Jersey City renters can’t keep up with a housing crisis fueled by proximity to New York City. A new right to counsel program, funded by development fees, could help.

“Two ordinances creating a new right to counsel program and new fees on development to fund affordable housing were approved by the Jersey City Council on Wednesday, June 14. The first ordinance allows tenants in eviction proceedings who make less than 80 percent of the area median income to receive a pro bono attorney. The second ordinance establishes a new fee for development.”

Read “Jersey City Grants Free Counsel to Renters Facing Eviction” at shelterforce.org

“The ordinance was the result of a year-long campaign by the Coalition for Right to Counsel Jersey City, and the campaign was recently endorsed by Jersey City Together. In New Jersey dot com, an opinion piece from a New Jersey City resident urged the passage of right to counsel, calling it a ‘moral imperative’ and saying, ‘Housing should not be a commodity to be traded and speculated on, but a basic human right. A right to counsel places us in the right direction.’”

Read “Jersey City Grants Free Counsel to Renters Facing Eviction” at civilrighttocounsel.org

By Mark Koosau

In a place that’s become known for its sky high rents and cost of living, Jersey City finally has a free program in place that will help tenants facing illegal evictions, funded by the landlords themselves, developers in the city.

The city council voted unanimously Wednesday night in adopting a right-to-counsel program, in which the city will provide free legal representation for tenants facing evictions, and a 1.5-2.5% fee on new developments that would fund its budget.

“You would be hard-pressed to find another city that is doing more on this front than Jersey City, as we have made meaningful policy changes when it comes to affordability and protecting our most vulnerable populations,” Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop said of the new program.

The program, which will be housed under the Department of Housing, Economic Development and Commerce, will allow tenants who are at 80% or below the area median income to seek representation in court if they are served an eviction notice. Attorneys will be either staff employees or a contracted firm.

It will also require the program’s director to compile a tenants’ rights and resources document, which must then be presented to tenants during a leasing, rent demand, or eviction, as well as to tenants of the Jersey City Housing Authority and affordable housing units.

“It’s a huge step for Jersey City working families,” said Councilman James Solomon, who was one of the sponsors of the legislation. “It’s going to level the playing field and ensure thousands of tenants stay in their home when facing illegal and unfair eviction.”

Read “Jersey City approves right-to-counsel program to help tenants facing illegal evictions” at nj.com

Right to Counsel Jersey City’s Coalition Chair, Isaac Jimenez, chatted with Hudson County View about how only a mass movement of tenants can win RTC JC, make sure it’s implemented fairly and justly, and fight back against landlord and developer interference.

Watch “Hudson County View Live - 06-13-2023 Guest: Isaac Jimenez” on YouTube

Connecticut tenants face a housing emergency. Already high rents have skyrocketed since 2020. Buildings in both the cities and suburbs are deteriorating under the management of negligent landlords speculating on our homes, posing health risks to adults and children. Evictions and homelessness are on the rise. Our rental vacancy rate is the lowest in the country—landlords can hold tenants hostage. Young people cannot afford to live independently, families are forced into overcrowded arrangements, workers cannot afford to live near where they work, and some are forced to flee the state altogether over the cost of housing.

Democrats held a super-majority this session and had the opportunity to boldly address this emergency, despite obstruction by the Republican minority. Tenants and our allies demanded a rent cap and good cause eviction protections to give us immediate relief and stability while we tackled the housing emergency head-on. Hundreds of us stayed up all night at the Capitol to testify about the urgency of taking on a housing system that’s unaffordable, unsafe, and unfair; rooted in legacies of racism and exclusion; and that is displacing many of us from our homes and communities. We were out on the streets of our cities and towns, in our community spaces, and in our apartment buildings talking to our neighbors. Polling showed the vast majority of voters agreed we should stabilize rent and take action to address exclusionary zoning. This was the chance to cap the rent, empower tenants, and begin to shift the immense resources and wealth of our state towards guaranteeing affordable and stable housing for all.    

SB 998 improves tenants’ rights, but it does not shift the paradigm of housing in our state—housing that’s unaffordable and unsafe for many of the 1.3 million renters in Connecticut. It does not address the systemically racist practices of suburbs that continue to lock-out disproportionately Black and Latine renters, and it does not increase the availability of affordable housing. We support SB 998’s limitations on eviction blacklisting by landlords, caps on application and late fees, higher fines for landlords, translation of notices and forms, and additional resources for security deposits. But these changes only skirt the edge of what tenants need and are demanding. They do not reshape our housing system to create prosperity for us all in Connecticut, and they do not prioritize the working class. Rent will keep going up. Landlords will still wield no-cause evictions to deter organizing or force out tenants for no reason at all. Power over housing will remain concentrated in the hands of the few.

The tenant-led housing justice movement is here to stay, and next year our movement will be even stronger. We will organize in our buildings and cities to protect each other as we continue to fight for housing stability for all, so that all of us can put down roots in the communities we love.

June 8, 2023, Co-Authored by CT DSA and CT Tenants Union

Right to Counsel has secured FIVE council votes for passage at June 14th's Jersey City Council meeting! With the ordinance poised for approval, we must continue to organize and ensure that the city commits to housing justice by enforcing RTC.

“They will be the fourth and fifth vote for this bill, guaranteeing its passage. Above all, their commitment to our residents means that Jersey City will pass one of the strongest Right-to-Counsel bills in the country, protecting tenants across the city.”

Read “With DeGise and Rivera on board, Jersey City RTC proposal poised for approval next week” in Hudson County View

(Image: https://www.transnational-strike.info/)

In our latest episode, we are talking about what we can do to stand up against apartheid in Palestine. A new bill sponsored by New York State Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani aims to stop nonprofits funding illegal settlements benefiting from charitable status. Zohran joins the show, along with the Adalah Justice Project's Sumaya Awad.

You can find more information about the The Not on Our Dime bill here.

You can also read the legislation here.

 

By Jonathan Martin

On August 4, 1997, 185,000 members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) led by president Ron Carey began a fifteen-day strike that would cost the United Parcel Service (UPS) over $600 million. They won 10,000 full-time positions with higher salaries and benefits, and preserved Teamster’ pensions from UPS takeover.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO at the time, said of the strike, “You could make a million house calls, run a thousand television commercials, stage a hundred strawberry rallies, and still not come close to doing what the UPS strike did for organizing.”

On August 1, 2023, UPS Teamsters, now numbering 340,000, are ready to strike again if the company refuses to meet their demands. In an economy increasingly reliant on drivers to deliver online orders, and a logistics sector awash in COVID profits, the leverage of such a large strike is unmistakable. This would be nearly twice as large as the powerful 1997 strike; in fact, it would be the largest strike in the United States since the 1959 strike of around 500,000 steel workers.

Burned by concessions, Teamsters elect new leaders

Yet just five years ago, militant action by the Teamsters was off the table. In 2018, when a weak UPS contract was brought to the membership by James P. Hoffa’s bargaining team, they rejected it. Invoking an obscure provision in the IBT charter, Hoffa Jr. forced the contract through, angering many Teamsters. 

Especially contentious was the creation of a “two-tier” system for drivers. New full-time positions that split time between driving and warehouse work would earn less pay overall, and have no protections from overtime abuse. Teamsters say that in practice these workers largely act as delivery drivers, earning less pay for the same work as others. (This video offers an in-depth explanation.)

For many Teamsters, the overriding of their vote rejecting the contract was the final straw. Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) had been organizing for decades to reform the union and elect a more militant and democratic leadership, and in November 2021 they saw success. Teamsters United, a coalition made up of Hoffa critics and TDU members, successfully elected fourth-generation Teamster Sean O’Brien as president, and TDU leader Fred Zuckerman as its secretary-treasurer.

O’Brien has promised militancy and a win for the Teamsters, no matter what it takes.

Teamsters pose an array of demands

This year, the “two-tier” system implemented in 2018 is a key bargaining issue. Removing the so-called “22.4” category for drivers would see thousands of full-time workers get an immediate bump in pay, bringing them in line with the other full-time drivers doing the same job.

The Teamsters also seek to raise the pay of part-timers, who often earn little more than minimum wage. In 1997, part-time work was a key issue that resonated with the public, and became a rallying cry for the striking workers. In an economy driven by gig and part-time work, this demand could once again be key to winning the support of the public and could galvanize demands by workers in other sectors.

Another key issue is forced overtime, where workers are required to work a sixth day of the week (called the “six-day punch”). The Teamsters also want to address the driving conditions of workers. Many UPS trucks lack air conditioning units, hospitalizing workers during heat waves. 

These are some of the top national demands. However, the national contract only entered bargaining 3 weeks ago, as regional “supplements” to that contract are still being negotiated. (Currently, Oakland’s Local 70 and Zuckerman’s former Louisville local, the massive Local 89, are in the two regions that have not yet settled supplements.)

UPS has already begun to cry poor, making negative predictions about revenue in an attempt to undermine the Teamsters position. In reality, however, profits at UPS continue to grow.

According to data from TDU, UPS ships around 20 million packages each day, and made $13.8 billion in profit in 2022. It dwarfs its competitors, controlling nearly two-fifths (37%) of all revenue from package delivery services in the US. The company plans to reward its investors with $8.3 billion in dividends and buybacks 2023. 

A crucial link in the supply chain, UPS moves 6% of the United States’ GDP each year. A strike could cost UPS $185 million a day. 

Solidarity Delivers the Goods

In the past year, East Bay DSA and the broader community have stood in solidarity with thousands of workers on strike. This includes public education workers in Oakland, and last year’s strike of 48,000 academic workers at the University of California. 

UPS Teamsters supported both those strikes, turning out to the picket line at Global Family Elementary in solidarity with OEA. Many honored loading dock pickets at UC, helping build the power of UAW’s strike. 

The Teamsters’ contract fight is already mobilizing UPS workers in every state in the country, but if they are forced to strike, it could galvanize workers across the U.S. in the way that the West Virginia teachers’ strike did for education workers nationally in 2018. The current struggle represents a huge opportunity for national organizing both in the broader labor movement, and for community supporters here in the East Bay. 

We can stand in solidarity by contributing to organizing funds, educating other workers about the working conditions and demands of UPS Teamsters, and preparing for a possible strike on August 1. These networks not only strengthen the power of contract fights and strikes across union lines, but represent important linkages as unions like the Teamsters seek to unionize Amazon.

DSA members and their communities are getting strike ready with UPS, and helping strengthen the wave of labor militancy sweeping across the country. Many have already pledged to support a strike. From Trader Joes and Starbucks, to the Teachers’ Unions, to UPS, our solidarity is critical in the working class’s fight against the bosses and billionaire class.

Add your name to DSA’s pledge to support a strike.

Jonathan Martin is a member of East Bay DSA. 

Quad Cities DSA hearts go out to the families of Brandon Colvin, Ryan Hitchcock, and Daniel Prien. The lives of these three were taken by the negligence of Andrew Wold, after testimony from tenants and contractors expressed the dangerous conditions of the 324 Main Street building. Policy and change need to happen in Davenport. The question is, when are city officials going to do that? The city of Davenport has a track record of deteriorating policy and change rather than progressing. Those impacted the most at 324 Main Street need justice, and community members need to hear solutions. Quad Cities DSA is here to work alongside the tenants and families affected by the tragedy at 324 Main Street and meet the needs of where they are at.

In January, Cambridge police killed Arif Sayed Faisal, a 20-year-old UMass student experiencing a mental health crisis. Despite multiple protests and community outrage in the 5 months since the shooting, neither Cambridge Police (CPD) nor the established Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) have taken any concrete action to address the situation.

On February 14th, CPD determined that “based on all of the information that has been reviewed so far, the department has not identified any egregious misconduct or significant policy, training, equipment, or disciplinary violations.” Perhaps this is true – but this pronouncement comes from the very party whose actions are under scrutiny. Why should we accept it at face value?

Decades ago, the PRAB ceded its power back to CPD – the very organization PRAB is supposed to monitor! The PRAB, instead of investigating allegations of police misconduct themselves, decided to let the “Cambridge Police Department conduct investigations on behalf of the board.” This is ridiculous on its face. It should go without saying that Justice  without impartiality is not justice. But if the history of US police violence over the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that the police cannot be trusted to police themselves. 

Per current ordinanc language, the PRAB is hand-picked by our City Manager – who is themself not elected. It is past time for an elected PRAB – not one that is 3 steps removed from the voters and that has given up on its job. If we want any transparency or accountability from CPD, we must have a review board that is (1) independent from CPD and (2) accountable to our community, not an unelected bureaucrat.

On May 22nd, City Councillor Zondervan proposed a policy order that would do just that – by putting the question of electing the PRAB on the November ballot.

This would be an opportunity for our community – a community that has shown its disappointment in the lack of police accountability and transparency in our city – to have input on police disciplinary procedures.

The process around this policy order – Order #96 – was an embarrassment to democracy. After Zondervan introduced the order, typically it would have been discussed, debated, delayed (if councillors wanted more time for consideration), and ultimately, voted on. Instead, Councillor Toner did something virtually unprecedented: he motioned immediately to end debate and move straight to a vote.

His motion passed with a 6-3 vote, with Councillors Zondervan and Nolan, as well as Mayor Siddiqui, dissenting. (It’s worth pointing out that besides Zondervan, the other two dissenting voices presumably voted no because they wanted to speak on the order.)

Councillor Toner’s platform lists “promoting civil and inclusive dialogue” as his number one campaign priority. It was anything but civil and inclusive for Councillor Toner to end debate before his colleagues had had a chance to speak. His motion was disrespectful and anti-democratic, and it flew in the face of his own stated highest principles. Disgraceful.

The other five councillors who supported the motion to end debate are also to blame. It’s one thing to disagree with the proposal, but it’s another altogether to stifle debate on it. What were they afraid of? 

Once that motion passed, Order #96 was voted on and failed 1-8, with Zondervan as the lone “aye” vote. Many councillors expressed that their “no” votes were based not on the content of the order itself but the spontaneity of its introduction and the lack of prior discussion on it. But these are the same councillors who voted to close discussion!

If these councillors had wanted more time to consider the order before open debate, there is a separate option for that: City Councillors have the right to delay a vote on a proposed order until the next council meeting. This is a commonly used tool among councillors to ensure they can make informed decisions before taking votes. That six of our nine councillors chose to close discussion outright rather than exercise this option has no justification. All six of these councillors say they want to do everything they can in the aftermath of what happened to Faisal, but when given the chance to discuss legislation that’s popular with their constituents and could have actually made a difference, they abruptly abandoned those commitments.

When they did so, they also abandoned their commitment to listen to their constituents. In fact, the idea of a democratically elected PRAB was conceived not by Zondervan but by a group of constituents who asked him to propose the order.

This episode was a gross miscarriage of democracy and showed a disturbing disconnect between the City Council and their constituents – the working-class Cambridge community. The order’s failure shows that the council is not listening to the growing movement of people demanding justice for Faisal and accountability from the police, which is itself beyond disheartening, and the manner in which the bill failed is equally, if not more, infuriating. 

The Council’s redundant policy rules forbid any councillor from reintroducing this legislation this cycle, meaning no one will be able to propose this order until 2024. Cambridge won’t have the option to vote on whether we want an elected PRAB in 2023.   With this shameful, anti-democratic vote, the Council has determined that the voters can’t be trusted to decide what police accountability looks like – despite the complete inaction and lack of transparency surrounding Faisal’s murder. 

I hope the voters will keep this in mind as we elect our council this November – and that we replace these vanguards of the status quo with a city council that will uphold democracy and fight for police accountability. As proud socialists, we know that civilian monitoring and investigatory oversight of the police is not the end of the road. We know that the only thing that will stop police brutality is defunding and abolishing the police. But we have to start somewhere. We can start by watching and recommending discipline.