Part I: Falling Short

The proposed Troy zoning code, ReCode Troy, is a missed opportunity to make a real impact on our code. The revisions, as they stand, are at least marginally an improvement on our existing zoning code. They’re even an improvement compared to many municipal codes in the area. But what they lack is the follow-through in the vision they paint for the future of Troy. In fact, while the code itself cites climate change and a high-quality urban environment as part of its purpose statement, it falls short in a few, critically important ways.

First, the Single-Family use districts – and Neighborhood I zones in the quasi-form-based code proposed here – are systemically racially discriminatory and classist, contribute to a tremendous amount of traffic violence, and is essentially climate change denial in land use form. 

While the purpose statement did not address social equity and racial justice, it should have. The issue is too important to the residents of Troy, and our regulation of land use has a direct impact on these issues. The connection between single-family zoning and redlining is well established (The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to name but one among many, many other books, academic articles, essays, and other research). Additionally, the exclusion inherent in single-family zoning that disproportionately affects people of color also extends to anyone of lesser means – excluding them from living closer to jobs, recreation, commercial opportunities, natural resources, schools, and other community resources. 

This land use means that the working class (which are disproportionately people of color) must travel farther to access these resources – to the extent that they are allowed to at all. The farther travel means even higher costs of driving and further reliance on vehicles that are expensive to operate and maintain. It means longer transit trips that are exacerbated by the sprawling form of development encouraged by single-family zoning. It means more dangerous bike, pedestrian, and driver journeys from frustrated and distracted drivers that are compelled to slog through endless traffic promoted by this zoning. 

These extended journeys also highlight how single-family zoning is climate denial in land use form – it requires nearly everyone to drive everywhere. Since even short walking or bike trips feel unsafe because the development pattern prioritizes vehicle movement, most people drive – continually adding more and more carbon, brake and tire dust, and other pollutants into our neighborhoods. 

Single-family zoning also is incredibly inefficient. From the amount of energy needed to heat, cool, light, and generally operate larger, detached houses to the horrendously polluting lawn equipment, loosely regulated application of pesticides and fertilizer, and the tremendous amount of fresh water applied to larger lawns, the single-family zoning that encourages this type of built environment is simply unacceptable with the climate crisis now in the single digit years away from irreversible tipping points leading unimaginable death, suffering, and strife. With all of us collectively staring down the barrel of such a future, how can we tolerate doing more of the same things that got us into this mess any longer? To begin to improve a situation, we have to stop doing the behavior that got us into it.

While a zoning code cannot – on its own – solve the climate crisis, it actually does play a massive role. We can stop making things worse, and perhaps even begin to reverse some of the damage that we’ve collectively inherited. Just as important, we can also stop reproducing structures rooted in racism and classism. We should simply not have any single-family districts or Neighborhood I zones in the city of Troy.

It’s important to remember that a zoning ordinance is not (as we sometimes think about it) a document about what we want to see where. It is a document about what cannot be where. Single-family dwellings can still be built in all of the residential zones (aside from the Downtown and Waterfront Mixed Use districts). Single-family districts (and Neighborhood I zones) are exclusionary to large swathes of the residents of Troy – both current and future – and compounds this social ill with safety and ecological ills at the same time. In 2022, we should have the courage, and vision, to say that Troy has progressed beyond exclusion, carnage, and denial. Troy should be leading the way for the region, state, and country by embracing an equitable, livable, and sustainable future. We should meet this moment with the urgency that the climate crisis requires, the resolve that inequity demands, and the boldness that our future promises.

Part II: Double Fault

While the Single-Family districts and Neighborhood I zones are where the draft zoning falls the most short of an equitable, safe, sustainable, and livable Troy, there are other issues. While the Two-Family and Multi-Family districts don’t impart the same level of exclusion that single-family districts impose, there are exclusionary aspects included within these districts as proposed. 

Two-family dwellings are certainly better than single-family, but, when combined with the Neighborhood I intensity zone, it’s not that much of an improvement. It’s not clear what the Two-Family district accomplishes as compared to the Multi-Family or Mixed-Use districts in the same intensity zones other than being exclusionary. Two-family (and even single-family) housing would still be permitted in both, if the developer so chose. It’s exclusion for the sake of exclusion, we can, and should move on from such structural harm.

Additionally, the exclusion of nearly all commercial activity in the Two-Family and Multi-Family districts further raises the barrier to entry for low-income populations and people of color to entrepreneurship. With the existence of old storefronts in proposed residency-exclusive districts, the City is taking opportunities for these communities to access lower cost spaces to conduct neighborhood commercial business, while at the same time foreclosing opportunities to repair and reanimate these spaces. The exclusion of nearly all commercial uses in these districts also increases the likelihood that residents will drive to commercial areas – undermining the market for smaller, local business and adding to the twin evils of car-centered development: traffic violence and pollution. Further, this exclusion of neighborhood retail impacts basic livability. The ability to access basic grocery items from a bodega, grab a sandwich from a deli, a cup of coffee from a coffee shop, or drop off some laundry at laundromat right around the corner from one’s home would all be denied to large chunks of Troy – with some residents needing to walk several blocks (possibly a half mile or more in some cases) to reach an area where these commercial activities might be located.

The three residency-exclusive districts are simply unnecessary, and are actually harmful to the residents of Troy. Eliminating Two-Family and Multi-Family districts, and instead adopting Mixed-Use 1 as the default use district (with perhaps some edits to things like small bars or gas stations requiring Special Use Permits) would result in a more equitable, sustainable, and livable Troy.

Part III: By A Thousand Cuts

To make the critique of the remainder of the code more efficient, the issues are bulleted below. 

• Site Plan Review
  • Doesn’t require review for single/double family structures, but does for multi-family. There should be parity – allow for multi-family exemption as well in Neighborhood II/III/IV or require for single/double
  • Exemption for 5 additional parking spaces would mean 10 spots for up to 6 bedrooms. Remove exemption all together or at least tie to # of bedrooms (i.e. any more than 1 space per bedroom must submit a site plan)
  • Says the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing, leaving the possibility that projects that deserve a public hearing may not get it. Establish standards (or at least guidance) for when there must be a public hearing
• Variances
  • The variance criteria is restrictive. While this is not bad, per se, use variance has been offered as a remedy by current elected officials to potential future non-conforming uses. The variance criteria is unlikely to allow uses like neighborhood retail (i.e. coffee shops, bodegas, laundry facilities, day care) in the Single, Double, and Multi Family districts – even when there are existing out-of-use store fronts that could provide lower barriers to entry for such small businesses in those districts. Even the act of seeking a variance is adding to costs and erecting barriers, especially when it’s not clear what the compelling public interest is in not allowing such uses
• Powers and duties of Zoning Board of Appeals
  • Unclear what threshold, if any, is needed for adoption in the case of a rehearing
    • If a rehearing is needed – why would the standard be different?
  • Attendance section doesn’t address attendance
    • Should be *some* sort of standard and provision for removal based on attendance and/or training
• Penalties
  • While it may be customary to include imprisonment in penalties, it’s hard to understand what the public utility would be to imprison someone for zoning violations
  • This is an opportunity to impose a schedule of income-based fines. Established systems use “day fines” – scaling fines to increments of the violators daily income
• Accessory Dwelling Units
  • It should be noted that the inclusion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs, or granny flats) is a step in the right direction, and should absolutely be lauded. The inclusion of ADUs as a permissible use in nearly all residential districts is a feature that should remain, but we should also acknowledge that this is insufficient to overcome the social, safety, and environmental destruction that single-family districts inflict
• Neighborhood Zones:
  • The lot width requirement in Neighborhood II zone should be reduced or eliminated for many of the same reasons mentioned in Section I and II of this document above
  • Neighborhood II should be the lowest acceptable intensity in the city of Troy
  • Neighborhood III and IV are not meaningfully different and should be combined to the standards of Neighborhood IV, with the addition of allowing porches. The new combined zone should be applied to more of the city – it’s a flexible intensity and should balance existing character while allowing more density in more places
  • There are a few typographical errors in the Development Intensity Zone lot development standards (graphics not agreeing with text in Neighborhood II, V)
  • It seems incongruous that Neighborhood IV has a minimum of 2 stories, but Downtown Edge has just 1? Whether an error or not, to be adjacent to the Downtown core – where 8 story (100’) buildings are allowed – to allow anything less than 3 stories in the Downtown Edge is perplexing. Further, the Downtown Edge should probably allow up to (at least) 6 stories. The basic idea in form-based codes is that development gets more intense the closer to the core, and this doesn’t really do that effectively
  • Again, the Downtown Core somehow allows a 1 story building – seemingly at odds with the purpose of a form-based code. With a variance system in place, it’s hard to imagine the point of setting the minimum so low in the Downtown Core

• Adult Uses
  • The prohibition of more than one adult use per lot, the 750 foot buffer between lots supporting adult uses, and the 250 foot buffer from the many other uses are overly burdensome and antithetical to dense urbanism that is promoted throughout the rest of the document. Having more than one use per lot is convenient to customers and residents, provides agglomeration effects to the businesses, and results in less driving and contributes to walkability. The 750 foot buffer, for similar reasons, should be dropped altogether – or at least reduced
  • The 250 foot buffer to the long list of other uses is likely to be a de facto prohibition of adult uses entirely – particularly to the dense development pattern of the majority of Troy. This buffer should be reduced, and the list of uses that must have a buffer should also be pared down (cemeteries, community centers, parks, and public recreational facilities in particular defy compelling explanation for their inclusion on such a list)
  • Similarly, the provision regarding the observation of business activity is overly broad. In particular, the use of “relating to any sexual act or any part of the sexual anatomy” and the application to “any display, decoration, sign, show, window, or other opening” could reasonably be interpreted to ban just about anything that these businesses could reasonably display at all. How would the business let the public know about its existence/location without running afoul of the zoning ordinance? 
  • The existence of sexuality-related commerce doesn’t need to be – and shouldn’t be – shameful. Using the zoning ordinance to regulate adult uses as proposed is ham-fisted, and should use a lighter touch. The city council can always regulate these businesses with stand-alone regulations to address it the manner it deserves – well-thought out, supportive of the workers at these businesses, safe, and without shaming sex itself
• Agriculture
  • Provision regarding composting for community gardens is overly restrictive as many smaller lots would be unlikely to be able to comply with this provision. It’s also not clear why this restrictive zoning regulation is better to deal with potential issues than an education/demonstration/simple certification requirement
  • The requirement of a Site Plan for smaller urban farms is overly burdensome, and a threshold establishing that smaller operations should be exempt from this provision, or complete a simplified version – particularly with respect to the equipment needed and frequency and duration of chemicals/pesticide application as conditions (that may not be within the control of the business owner) may change that alter these answers
  • Requiring that no “dust or odors [be] detectable off the property” is prima facie absurd for a farming operation. There will be odors and dust, but are they any more of a nuisance than the odors coming from other unregulated uses, or simply the neighbors trash? By what standard will a determination of “detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare” be made?
  • How will prohibiting slaughter of chickens or rabbits be enforceable? Why is a prohibition – and resulting fine – better for the public good than simply requiring education/certification?
• Cannabis dispensaries/retail, tobacco, hookah, vaping establishments
  • The buffers from public parks, schools, or religious institutions are too large and restrictive. It’s particularly not clear why parks should be included in this list as it is legal to smoke in certain parts of parks
  • The buffer from other establishments of this type is both confusing and inappropriate. It’s not clear what the “type” is referring to in this provision – 500 ft between tobacco establishments or between any one of these establishments. The buffer is onerous under any interpretation, but particularly with the latter. Dense, walkable cities tend to have industry districts, and that is a benefit to residents
• Convenience Stores
  • The 500 foot buffer requirement in this section is antithetical to the concept of convenience. It’s not guaranteed that any particular store will carry the items that one needs or desires, and this buffer ensures that residents are inconvenienced. Allowing variety and different stores to cater to different customer bases should be encouraged, not discouraged. Having convenience stores at the same intersection is a boon to livability! This is easily the most anti-urban provision of the additional regulations on use, it should be eliminated
• Home-based businesses
  • The hours for client visits are too restrictive, client visits should be allowed to terminate as late as 10pm
• Parking, loading and transportation
  • Off-street parking
    • While establishing maximums, rather than minimums, is an excellent move, the maximums established by Schedule C are simply too high – especially since applicants can petition for 20% more. Dropping these maximums by 20%, establishing a “or one parking space per bedroom, whichever is lower” provision as-of-right, and maintaining the ability to petition for 20% of the new lower threshold is an appropriate balance
  • EV charging
    • Extend requirements for any surface lot to have at least one charging station and a ratio of 1 charging station per 3 spaces for any use district containing residential uses – while the other uses should retain the 1 to 10 ratio. With the proliferation of EVs, their share of total vehicles will necessitate far more charging infrastructure moving forward
  • Bike Parking
    • Extend the requirement for short term bike parking to any surface lot, and require a minimum of three bike spots – a three-bike rack is simple enough to install, in terms of materials, labor, and space
    • Increase the minimum rate of long term bike parking for multi-family residential and community residential by one space
• Public space enhancements and placemaking elements
  • This provision is great, even if it’s not terribly strong. One way to improve this would be to prohibit the use of hostile architecture in these elements, as they are cruel, inhumane, and harm all users of public space
• Stormwater management standards
  • Single- and two- family dwellings should not be exempt from the urban runoff control provisions as such dwellings can collectively be a large source of runoff. The smaller impact of individual disturbances shouldn’t exempt the activities when there is such a potential for their collective impact to be quite large
• Sidewalks
  • Despite being mentioned 57 times in the document, there doesn’t seem to be a direct, explicit requirement to build sidewalks. If there isn’t, then one should be established
  • To think a bit bigger, Troy should consider a municipal sidewalk program – where the city assists with creation and maintenance of sidewalks throughout the city, particularly with snow removal in winter. Such a program could assist with financing of derelict or missing portions of the sidewalk network, as well as conduct repairs and maintain accessibility during all seasons. The benefits would be most acutely felt among those mobility impairments – both temporary and permanent, but would also be tremendously beneficial to anyone making their way around the city. While such a program could be more fleshed out in other parts of the code or other legislation, there may be an opportunity to support a program via zoning through permanent easements, incentives, or some combination of mechanisms.
• Director of Code Enforcement Powers
  • While there is some ability to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Director is also charged with delivering the appeal – which seems like an issue to someone who is seeking relief from a Director that is acting in bad faith/abusing authority. A non-exhaustive list of the Director’s duties/powers:
    • Issuing a CO for partial occupancy
    • Issuing a temporary CO 
    • Determining whether an alteration to the exterior of the principal structure qualifies for exemption to Site Plan requirement
    • Exemption to Site Plan requirement
    • Revoke Special Use Permit
    • Boundary/lot line adjustments that “do not result in the creation of any additional buildable lot(s); or the creation of any non-conforming lot, structure, or use; or the creation of any new public or private street”
    • Override a stay of enforcement during appeal
    • Issue temporary permits for structures or uses
    • Decides when violation is corrected and time frame for correcting
    • Power to waive violation fee
    • Issue appearance tickets
    • Initiate court actions
    • Interpret district and zone boundary lines
    • Transmit appeals to ZBA
  • Providing a means to appeal directly to the ZBA, the ability of the ZBA to discipline (or recommend it to the council) the Director of Code, and empowering/requiring the ZBA/Director of Code to employ outside experts on subject matters beyond its expertise (i.e. hydrology, agriculture, transportation planning) would all be ways to balance the enormous power given to the Director.

On Monday, April 4th, 2022 a meeting of the Colorado Springs Law Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Commission met, with several items on the agenda that pertained to COSDSA. The subjects discussed were how the CSPD conducts undercover investigations, how the CSPD disciplines officers who break the law, and how the CSPD handles officers who use excessive force with citizens. In addition to the commissioners, several police officers, interim Police Chief Vasquez, several other stakeholders, and many members of the COSDSA were in attendance. The audience came prepared with questions to address the CSPD's recent undercover investigation of COSDSA, as well as other leftist groups.

Unfortunately, interim Police Chief Vasquez would not entertain any questions from the public. Only members of the commission were allowed to ask questions. Additionally, Vasquez was unwilling to discuss any specific undercover investigations or tactics that are employed during such investigations.

Vasquez's main point was that, in order to conduct an undercover investigation, there must be reasonable suspicion, a violation of the law, or criminal activity. Upon questioning, he was unwilling to discuss the reasonable suspicion resulting in any specific investigations, but he said upon further questioning that, due to the large amount of resources that are involved in such investigations, certain cases get prioritized based upon the estimated amount of harm that the perpetrators would inflict upon the community. He said that any investigation had to have reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is occurring, and that the department had to lay out the facts in order to proceed with an investigation. The former chief, attending virtually, parroted his own canned statement that the CSPD is not political and no officers or investigations were ever biased.

Deb Walker, who was at the table with the commission, asked several pertinent questions, particularly about the Fourth Amendment rights of people who are the target of an undercover investigation. She wanted to know what checks and balances are in place to ensure that these rights are not being denied. She also asked what procedural justice those people have to ensure the security of their private information.

Vasquez responded to these questions by repeatedly using the department's standard trainings as examples of checks and balances. He said that oversight from within the department and, occasionally, a liason in the DA's office, were evidence of checks and balances. He was unable to describe any actual checks and balances in place within the department. He referred to laws that the department is required to follow, and to CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) guidelines, stating that people who are under investigation should request information under these guidelines (even though there's no way for them to know they're under this type of investigation in the first place). He also recommended that people interested in this should investigate the Bureau of Justice's 28 CFR part 23, which outlines policies and procedures that should be followed when operating federally funded, multijurisdictional criminal intelligence systems. He did not elaborate as to which specific policies the department has in place to comply with this guidance.

Members of the audience were very frustrated by being denied a voice in the proceedings of the LETAC. When the audience became audibly agitated, they were instructed to settle down.

What became very clear during the course of the meeting was that the CSPD doesn't intend to submit to any form of checks and balances of their power. This is currently a very upsetting trend in the USA as a whole. According to stakeholders, the LETAC was designed to have no authority to undertake corrective action as a result of such meetings. Trainings are not checks and balances. Oversight from within the very same organization it's overseeing does not constitute checks and balances. PC Vasquez intentionally directed the commission to CORA, when CORA doesn't even apply to the CSPD. Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act does, and the CSPD's website says that no information will be given in regards to undercover investigations.

The COSDSA is making requests for as much information as possible, but anticipates that there will be very little, if any, information shared regarding the recent undercover investigation.

Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency?

Tonight we’ll continue our series of interviews with the DSA For The Many Slate with David Alexis, a rideshare driver, working class father and climate organizer who is running to represent Senate District 21 in Flatbush, Brooklyn

Many began 2022 with some hope that with Andrew Cuomo out of office, New York might finally be able to pass a state budget that meets the needs of working class people. The budget was due April 1st and is now five days late. Much of the hold up is because of last minute additions from Governor Kathy Hochul to roll back bail reform within the budget and fund a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills, owned by billionaire fracker Terry Pegula. And it's not just Governor Hochul doing the bidding of fossil fuel capital in Albany.  We talk to David Alexis about his campaign to unseat Senator Kevin Parker who has stalled climate legislation in Albany earning him the nickname the “Joe Manchin of New York.”  We’ll hear why David is fighting for Public Power for his neighbors in Flatbush, how being a dad impacted his run for office and his vision for public safety and housing.

Follow @David4BK or visit https://www.davidforbk.com/ for more info on David. 

 

 

Colorado Springs Democratic Socialists of America supports strong legislative protections for public sector workers. We support a bill that will allow all public sector workers the same rights that other workers enjoy, to collectively bargain, including the right to strike. We support a bill that respects and celebrates public sector workers who contribute to the state of Colorado and its citizens every day. Colorado Springs DSA believes that public sector workers deserve a seat at the table and to be part of the decision making process in their workplace. Colorado Springs DSA supports a strong bill that gives public sector workers democracy, not just at the ballot box, but also in the space where they spend the largest portion of their waking lives.

The right to collectively bargain is a basic right enjoyed by most workers in the state of Colorado and throughout the U.S. To deny this right to workers serving the public is to tell firefighters, teachers, healthcare workers, and anyone that serves the community that they don’t deserve basic dignity. A strong bill granting public sector workers the right to do what any other worker can do is simply asking for respect and equality. This is what the Colorado Springs DSA stands for and nothing less. If Governor Polis is worried about the ability to strike, maybe he should ask himself why this would even be a concern. Is Governor Polis aware of the low pay, poor treatment, and mediocre benefits of the people who serve the citizens of Colorado?  Does he not care?  Is he worried that empowered workers might actually have a reason to strike?  

Colorado Springs DSA demands that any legislation pertaining to public sector workers’ rights be fair and equal, not simply meaningless gestures. If the bill moving forward creates no real or meaningful change, the bill is less than useless. Any bill not granting public sector workers the same rights as other workers is simply spitting in the face of public workers. A weakened bill tells public sector workers that they aren’t worth as much, and that’s something we cannot stand for. We believe in democracy in the workplace. We believe that public sector workers have every right to make their voice heard and have a real and meaningful say in how they spend the vast majority of their lives. Let it be clear, any bill that fails to give workers the right to strike and collectively bargain is a bill that Colorado Springs DSA will actively and vocally oppose.

We spoke with a Starbucks worker-organizer from Buffalo, NY back in January here on RPM, and since that time the fight has only gotten hotter. As of today, over 170 Starbucks locations in 27 states have filed for elections with the National Labor Relations Board – including several right here in New York City! With union victories in Buffalo, Arizona, Tennessee, at the heart of the Starbucks mythology in its hometown of Seattle, Washington, and more coming in every day, Starbucks corporate is upping the pressure on organizing workers and resorting to classic union-busting techniques. This month, DSA’s national labor commission launched a nation-wide campaign to engage DSA members and allies in support of coffee workers unionizing locally.  On tonight’s show, we’re live in the studio with Aimes, a Starbucks worker-organizer from the Starbucks Roastery in Chelsea, Manhattan, and Honda, from the national DSA Labor steering committee. We’ll be discussing Starbucks union campaigns in New York City, and what you can do to support local workers no matter where you’re tuning in from.

 

Follow @DSA_Labor and @SBWorkersUnited for updates on this campaign. Join Astoria Boulevard Starbucks worker-organizers for a rally on Friday, April 1 at 6pm outside their store at 3018 Astoria Boulevard, and follow them at @astoriablvdsbx. Solidarity to the worker-organizers of the Chelsea Reserve Roastery on their election on 4/1, and to all retail and service workers organizing today. 

Tonight we’re joined live in the studio by Sessi Kuwabara Blanchard  and Jacob Clary, organizers from NYC-DSA’s Socialist Drug Politics Organizing Committee. We discuss the class politics of drug use, overdose prevention centers AKA safe injection sites, and much more. Learn how the transformative perspective of socialist drug politics offers different ways of understanding drug use and the social forces that shape users' experience.

 

We also return to the South Bronx, where survivors of January’s devastating Twin Parks fire and their supporters are fighting for what they are owed from the city and landlord, in the face of corruption that may go all the way to the top of New York’s political structure. We speak to Ariadna Phillips from South Bronx Mutual Aid and Misra Walker from Take Back the Bronx on building real tenant power.

 

Follow the Socialist Drug Politics Organizing Committee on Twitter @socialistdrugs.

 

Join VOCAL-NY's Users Union for a Statewide Day of Action on April 7. The NYC event is a rally on the steps of City Hall at 11am. Sign up to receive more details here: https://vocal-ny.org/event/04-07-22-users-union-statewide-day-of-action/

San Antonio DSA expresses solidarity and support for the Starbucks baristas who are joining together and standing up for their rights as workers to form a union. Starbucks claims to be a progressive company, so they should live up to their professed values and stop making threats and intimidating their own employees. We know Starbucks workers will win their union, and with it the power to demand basic dignities such as reasonable scheduling, proper training, and a fair share of the record profits they’ve brought in. 

The energy and demand behind the union drive came from the workers, but we’ve offered what we would to anyone—an organizer skills training, connection to our DSA city council representatives, and the solidarity of showing up. We urge everyone to support the unionizing workers by using the name “Union Strong” or “Union Yes” with their order, making sure to tip baristas, and by joining our national Solidarity is Brewing! campaign kickoff on March 27th at 5pm: https://actionnetwork.org/events/solidarity-is-brewing-launch-call/

First Starbucks, then the River Walk! All service workers deserve a union.  dsausa.org/join

The Colorado Springs Democratic Socialists of America condemn the actions of the Colorado Springs Police Department for their undercover surveillance of Colorado Springs DSA members and actions, along with other local leftist organizations. Such surveillance is anti-democratic and is intended to intimidate left-leaning individuals in an effort to prevent organizing efforts that promote equity and justice and threaten the current distribution of power.

We call on all democratically elected city leaders to join us in publicly condemning the unwarranted undercover surveillance of above-ground democratic organizations. It is vital that our leadership sets a precedent for the city that any threats to our democratic process will not be tolerated. We citizens of Colorado Springs deserve to live in a city where we are free to exercise our democratic rights to organize peacefully for policies that reflect our values. Regardless of political orientation, all city leaders must come out against actions that undermine the very democratic process that got them elected so that we can continue to have free and fair elections for people of all political affiliations. A threat to one is a threat to all.

We also call on all leftist organizers, including Colorado Springs DSA members and others targeted by CSPD, to publicly condemn the actions of CSPD. In the face of aggression and intimidation, it is more important than ever for us to take a stand and let CSPD know that we will not back down from organizing for the change we want to see in the city. 

In addition to undercover surveillance, there have been allegations of attempts by CSPD to manufacture crime where there is none. Recently some leftists have reported attempts by the undercover officer, April Rogers (alias Chelsie Kurti), to entrap members of the leftist community into helping her acquire illegal firearms, as well as to lay the foundation for the organization of an armed left-wing militia. While we applaud the integrity of our leftist comrades in declining to cooperate, we must also take a stand against the efforts of CSPD to manufacture crime that could then be used to entrap naturally law-abiding members of the leftist community. 

We also call out the dishonesty in CSPD’s official media statement on their actions. Their insistence that, “CSPD does not target groups or organizations based upon political affiliation or ideology. We are committed to safeguarding our citizens’ constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and the right to assemble. CSPD does however investigate criminal activity or allegations of criminal activity even if that person is a member of a political organization,” is not only misleading to the public, but is also false. In addition to attempts to instigate criminal activity, officer April Rogers also committed a misdemeanor crime under Colorado State law for registering to vote under her false identity. These actions are not only hypocritical and indicative of police corruption, but are further signs of an abuse of power meant to oppress a left political movement.

As an official chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, we value the preservation and expansion of democracy to create a more just and equitable world for all. We will continue to organize for the realization of our values unabashed and unafraid, and we are dedicated to peacefully pushing back against any efforts to silence or intimidate our organization and our individual members. We stand together as proud champions of justice and democracy, now and always. 

After three long weeks, Putin’s war with Ukraine has devastated the region with mass shellings of Ukrainian towns and villages, and bombings that have included hospitals and kindergartens. All of this has been under the banal guise of a [quote] “special military operation”, words which ring hollow to any Leftist familiar with the lies of Imperial Powers. This assault has taken thousands of Ukrainian lives and made tens of thousands more into refugees. With lines of Russian tanks that stretch for miles, marching onward to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, it can be easy to forget that this war carries the weight of history. To explore some of the deeper, historical complexities that led to this war, covering past, present, and future, we talked with Volodymyr Ishchenko, a Ukrainian sociologist and scholar of Eastern European history. Meanwhile back here in New York City, tens of thousands suffer under the regime of mass incarceration. Starting at the age of 15, Prakash Churaman lost six years of his life in pretrial detention after being forced into a false confession by the NYPD. Authorities claim he murdered his best friend, but there is no physical or forensic evidence linking him to the crime. Only the words of a scared, young kid locked in a room. Prakash proclaims his innocence and refuses to take any plea deal. Despite limited access to the outside world, Prakash organized to gather bail money for his release. Last week we spoke with Prakash and his lawyer Jose Nieves about his story and the Free Prakash Alliance.

Tonight on RPM we continue our series of conversations with DSA’s 2022 For The Many candidate slate with Illapa Sairitupac. Illapa is social worker and climate organizer who has been endorsed by NYC-DSA for Assembly District 65, a Lower East Side district once held by the notorious Sheldon Silver.  We’ll talk to Illapa about running a campaign for working class New Yorkers in a district that also includes the capital of capitalism: Wall Street.

We’ll also hear from members of the NYC-DSA Housing Working Group who were out canvassing in lower Manhattan with Illapa this weekend for the Right to Remain campaign - to pass the Good Cause Eviction bill.

Plus a breaking news update on the REI Soho Union vote with Amy Wilson. 

For more info on Illapa: https://illapa.nyc/

To learn more about Right to Remain and the NYC-DSA Housing Working Group: https://linktr.ee/nycdsa_housing