By Bill Woods 2021 began on a very frightening note! On January 6th, a mob stormed and violently invaded the nation's Capitol with the purpose of stopping Congress from formally accepting the Electoral College votes of the fifty States. It ends on a sour note with thousands of new COVID-cases brought on by the new Omicron variant. Thus, the pandemic continues in 2022, and a high percentage of Americans still refuse to be vaccinated. Meanwhile, the country still feels the impact of Donald Trump's "big lie" that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen due to fraudulent votes cast. What are the implications of the unfinished business that passes from the old to the new year? In terms of the pandemic, the vaccines, including booster shots, brought huge progress in combatting COVID in 2021. Nevertheless, because Public Health policies to address the virus have become so politicized, too many people have refused to get vaccinated. The recent emergence of the very spreadable Omicron Variant and the crowding together of people during the Holiday Season cause this major rise in cases, while the unvaccinated comprise a large majority of the sick patients who now crowd our hospitals. Moving on to politics and government, our country still needs to address the implications of January 6th. That day is a living nightmare for me. By chance, I happened to flip on the TV just as the mob was descending on the Capitol. For the next two hours, I watched in disbelief the events of that afternoon. Initially, even many Republican Congressmen and Senators condemned this assault as not only criminally violent but a dangerous attack on democracy itself. In a few weeks, however, it was viewed in partisan terms, and only a few Republican Senators joined their Democratic colleagues in voting to impeach Donald Trump for inciting this mob. As time passed, certain Republican leaders referred to the event as a tour of the Capitol that merely got out of hand, while others implied it was a justified public response to "a stolen election." Donald Trump's "big lie" continued to be spread until polls show that a majority of Republicans consider the 2020 Presidential Election to be fraudulent. Currently, the Congressional Committee established to look into both the events of January 6th and its causes is diligently conducting its investigation. Although the establishment of this Committee was rejected by a majority of Republican members of Congress, two Republicans did join this body, and Liz Cheney serves as its Co-Chair. In fact, Cheney has become the conscience of her Party in terms of protecting the peaceful transfer of power in a representative democracy from violent activities like the assault on the Capitol. Up to now, the Committee has done its work behind closed doors. We know, however, that it has interviewed more than three hundred people, and that it is closely looking at the planning that proceeded January 6th and the leaders who were involved in this planning. Rather than accepting the events of that afternoon as spontaneous public anger that got out of hand, it is investigating how January 6th was an integral part of the activities aimed at overturning an election that Trump and his supporters claimed to be fraudulent. Clearly, the Committee seeks to end up with a report complete with recommendations that help to protect the country from future efforts to disrupt or undermine democratic institutions. It has announced it will hold public sessions beginning in the new year. Beyond awaiting the findings of the January 6th Committee and potential actions by the Department of Justice, what can and must be done in the coming year both to protect and restore the health of representative democracy at the local, state, and federal levels? One important point should be made before beginning this laundry list of things to do in 2022. Most people are not citizen activists with deep concerns about democracy. They are trying to raise families, earn a living wage, and get through the ups and downs of daily life. This means that activists must figure out how to keep their friends and colleagues informed about the current crises and then enlist their occasional involvement. This is no easy task when actual facts have to compete with so much misinformation, but it is critical nevertheless. Representative government cannot function successfully without well-informed and semi-active citizens. The list of immediate things to do in the new year all focus on stopping the Republican Party from weakening democracy for the purpose of holding power. Using "the big lie" about fraudulent voting, Republican-controlled Legislatures across the country have passed voter suppression laws and are in the process of drawing extremely Gerrymandered Congressional and state districts. Some have even passed laws that tamper with traditional non-partisan procedures for administering elections and counting the votes. The most important action citizen activists can take in the coming weeks to counter the anti-democratic efforts at the state level described above is to persuade their U.S. Senators to pass the Voting Rights Act. The House of Representatives has already enacted and passed on to the Senate two such Bills, and they remain stalled in that body. This situation exists because there is no Republican support for either Bill, and GOP-Party leadership declares that Republicans will utilize the Filibuster rather than allow the fifty Democratic Senators plus Vice President Harris to pass these proposals. Since two Democratic Senators currently oppose repealing the Filibuster, it will require Democratic members to create and propose an exception to invoking this procedure in the case of an essential issue such as voting rights. Reform and Civil Rights organizations have made passage of a national Voting Rights Act their top priority for 2022, and several groups have conducted a hunger strike in front of the White House to put pressure on the Biden Administration. January appears to be a month when a lot of citizen pressure will be enlisted in mounting a major grassroots effort to get this legislation passed. Look for ways you can support groups such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters in this cause. In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown supports Voting Rights, but it is still worthwhile letting him know your views. Although Senator Rob Portman appears to be a lost cause because of his Party's opposition, he needs to hear that many of his constituents think protecting voting rights is essential to a healthy democracy. Ohio is also a state where immediate citizen involvement can make a difference. In 2015 and 2018, voters passed two Amendments to Ohio's Constitution designed to end partisan gerrymandering in the State. A Republican-controlled General Assembly, however, has ignored these Amendments and drawn Congressional and state district maps this fall that are even more gerrymandered in favor of Republican candidates than the maps drafted in 2011. These district maps are currently being challenged before the Ohio Supreme Court, and the state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters are part of a larger coalition of groups that are supporting these Court challenges. If the Court rules that the maps violate the Ohio Constitution and it calls for redrawing them, then citizen involvement will be a needed component in this redrafting process. So, in the coming weeks be on the lookout for ways you can get involved in actions that will help save and renew representative democracy in the U.S. and Ohio. For instance, check the websites of the League of Women Voters and Common Cause for citizen actions that they recommend. Remember, the beginning of 2022 is a time to get your booster shot, wear your mask, and make our democratic process healthy again!

By Katelyn Lusher The Streetvibes archive is complex and layered with community history and emotion. However, because Streetvibes circulates slowly, that history and those emotions can only be felt if you are intimately familiar with the community that the paper serves or you are knowledgeable about Streetvibes’ journey, like I am. Streetvibes’ status as an “alternative” news source and its connection to a homeless advocacy nonprofit known for its radical politics are sometimes alienating to those unfamiliar with the long history of disenfranchisement in the Over-the-Rhine community. To those who are unaware, Streetvibes and the Homeless Coalition may seem “too far left” or “too demanding” in their calls for affordable housing action; however, the dire state of affordable housing in Cincinnati demands radical action that cannot be smoothed over with empty promises. The Coalition was accused of asking too much during the fight for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Issue 4) during the May 2021 local election. Former mayor and Cincinnati City Councilmember David Mann, for example, claimed in a WCPO story earlier this year that the trust fund would take away funding for police and emergency services—although the language of the trust fund itself indicated no such thing. What most people are lacking is context. When content circulates slowly, context can get lost as it does not reach everyone quickly and information is delayed. The archive can provide years of context for those who want to know more about the history of the Over-the-Rhine People’s Movement and about Cincinnati activism in general. For this reason, it felt important to trace the evolution of Streetvibes’ content over time to help establish that context. Through the Streetvibes archive, people interested in the fight for affordable housing can get educated about the fight for affordable housing over the decades and learn about how gentrification has rapidly spread in Over-the-Rhine. What many former and current City Council members fail to recognize is that the affordable housing situation has become worse because not enough people listened to warnings from community activists. One such story that tried to warn people about the spread of gentrification in the August 2004 issue of Streetvibes, titled “3CDC—What Is It?” by Vera Zlatkin. Zlatkin’s story does more than just rail against what gentrification is doing to Over-the-Rhine (although those types of stories certainly have a place and an important function within Streetvibes). Rather, Zlatkin provides information for people who might not know what this new mysterious entity is and discusses potential problems with it, like the profusion of Fortune 500 CEOs on 3CDC’s board—which is still the case today and is, in fact, part of the problem with 3CDC since low income families are apparently of no concern to them. Zlatkin asks important questions: “How was this board selected and by whom?…How much power does 3CDC really have? Will the general public have any say in plans for the development of our Downtown areas? Will 3CDC continue as a corporation after the development is completed? If so, what will their purpose be?” Some of these questions have unpleasant answers 17 years later. Development is still under way and shows no signs of stopping. The only people who seem to have any say in the development are wealthy investors; activists like Bonnie Neumeier have been soundly ignored when they express their concerns for the needs of lower income families in Over-the-Rhine, who have been forced to leave because of rising rent prices. Zlatkin’s closing comments were, in fact, indicative of what was to come: “In the meantime the displacement of disadvantaged people continues and privatization; that is corporate control of public properties and institutions is becoming the norm”—which is, more or less, exactly what has happened as 3CDC projects have taken over downtown and Over-the-Rhine. Although there is no data to prove this, it is likely that some people become aware of 3CDC and their potentially unethical practices by reading this article since it is the first mention of 3CDC in the Streetvibes archive. Since 2004, 3CDC has gained greater notoriety in activist circles as they develop projects that displace low income people and back policies that only further the divide in Over-the-Rhine and downtown demographics. However, public memory is short and past mistakes are too often forgotten at the polls. Will the new City Council members actually fight for affordable housing—or will it be more of the same?

By Dr. Mark Mussman With a new set of council members starting in January alongside a new mayor, Cincinnati is poised to start a new era. Simply put, eight years of Cranley as mayor has been a nightmare for so many. Cranley has been a failure in so many ways, but he was successful in maintaining an image that may propel him to the statehouse. Cranley's tenure as mayor will be mostly marred by what wasn't accomplished: lids on Fort Washington Way, an expanded streetcar, maintaining Fortune 500 companies, growing the tree canopy, fully funding the human services and affordable housing trust funds, reducing poverty, etc. His signature accomplishment will be the solar array, a few counties away, that will provide green energy to Cincinnati and beyond. Oh, that and Wasson Way and the Oasis bike trails. When Cranley leaves his lasting impact will be felt in Over-the-Rhine, since he was at the inception of 3CDC and fought to increase city support. They have spurned residents from their neighborhood, all in the name of wealth. Not progress. Wealth. Anyone who confuses the work of 3CDC for a humanitarian effort has fallen for progress propaganda. 3CDC is very convincing, but ask them how, with 1.5 billion dollars, they failed to respond to the needs of residents to stay in their homes. Much of that money is publicly-sourced, and it becomes unnerving that our tax dollars have been funding massive displacement of Black families in Over-the-Rhine. Over the past decade, the neighborhood has seen more than half of the Black residents removed. Our neighbors, our social networks, our children, have been tossed out simply because they don't fit 3CDC's demographic: rich and white. 3CDC's publicly supported buying spree has cemented them as the market - 3CDC has created an out-of-reach housing market in Over-the-Rhine. 3CDC's one bedroom condos are listed at over $300,000, and the price rises dramatically with each bedroom. Families are pushed to neighborhoods like Bond Hill and Avondale, even as those neighborhoods face development pressure. Displacement becomes a way of life in Cincinnati, but it doesn't need to be like this. Cincinnati has an opportunity now to defund 3CDC. We should take the millions in subsidy from 3CDC as they have multiple streams of income and they are apt at finding public funding at all levels of government. Since they get property taxes from the two SID's they manage, we should not be giving them money from our general fund. Funding for parks should be their sole responsibility since they have taken on management. We need to stop giving TIF money to create high-priced condos that few can afford. Cancel their tax abatement. There is no reason we should continue the corporate welfare for 3CDC if they are as successful as they claim. Recently, the head of 3CDC went to City Hall to beg for more money for Streateries - two million dollars to prop up the newly minted tourist destination of Over-the-Rhine. $2,000,0000 is more than the city puts towards affordable housing in a single year. (Yes, there is more in the NOFA program, but that is mostly from federal sources.) So, our allegiance to 3CDC is greater than our desire to close the gap on affordable housing. Cincinnati can do better. 3CDC is now running a campaign called "Clean and Safe" which is a convenient way of saying criminalization of homelessness. It's a lot of words to say we are removing the blight from public view, whether trash or actual people. Clean and Safe programs across the country have resulted in sweeps of camps, harassment of people panhandling, and it ultimately puts white people's comfort over the rights of Black people and people in poverty. When 3CDC applied to take over Imagination Alley, they boasted that they would have an employee on the premises every two hours with a direct line to the police. This statement showed how entrenched 3CDC is in the criminalization of homelessness and poverty, coupled with the spurious statements about crime made by the City Manager at the re-opening of Imagination Alley, they are clearly looking for any reason to displace and claim public areas. 3CDC does not do affordable housing. By my estimates, they have created one unit of affordable housing for every 50 million dollars they have spent in Over-the-Rhine. Only one 3CDC project, Mercer, may have affordable housing in it today. All of the other projects that 3CDC claims are actually developed by another developer and 3CDC controls the street-level businesses. Housing developers like Model Group, Cornerstone, and Over-the-Rhine Community Housing design, finance, build, and maintain the housing. 3CDC does not do affordable housing and the CEO should be removed from the city's Housing Advisory Board. 3CDC has managed to remove families from their homes and ensured they have no place here. They have created a market for housing and commerce that is out of reach of the long-term residents. This indirect gentrification has resulted in the loss of social ties and has further empowered white supremacists in community council. From the closing of schools, streets, and corner stores, 3CDC has wholly dismantled and deformed the community with the idea of placing a new identity on it: a tourist destination. This is a type of genocide, to remove people and ban people from their homes, and should be countered as such. Other cities have taken a proactive stance to stop displacement and gentrification, but Cincinnati under Cranley has embraced it. Cranley's claims of reducing poverty have only been achieved by pushing out the city's most impoverished residents and replacing them with suburban white people. Do you remember when mayor Cranley proclaimed that "there is no evidence that a single family has been displaced from Over-the-Rhine?" Increasing earnings tax income has been an explicit goal of the city, and can be seen in programs like tax abatement. Just listen to how council members justify the financial support for 3CDC's condos - they claim it will increase the earnings tax received for the city. A final note: 3CDC is a private non-profit organization, whose board members are hand-picked by the mayor, and it is a membership organization whose members include the largest and most powerful corporations in the region, including media outlets. 3CDC was created by a vice president of Procter and Gamble and the city mayor, Charlie Luken, with the help of other individuals in business and politics. It was created to do things that the city simply couldn't do - whether out of legality or practicality, and has often used racist tropes to justify its existence, such as "cleaning up the neighborhood" after the "race riots" in 2001. (Astute individuals know that calling the rebellion and uprising in 2001 a "race riot" is racist in itself as it implies that there was no injustice, even though the federal Department of Justice came in and found that the Cincinnati police department was engaging in racial profiling.) Most frightening is that urbanists are calling for the replication of 3CDC in cities all over the country, even though the effect has been removing more than half of the Black residents from the neighborhood in favor of white suburban implants. 3CDC must be abolished.

By Dr. Mark Mussman Increasing density does not automatically create affordable housing, it requires regulations, or else housing prices will remain controlled by the "invisible hand" of the market. In the mid-nineteenth century, cities like Cincinnati were seeing vast demographic changes due to the mass migration of Black Americans out of the south, seeking opportunity. Black and white Appalachians were forced to leave their homelands due to the increased mechanization of coal mining. Locally, white families, enabled by the federal government's homeownership program, were creating all-white suburbs, outside of city limits. But for most of Black Cincinnatians, home was overcrowded, mainly due to anti-Black racism in policies and practice. For example, it wasn't until after 1910 that there was a home available to Black families that was up to the standards of the day — a bathtub and a private entrance. This was up in Walnut Hills, but down in the basin, in what is now the West End, families were crowded into old, small spaces, often without electricity or running water. It was these conditions that were called "slums" and when the federal government began building the Mill Creek Expressway, white businessmen persuaded the government to move the highway closer to downtown through Kenyon Barr. In less than two years, over 26,000 people were displaced from Kenyon Barr, the vast majority of them were Black. This process of displacement occurred over and over in what is now known as Urban Renewal. Black families lost their social structure, their homes, land, and were pushed further from needed services, which increased their dependency on transportation, even as they were legally excluded from the white suburbs. Urban Renewal and Redlining forced generations of Black Cincinnatians into similar over-crowded and low-quality housing conditions as the slums. Part of the push to remove the slum conditions resulted in new zoning laws, many of them restricting multi-family housing to main roads and certain neighborhoods. Zoning should provide enough room for each family to live safely. Unfortunately, as we know, many families today are doubled-up, or are couch-surfing, creating the same sort of overcrowding that we saw in the last century, living in segregated neighborhoods. Zoning laws in multi-family properties require a certain amount of square footage per unit. This is the type of density that we are focusing on today — how many people live on a single piece of land. We can also think about density for a neighborhood, city, or region as a whole, but when we talk about zoning, we just mean on a certain property. Affordability can also be seen in similar terms: what is affordable to a household, and what is affordable to the wider community. While it's true that housing is only considered affordable if paying 30% or less of income on housing, housing affordability can also be defined as housing that is affordable for people making up to 60% of the area median income (AMI). This is the true definition of affordable housing in Cincinnati: housing costs do not exceed 30% of a household's income who makes around $35,000 per year. To put this in perspective, including utilities, a family that makes $35,000 can afford around $850 per month in housing costs. Any amount over that threshold of around $850 is considered market-rate, even if it's called "workforce housing." City staff has been floating the idea of removing multi-family density regulations, meaning that instead of having a square-foot requirement for each unit, that developers would be able to create a greater number of smaller units on the same property. Their justification for the claim that more density on a property will lead to more affordable housing hinges on the idea that with more units, the costs would be shared by more people, so the owner wouldn't need to charge so much. The example they give is a property with one unit costs $10K per month, but with four units, each pays $2.5k, but with 9 units, each unit only pays $1.1k. Unfortunately, even in their example, there is no affordable housing, as the housing costs would need to be no more than $850, including utilities. The reality is that removing these density regulations would simply allow developers to create smaller units that would still be offered at market-rate. For example, in Over-the-Rhine, new build market-rate for a studio apartment is $1400, far outside of the reach of a family making the AMI. The zone change immediately increases the value of the property, which is why so many developers seek, and receive, a density variance — it's simply more profitable. The city manager's plan relies on the theory of supply and demand, which does not take into account anti-Black racism and housing discrimination. The city manager makes the case for removing legislative barriers to affordable housing but also talks about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) which requires a Board to facilitate the spending of the money and create the Affordable Housing Priorities. Just this week, the Mayor appointed the heads of 3CDC, the Port, CMHA, Model Group, and the Shelterhouse to the Housing Advisory Board (HAB). This board will determine if any of the money in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is spent on 0-60% AMI, or if it will go for other uses. Finally, a city council member put together a proposal to remove density restrictions from most zones except single-family. This legislation would remove the minimum square footage needed for each unit in the building. Using CAGIS, I was able to create a map of the zones that would be affected by this change which matches up almost directly with a population map of Cincinnati showing the locations of Black residents. This fact is likely due to the continued redlining of Black residents, but has not been mentioned by the city. What's most glaring is that the city is not focused on where the need for affordable housing exists, 0-60% AMI, and the city manager even said that making deeply affordable units wasn't likely going to happen. Unfortunately, the proposed zoning changes will reduce the voice of community councils, who currently weigh in on zoning variances. This change, coupled with the city manager's memo on community engagement, means that developers will have more control and communities will have less say. Finally, the zoning change will likely see a reduction in family housing, as two plus bedroom units will be converted to several smaller units. Removing the density requirement alone does not create affordable housing. Specific regulations are needed to ensure 0-60% AMI units are created and sustained. Density itself does not address housing discrimination and segregation. And, ultimately, with a need in the tens of thousands of units, until the gap in affordable housing is addressed, density on its own doesn't even stop the rapid loss of affordable housing that we are experiencing. There is a better approach: utilize Peaslee's Equitable Development Rubric; gain community control of the HAB; require affordability contracts for developments receiving a public good; enact housing protections, including a housing court staffed by tenants and landlords who mediate before going to eviction court; enact Pay-to-Stay protections and rent control; ensure a livable and prevailing wage, and more. In the end, we must be deliberate about the impact of zoning changes on Black residents, most of which are renters paying more than 30% of their income towards their housing. We must consider low-income, fixed-income, elderly, and homeowners, who are negatively impacted by the influx of white generational wealth investing in the city. Displacement is occurring rapidly, and the proposed changes in zoning don't address this, and without regulations to ensure affordable housing is built and sustained, the city's claims that density will result in affordable housing are misguided and likely harmful.

By Bill Woods The Tokyo Olympics are over. Being immersed in the hundreds of events that took place for two weeks in Japan offered a way to escape from politics, the pandemic, climate change, and the summer doldrums. Further, beyond entertaining us with everything from track and field to beach volleyball, the Games also provided us with some hope during these troubling times in our country. How was this hope communicated? First of all, it was so refreshing to witness the unity and goodwill that existed among the athletes comprising the U.S. delegation in Tokyo. Weary and often depressed about the polarization that characterizes political, economic, and social life in this country, many of us were elated to experience this coming together of so many Americans. This unity was especially refreshing because it existed in a delegation of athletes that represented the diversity of the entire country. African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Caucasians worked together to represent the U.S. in Tokyo. Women athletes played a large if not an even more prominent role in the success of our delegation at the Games. I thought to myself, it's comparable to "we the people" coming together for a common purpose. One must hope politicians, especially members of the Republican Party, watched the Games and observed this diversity and unity. The GOP during the Trump era caters solely to its white rural base, and acts like other diverse groups are the enemies that must be excluded from the governing process. Could the fact that nineteen Republican Senators voted for Biden's Infrastructure Bill on August 9th be a sign that some hope for political collaboration still exists? Since winning gold medals by defeating competitors is a primary purpose of the Olympics, it is ironic that our politicians could learn a lot from how our athletes dealt with defeat. They abided by the rules of their particular sport, and they accepted the results with good will. Most of them communicated that although they competed to win gold, that winning for them was not everything. They accepted that they were all part of a bigger and more important process. Compare that behavior to a majority of Republicans who won't accept the results of the November Presidential election. Instead of accepting that Biden defeated Trump in a fair, fraud-free election, GOP leaders harm the democratic process by spreading the "big lie" that the election was stolen and that voter suppression laws are justified in order to prevent their opponents from promoting future voter fraud. Rather than acknowledging that representative democracy is more important than who wins or loses, the Republican Party currently marches to a mantra that says that winning at all costs is its top priority. This dangerous behavior stems from the Party's non-acceptance of diversity or the concept of serving all the people regardless of social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. Cynical readers may pooh pooh the theme of this article that we can learn a lot from how our diverse athletes behaved at the Tokyo Olympics. They might say: "What do the actions of a bunch of gymnasts, swimmers, relay racers, and volleyball players have to do with the difficult decisions of the government?" An initial answer is that we are talking about how to create a healthy public environment for making these tough decisions. If we accept the fact that we are living in a dangerous and troubling time in this country, then any positive models of behavior by Americans can be of help. At the very least, we all need hope and a boost of optimism. The Tokyo Games certainly provided us with those feelings.

By Mic Adams, Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition Vista Intern

By Janiah Miller In America, it is widely believed that if you work hard enough, you’ll be able to obtain success. The American Dream is a misconception that is not accessible to everyone, even if they do obtain higher education and a stable job. The Biden administration has recognized housing instability as one of the focal points in The American Job Plan which seeks to bolster U.S. infrastructure and modernize the economy. This proposal includes two of three of the HoUSed campaign’s top priorities for an infrastructure bill. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, $45 billion will go to the National Housing Trust Fund for construction and preservation of homes affordable to people with the lowest income, and major investments to rehabilitate and preserve the nation’s public housing stock. Affordable housing trusts are a leading vehicle for addressing critical housing needs in this country. They are distinct funds established by city, county, or state governments that receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding to support the preservation and production of affordable housing, according to the Housing Trust Fund Project. Last fall I was able to see the direct impact affordable housing trust funds can have on a community. Through the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, I was a community canvasser. In this role I collected 600+ signatures for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Ballot Initiative. While collecting signatures, I shared with individuals while collecting signatures that as a recent college graduate and someone who is now pursuing a Master’s degree, it is extremely difficult to find affordable house. This is in direct contrast with the concept of the American dream. It is critical that housing trust funds are fully funded. This method is helpful as they guarantee funds regardless of economic hardships and changing political climates. While collecting signatures I was able to hear stories from individuals in the community as to how housing impacted their everyday life while sharing my own challenges. I gathered testimony from both Democrats and Republicans that showcased a point of commonality in their struggles -- funding the affordable housing trust fund was an issue that everyone could agree on. Grassroots initiatives can be key in advancing needed change around harmful policies. Housing is the foundation of everyone’s life — it should be considered a human right. The discussion around affordable housing is lacking as it is largely viewed as a one-sided issue that only impacts low-income individuals. It is a multidimensional issue that impacts individuals across socioeconomic backgrounds. As COVID-19 continues to exacerbate the issue of the--already bad--housing crisis individuals who were previously impacted the most will suffer at a greater cost without transformational change that centers BIPOC communities. Policy changes are important as landlords go after BIPOC tenants at alarmingly high rates across the country through evictions. They use the courts to manage basic issues they could resolve with tenants through communicative measures. An eviction leaves a stain on an individual's record that could last more than several years. There largely is no accountability for landlords which leaves tenants vulnerable at greater risk. Legislative proposals at the local, state, and federal government must seek to address the lack of accountability to curb housing instability across the country or the issues will continue to grow. At this moment we are a year into the civil unrest sparked by numerous police killings of Black people. Since then, organizations have committed millions of dollars to addressing racial equity within their organizations and outside of them through community-based efforts. Typically, conversations around racial equity focused on the Black community center on the increasing rate of mass incarceration. While this is an issue that needs to be addressed, I would push organizations to think broader as it is a consequence of lack of opportunity for well-maintained affordable housing and job security. Housing is the primary culprit of why the racial wealth gap is continually widening. In which a larger case for reparations as it relates to being historically left out of the housing market; this case is most notably made in Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The Case for Reparations.” As advocates, we must focus on ensuring equity is prioritized in Black communities as access to homeownership at the same rate as their counterparts due to policies such as a redlining that exploited and excluded them from purchasing homes. The policies and practices remnant of this era can still be seen today; most notably through the practice of gentrification. As organizations, it is more pertinent than ever to address historical barriers. As a society that is beginning to reckon with the devastating impact of such policies, it is more pertinent than ever to be innovative when addressing them. Organizations should support policies that specifically focus on economic equity. These policies can include (but are not limited to): rent control, baby bonds, a tenant bill of rights, developer accountability, guaranteed affordable housing, etc. Organizations who are making commitments and contributions to efforts around racial equity can build momentum around these issues that will have a large multi-generational impact. Adequate well-maintained housing must be viewed as an economic justice issue. Across the country, there has been an affordable housing crisis for decades which continues to be exacerbated as resources become even more limited. Increased advocacy to push for well-maintained affordable housing is essential -- these are why affordable housing trust funds are critical as they can be used to address the policy solutions that were stated above. Housing is fundamental to everything – it is a human right that is at the center of achieving racial equity.

By Dr. Mark Mussman Have you noticed a lot of empty buildings in your neighborhood? Maybe uptown? In Mt. Auburn, near Christ Hospital, you might notice several empty housing complexes. Having lived in Mt. Auburn for several years, I vividly remember the neighbors who lived in these now empty buildings, so it is an eerie feeling to see them so lifeless. It's almost as if their bodies have been snatched and forced from these now empty homes. Over the past few years, we have seen the acceleration of displacement in the urban basin and the hillsides surrounding downtown. This massive displacement is clearly impacting our Black neighbors the most, as Cincinnati loses more than 1000 Black residents every year. This is by design. The historic and contemporary apartment buildings along Auburn Avenue were purchased by an international investment firm. Real estate investment requires profitability for shareholders, who are promised high quarterly returns over a period of time. This particular investment firm's model is to find "distressed," or below-market housing, and flip it into luxury and market-rate housing. The increased rent charged will provide profits for shareholders, possibly forever. As I discussed in a previous article, this same real estate investment firm who is flipping apartments in Mt. Auburn is also pushing residents out of their homes on Court Street. Vision and Beyond has purchased at least 1200 units of rental housing in Cincinnati, and their website details their plans to convert the units from affordable housing into luxury apartments, explicitly to create maximum income for their shareholders. A recent youtube video showed the co-founder of Vision and Beyond declare that Cincinnati is eviction-friendly, and that the ability for the owner to control the property was a reason why this region was chosen. Simply put, due to a lack of housing protections, property owners can kick out residents, do some updates, and significantly raise the rents. We're talking about rents doubling, plus some. The investors and the City of Cincinnati are both on the same page. The city routinely explicitly states that we rely on our earnings tax, and creating more luxury housing will increase the city's life-blood tax. Years ago, the city decided that outside investment was necessary, so we created an abatement program, which allows property owners to make repairs on their property and after an inspection, the city would give them 10 or more years of a break on the additional value those updates created. This abatement program has been derided as racist, and other critics have pointed out that the majority of the abatement has gone to wealthy communities, often for million dollar homes. Eventually, these abatements will expire, allowing the city to take in its share of the property taxes. Ideally, since Cincinnati has adopted a fixed-amount model, meaning they only take in a certain amount of property taxes total (approximately 29 million a year), when these abatements end, everyone else will pay less, reducing the burden on low-income homeowners and housing providers. However, that can change. The abatement program is a piece of legislation that can be modified, and in fact, has been modified, even recently. A cap to the amount of property value that can be abated was added, to discourage investors from tearing down historic homes in places like Mt. Lookout, and subdividing into McMansions. Ultimately, the abatement program could be changed to only apply to affordable housing. We must put our effort where the need is greatest, not where the city can be most profitable. City subsidies often lead to displacement. When TQL Stadium was announced in the West End, council members vowed to put all the resources of the city behind the effort. We will never know how much the stadium will cost the city in the long run, but through income tax deals, infrastructure costs, bonds, hotel tax, TIF, and other subsidies, the cost of this stadium will be millions each year. Estimates have put the debt payments and other costs to the city in over $200 million for the first 20 years. The announcement also promised no displacement, which of course, did not happen, as businesses, churches, and families alike have already been removed for the stadium. The struggle for residents to stay at Court View is also a direct result of the millions of dollars of public investment into both the streetscaping and building rehabilitation along Court Street, in the shadow of Kroger headquarters. Millions of public dollars to create 1 and 2 bedroom condos, starting upwards of $250,000, and with a tax abatement for the next 15 years, at least. For example, a one-bedroom condo sold for $278,000, but because they have an abatement for 15 years, they are paying city taxes on the property as if it was worth $61,000, saving the owner more than $4000 each year in property taxes. Allowing people who are qualified by banks to buy expensive properties duck out of their fair share of taxes is morally wrong, as the property tax is a set fixed-amount, because people with less means are paying more to help subsidize the wealthy. We are seeing the result of both types of gentrification on Court Street: direct and indirect. Several years ago, 3CDC started to buy up buildings on Court Street, some of the same buildings receiving public funding for luxury condos, and they started to figure out a way to rebrand the area. Some even called it "Under-the-Rhine" due to its proximity to Over-the-Rhine and the former canal. People started to lose their homes, and the Court View fight is emblematic of that. Even though the owners are foreign investors, they are keen enough to understand that where millions of dollars of investment is going in, their investment is safe. Even amidst corruption scandals, corporate welfare continues on like a broken record, spreading wealth upward while gambling on our future. We recently saw this with Elm & Liberty, which received every public subsidy imaginable for above market-rate apartments, directly across the street from the new $350+ million investment, TQL Stadium. Elm & Liberty isn't a risky investment simply because it is so close to hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. The developers could have done the project without city incentives, regardless of what the city or developers claim. At city hall, we consistently hear claims from developers that corporate welfare is necessary for market-rate development (which should give us all pause because that means the market is failing), and we even have reports coming from the city itself declaring the importance of corporate welfare. But catering to the rich and powerful will not help the disenfranchised, living in poverty, or the many families experiencing homelessness. Listening and privileging the voices of the few does not make our city stronger, more stable, or desirable. It makes it less livable, less inclusive, and less equitable. We are losing our culture, the fabric of our city, in the name of revitalization and greed. Unless we, as a city, fundamentally change our policies to include needed housing protections like Pay-to-Stay and Just Cause Eviction and utilize the Equitable Development Rubric to its fullest extent, we will continue to traumatize our Black and low-income citizens with displacement in order to benefit the rich and connected.

By Katelyn Lusher On July 28th, gymnast Simone Biles, a gold medalist in the 2016 Olympics, shocked the world when she decided to withdraw from the 2020 Olympic gymnastics team finals for mental health reasons. Biles is the most decorated gymnast in history and arguably the most esteemed gymnast in the world right now and the pressure, she said, has been enormous with so many eyes watching her at all times. In a statement explaining her reasons for dropping out, Biles said, “It’s been really stressful this Olympic games, I think just as a whole not having an audience [due to COVID], there are a lot of different variables going into it. It’s been a long week. It’s been a long Olympic process. It’s been a long year” (USA Today). Biles’ words have set off an international debate on mental health that has, quite frankly, been a long time coming. However, Biles’ statement also reflects how deeply the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted everyone’s mental health. For Olympians like Biles, training schedules were off course due to lockdown and quarantining. After years of preparation, athletes had to wait an extra year to compete since the Olympics were canceled in 2020. All of these changes and lack or normalcy are understandably anxiety-inducing for anyone, but would be especially difficult for Olympic athletes who can’t have their support system around them while they compete after what has truly been a long, stressful year and a half. It’s also important to note, however, that there is no such thing as getting “back to normal.” In fact, we shouldn’t go “back to normal.” When people say “normal,” they are ignoring the fact that before COVID, things were certainly not perfect. The pandemic revealed many things: one, that many employers will not take care of their employees even when there is a public health crisis (such as businesses that refused to close and kept their employees working while cases were spiking, like Hobby Lobby); two, many people discovered that unemployment wages were actually higher than their average weekly wages, which has prompted demands for a higher minimum wage and has subsequently resulted in a labor shortage; and three, being stuck inside with little or no human contact has encouraged greater attention towards mental health. Stressful employment situations and poor labor practices like the ones described have also contributed to a decline in mental health. How can anyone just shake off pandemic trauma and move on like nothing has happened? Why should anyone, like Simone Biles, be forced to continue on when they are suffering? The fact is, pandemics change the world and they change how people act and think. Historically, pandemics have shaped the course of world history. The Black Death plague from 1347 to 1351, for example, led to a decline in serfdom and a rise in wages for artisans and peasants but also led to a rise in violent anti-Semitism and beliefs in mysticism as people tried to find a cause and solution to the plague. Pandemics like smallpox in the 15th to 17th centuries helped countries expand their empires through colonization but came at a heavy price as millions of indigenous peoples died or were wiped out altogether (Encyclopedia Brittanica). The Spanish flu from 1918 to 1919 is most often cited as the blueprint for handling future pandemics since public health measures changed drastically after the virulent virus killed 50 million people globally. After the Spanish flu, the necessity of implementing a federal plan to prevent the spread of future viruses became apparent, as did the need for more research into influenza viruses (CDC). The COVID-19 pandemic is still causing massive changes in our society, and it is unrealistic to think that everyone can immediately bounce back. For many, the pandemic has worsened already existing anxiety disorders and depression and caused some to experience those feelings for the first time. Claustrophobia can intensify after over a year of social distancing and travel can feel impossible. We still don’t know what the long-term effects of COVID may look like, but in the present it is clear that many of us feel mentally scarred from seeing news of spiking cases and hearing about friends and family getting sick and dying while also watching people blatantly disregard and scoff at the presence of a virus. To make matters worse, the new delta variant is sweeping across the United States among people who are unvaccinated and not taking preventative measures against COVID. While people who are vaccinated seem to be protected against the delta variant, this provokes anxiety for parents with children who are too young to receive the vaccine and for people who have family members or friends who refuse to get vaccinated—sometimes for reasons that are patently false, like claims that the vaccine causes infertility or inserts a tracking chip. With all of that going on, how can anyone expect that an elite athlete can carry on and remain stoic? As Biles reminds us, Olympic athletes are still human and struggle with mental health like millions of others. In the wake of the pandemic, everyone deserves some grace.

By Dr. Markmussman

By Bill Woods Where does this country seem to be headed? Normally journalists face enough of a job just sorting out the facts and telling a coherent story about current events. Sometimes, however, it seems important to analyze past and present trends in order to see where they appear to be taking us. The current situation in the U.S. is a time that seems to call for this approach. As this article is written, the initial sessions of the Congressional Special Committee established to examine what happened at the Capitol on January 6th are taking place. The Capitol Police officers who experienced first hand the violent acts of the mob testified at the Committee's first meeting. Their descriptions of events of that afternoon leave little doubt that the participants were there to both raise havoc and to stop Congress at any cost from ratifying the Electoral College votes that would make Joe Biden the new President. Beyond the physical violence they described, the implications of these acts in terms of our democratic process require a thorough and public investigation of how this insurrection came about. Some basic facts are already known. Donald Trump refused to accept the fact that he lost to Joe Biden, and in the months after the November election helped set in motion a number of court cases based on bogus claims of voter fraud. All the while, he was firing up his base that the election was stolen. Finally, at the well publicized rally preceding the assault on the Capitol, Trump urged the crowd to march there in order to stop Congress from accepting the Electoral Votes of the states. This direct link between the former President and the January 6th insurrectionists should lead us to the next question. How did the country reach a point where a "Reality-TV star known for his huge ego and his extreme and untruthful rhetoric become our President? Further, how did Trump transform the Republican Party into an advocate for white supremacy and policies that make immigrants and non-white people into scapegoats. In just a few years, one of the two major political parties is promoting policies that are endangering representative democracy. One response to the problems prompting these questions is to blame Trump for them, and to expect a return to normalcy now that he is out of office. However, too many major social, economic, and political issues remain to accept such a simple answer. The questions seem to require a longer term review of trends and a bit of historical analysis. Two trends that this writer has been focusing on for years are the growing influence of "big money" in our politics and public policy decisions and the growing economic inequities in this country. Both trends are complex, and one has an unfortunate impact on the other. They both seem to have played major roles in bringing about the ill health of the democratic process. Political and economic analysts began to notice these trends in the late 1970s and the 1980s. Starting with politics, when candidates and parties began relying more and more on TV-ads for messaging, amassing lots of dollars for campaign budgets became a top priority. Corporations and monied interests had always possessed major influence through their lobbyists on public policy, but they now loomed even larger because of this new dependency of candidates on donations. Reform efforts in the 1970s included contribution limits, donation disclosure regulations, and a limited adoption of the public financing of campaigns in several states and cities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court became a roadblock to major change with a ruling in 1977 that equated campaign spending with freedom of speech. Governments could not impose a lid on campaign spending, and candidates could spend as much of their personal wealth as they wanted. Even faced with this legal obstacle, reformers kept up their activities at all levels. "Big money," however, continued to be a dominant factor in our elections. Then the 2010 Citizens United Case greatly extended the Supreme Court's decision concerning free speech and campaign spending by ruling that corporations possessed the same rights as individuals in terms of making donations. That case opened up a floodgate of new spending by organizations specifically created to take advantage of this decision. It has also made it much more difficult for activists to find effective reforms that will help lessen the impact of "dark money" on our political and government institutions. Urban researchers began to be aware of growing economic inequities in this country in the late 1980s. This was the period when homelessness emerged as a major problem in U.S. cities. No longer were the population experiencing homelessness primarily composed of men with alcohol or drug addictions, but individuals and families with little or no incomes were swelling the ranks. This crisis required a lot of new shelters for women, women with children, and families. The primary issues creating "the new homeless" were a lack of available affordable housing and jobs that pay living wages. Although valiant efforts were made to serve the immediate homeless in these cities with shelters and services, too little was done both nationally and locally to address the long-term causes of this growing poverty. As a result, homelessness, the shortage of affordable housing, and families with children in poverty have simply grown worse in the last thirty-plus years. Finally, although urban homelessness was the most dramatic evidence of this trend, poverty has also overwhelmed thousands of rural communities across the country. This overly simplistic review of these two trends brings us back to this essay's initial questions. How did we get to the events of January 6th, and where are we headed as a nation? Furthermore, the reader may ask what do economic inequities and "big money" in politics have to do with Trump and the January 6th insurrection? One answer is that both these trends have diminished the confidence of many Americans in our system of government. The public is aware that candidates are more attuned to big donors than to their average constituents. More importantly, many people who are struggling financially see little government response to their problems and issues, while they witness deregulation and legislation that assists corporations or caters to the wealthy. The long-term impact is a growing belief that the economic and political establishment controls politics and government and it has little interest in helping both the poor and a shrinking middle class. The 2016 election and beyond can in part be explained by this public disillusionment in the establishment and our institutions. Remember Trump defeated the Republican establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush, and Bernie Sanders came close to upsetting Insider Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries that year. In the fall campaign, Trump won over a lot of disillusioned economically struggling white voters with simple answers and by creating scapegoats. He promised to make America great again and that he would build a wall to keep immigrants from coming in and stealing our jobs. While in office, he nurtured this rural white base by promoting white racism, but he did little to actually improve the economic lives of rural America. Trump's effective use of scapegoating reminds historians of how Hitler blamed the Jews for the economic disparities in Germany. His base, including folks who marched on the Capitol on January 6th,reveal how Trump has won their loyalty over a system that they no longer trust. The initial question ("Where does the country appear to be heading?") has several answers. None of us has a crystal ball, but many analysts stress the importance of this country's responses to major problems at this juncture in our history. Both the widening economic inequities and the factor of "big money" in politics still must be effectively addressed. President Biden shows a knack for talking to and responding to the issues of average people. However, with a Trump obsessed GOP hell bent on blocking his major initiatives, his success is far from assured. This is a time when citizen activists and reform groups must stay active on many fronts. Somehow, the democratic process must be restored to health and shown to still be effective in responding to the needs of "we the people." Such an agenda seems huge, but it certainly beats some ugly alternatives.

I LOOK AROUND THE CITY AND I FIND MYSELF VERY CONFUSED AS TO HOW SO MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING MISUNDERSTOOD AND ABUSED WHETHER IT BE BY THEIR OWN MISFORTUNE OR IT BE BY THEIR OWN CHOICE I FIND MANY TIMES THAT BE BECAUSE ONE IS HOMELESS THEY HAVE NO VOICE I LIVED HOMELESS AND SLEPT IN WASHINGTON PARK FOR FIVE YEARS WITHOUT ANNA LOUISE INN AND LOW INCOME HOUSING I WOULDN'T BE HERE I UNDERSTAND UPGRADING THE AREA BUT WITHOUT UPDATING THE PEOPLE OF THE NEWS MEANS A LOT OF DISAGREEMENTS TO UNDERSTAND WHICH POLITICIAN TO CHOOSE TRYING TO STOP THE HOMELESS FROM UPGRADING BY STOPPING POSITIVE INFORMATION LIKE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING FLIPPED AND FLOPPED NOW WHO'S CAUSING THIS SEGREGATION IT'S TIME TO COME TOGETHER RICH AND POOR AND LET'S TRY TO SAVE THE HUMAN RACE AND PUT FINANCIAL POLITICS ON HOLD WHILE WE ALL PRAY FOR GOD'S GRACE By Willa D Jones