquifer and causing dry conditions downstream. 

A preemptive tool granted to municipalities is zoning. It was industrial/light commercial zoning that created the modern Fredrickson. Municipalities are granted this level of planning, if done ahead of time. Zoning cannot be changed once an investor has submitted a project, no matter how much the locals dislike it. This is playing out today in Dupont, where the city will have the distinct embarrassment of having a warehouse built directly across from their city hall, destroying over 20 acres of forest and a section of the beloved Sequalitchew Creek Trail. The Dupont West project, another speculative warehouse, is a product of poor planning, loopholes in regulation, a polluted site, and a city leadership afraid to confront an economic giant. My watershed-based advocacy organization, the Clover Creek Restoration Alliance, organized against the Dupont West project, which was unanimously opposed by the town residents. Large projects with environmental impacts like Dupont West are arbitrated by an appointed judge called a hearing examiner, who reviews state law, as well as county and city code to determine the legality of a project. During this time, public comment is accepted into the record as a part of the consideration. On rare occasions, members of the public are able to persuade hearing examiners that development proposals are not consistent with the law and must be rejected. More commonly, mitigation measures are recommended and projects are approved. In the case of Dupont West, the project is to be on a site steeped in history, the site of the first Methodist Mission in the state, as well as the first Fourth of July Celebration in the Washington territory and thousands of years of indigenous history primarily associated with the modern Nisqually tribe. The hearing examiner ruled that the project be approved, but ordered the developer to provide a small buffer around the historic mission marker as mitigation. The historic Methodist Mission Marker will now be cartoonishly placed as an island amidst a sea of asphalt. 

The last option available to cities is that of eminent domain, a power to force the sale of private property for the public good. While we made a strong case for the city of Dupont to do so, the timid town councilors refused to consider this in spite of public support, fearing the financial burden and a potential legal battle. 

As a solely rain-fed system, the watershed I advocate for, the Clover-Chambers watershed, is uniquely harmed by these warehouse projects. The impervious surfaces created by large buildings, asphalt, and even the non-native turf grasses repel the water needed to replenish our wells and flush them into storm drain and retention ponds, picking up pollutants like the salmon-killer 6-PPD, found in most tire dust, along the way. Add in the state of drought we find ourselves in today, with rainfall at 50% of average (75% is considered drought conditions), and we find ourselves in a water crisis. Lakewood, Spanaway, Dupont, JBLM, and Parkland all rely on water drawn from aquifer wells. Tacoma also considers the aquifer its back-up water supply, should water from the Green River run low. Warehouse impacts are being felt in the rest of the county as well, like in Puyallup, where the Puyallup tribe has filed an appeal against the city and a new mega-warehouse that would pave over critical farmland. To neighboring King County, we also must remember the loss of the farmlands in the Kent valley, which are now almost entirely warehouses. 

As climate change worsens, it’s expected that a majority of alpine glaciers will vanish in the next 25-50 years, meaning more water demand and less availability from here on out. Global temperatures are rising as well, as is population and demand for electricity. There is absolutely more that can be done for mitigation. Warehouses are a blank canvass for the production of solar energy. Permeable pavement and eco-friendly design like green roofs, tree retention, native landscaping, or even submerged structures would reduce the blight on the environment. And at the core of the issue, communities need to be able to democratically plan the communities they live in, and if needed, reject economic plunder. Under the madness of capitalist development, we must stop condemning our future to a hydrophobic, polluting, heat island Warehouse Hell.

by Sean Arent

On Wednesday, November 19th, Hogsett’s ILEA board presented several models that do not solve the real problems that threaten quality public education in Indianapolis. ILEA members, parents, teachers, advocates for […]