By Dr. Mark Mussman It may come of no surprise to find out that Cincinnati is on stolen land, built atop pre-historic cultural sites, including mounds built to signify many (unknown) things, and that we made a concerted effort to destroy the livelihood of those who lived here for thousands upon thousands of years. In the rush for colonization, the white federal government deemed Native Americans as non-human, Black people as property, and immigrants as not-worthy of civic life. So, it is no surprise that the colonial mindset still lives on today. Cincinnati is willing to sell itself to the highest bidder, no matter the influence on the current residents. We have been recently called out as an "eviction-friendly" and pro-development place by an international investor. This is substantiated by the thousands of residents who have been pushed from their homes each year over the past decade, and the many thousands more whose future is uncertain. It is also proven by our policies, such as tax abatement, which was created solely to attract outside investment into Cincinnati. While abatement has been derided as racist and possibly unnecessary, it is granted to everyone who asks, virtually without exception. Piled on top of these policies is another level of concern: the continued use of white supremacist ideology in City Hall. Simply put, without an acute eye on the impact of race, and more specifically anti-Black racism in Cincinnati, the calls for economic measures based upon theories of supply and demand in housing, for instance, bare witness to an administration that is willing to throw out its own Black residents to increase the earnings tax: an act we've seen time and time again. These anti-Black policies, coupled with an aging housing stock and relatively-low property acquisition costs, has made Cincinnati a new market for housing flippers. Racial discrimination in housing never ended, it is just no longer directly supported by the courts; however, in banking and lending, real estate and leasing, anti-Black racism is still a feature, not a by-product. From redlining to predatory lending, Black families have never had a fair chance, and there has never been a fair, or level, playing field. Unfortunately, with the influx of influence from international investment firms, the playing field has tipped even further towards injustice. Injustice leads to displacement, and displacement leads to less stable communities. Less stable communities lead to disinvestment and hyper policing, further cementing the cycle of violence against Black people. In the background, the cost of living is increasing and the level of debt each Cincinnatian accrues rises. The average rent in Cincinnati is over $1000/month, and energy usage is rising due to climate change, creating more costs. In addition to housing costs, transportation, education, and healthcare are putting us further into debt. Public housing isn't an option, as it has been underfunding for generations and is not able to keep up with the demand, and people are excluded due to arcane rules. Public housing is also being privatized through RAD (the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program), which is spearheading privatization at Pinecrest, Stanley Rowe, and Liberty Street Apartments, among other properties. And on top of all this, private equity investors are bringing millions of dollars to turn affordable housing into market-rate housing, forcing families from their homes, neighborhoods, and ultimately from Cincinnati altogether. We didn't just get to this point with investor-friendly policies in City Hall, but also with the help of the federal government, who incentivized the use of hedge funds to purchase large numbers of foreclosed properties following the 2008 housing crisis. Under this program, hundreds of thousands of properties were consolidated into large portfolios that were up for grabs to investors. Investors believed that they could use their cash on hand to make the necessary capital investments into distressed properties to stabilize communities hardest hit by the foreclosure wave following the predatory lending that led up to the 2008 housing crisis. They also claimed that investors would be more likely to respond faster to resident concerns, like maintenance, and they would be better at leveraging funds to sustain their investments. As a result, homeownership rates fell sharply, and the built-to-rent market was born. The goal of these types of real estate hedge funds and international commercial real estate investment firms is to create a permanent income stream for their investors. Large firms sought cost-saving measures, such as the standardization of appliances and HVAC systems, but also creating call-centers for resident concerns, and developing separate LLC's to manage the resident relations and maintenance. According to some residents, these cost-saving measures have given rise to conditions of absentee landlords and slum-like conditions, as investment portfolios are growing faster than property management and maintenance capabilities. In the end, however, the objective of these firms is to make as much money as they can, which in turn, results in affordable housing being turned into market-rate, or luxury housing, and the city giving them incentives to do so. As the rental market grows, these investment firms merge and conglomerate, creating more power within specific areas to increase rents and to ensure their shareholders get the best return. They have even created at least one lobbying group, the National Rental Housing Council, which makes spurious claims that their existence hasn't impacted the housing market, even though they are able to purchase properties with cash above asking price, knocking out any potential family buyers, who can not compete with such offers. Ultimately, as they institutionalize the single-family rental market, families are not afforded the same opportunities as previous generations to create generational wealth through homeownership. With the exception of the Port Authority, which is not a hedge fund, who acquired property in neighborhoods like Evanston, where Black homeownership rates were the highest before 2008, Cincinnati didn't see much of the hedge fund influence following the housing crisis of 2008, mainly because of our aging housing stock. Simply put, investors were not interested in buying old properties that needed a lot of work, they were looking for housing stock less than 20 years old. Unfortunately, that is changing rapidly today. A recent example of international real estate investors purchasing properties in Cincinnati, with the expressed intent of turning multifamily properties from affordable to luxury, can be seen with Vision and Beyond. You may have heard about the long-term tenants who have received pressure to leave their homes on Court Street. These residents have spoken at City Hall, worked with organizers at the Homeless Coalition, and have even held a rally to support their homes. In addition to explicitly heralding their plan to turn affordable housing into market and luxury housing, Vision and Beyond has also been accused of neglecting their properties and their residents. In the case of Court View, Vision and Beyond refused to meet with the tenant organization, stating they would only meet with individual tenants. At City Hall, Vision and Beyond representatives claimed that they would work with tenants, but insisted that they would need to move out as soon as possible, so that the conversion to luxury housing could commence. One of their co-founders revelled in the idea that Cincinnati is eviction-friendly, and that typical barriers (such as tenant-rights) wouldn't hold their investors back from making money. The co-founder also talked about how Cincinnati is a business-friendly city, and that he feels confident that investing in Cincinnati, and neighboring communities, like Columbus and Lexington, would prove immensely lucrative for his international investors. Ultimately, we are to blame for this. Residual colonialism is evident in our policies and practices. Whether we are forcibly removing people from their homes in the name of progress for international investors, or we are creating and sustaining policies that could be equated to genocide, without adequate housing protections, Cincinnati has become the next housing frontier.

By Bill Woods The following piece offers a mid-summer heads up concerning critical current political reform issues that people concerned about the health of democracy need to be aware of. Voting rights and redistricting deserve public attention in Columbus, and here in Cincinnati, a task force established by City Council to address recent corruption has proposed several reforms aimed at preventing the corrupting influence of political donations. Meanwhile, a diverse coalition of advocacy groups dedicates the summer to promoting the Voting Rights Act in the U.S. Senate. Beginning locally, the nine member anti-corruption task force appointed by Mayor John Cranley is seeking public commentary concerning its preliminary report and proposed reforms. Established by the city council late last year, the task force is a response to the three council members who were removed from office due to charges of bribery. Former Councilwoman Tamaya Dennard was convicted in her case, while Jeff Pastor and P. G. Sittenfeld are presently fighting their corruption charges in court. Since all three cases relate to campaign donations in exchange for support of proposed development projects, the Task Force put forward two reforms attempting to thwart the corrupting potentials of political payoffs for a council member's backing of a pending project. One proposal would forbid a developer or development company from making a contribution to a member of Council or Council candidate during the time period when their project is under review by City Council. A second proposal would require a City Council member or candidate to disclose any donations to a political action committee that was under his or her control. (Councilman Sittenfeld is alleged to have asked for payments to such a political action committee.) These two reforms would augment the campaign reform Charter Amendment passed by City voters in 2001. That Amendment put in place contribution limits for Mayoral and Council candidates as well as campaign donation disclosure regulations. The Task Force held a Zoom Forum to hear from the public on July 9th, and citizens should now offer their thoughts to members of City Council, who will have the responsibility for taking the next steps concerning these recommendations. Meanwhile, advocates of political reform have a lot to keep abreast of in Columbus. First of all, the General Assembly has been dealing with a Bill that focuses on voting and election procedures. According to Catherine Turcer, Executive Director of Common Cause Ohio, House Bill 294 will be revisited by the Legislature in September. Although this Bill includes some voter suppression provisions, the proposal is not in the same league with the oppressive legislation in states such as Georgia and Arizona. According to Turcer, 294 also includes real improvements such as the ability to register to vote when renewing one's drivers' license. The strategy now adopted by reform groups like Common Cause is to work in the upcoming legislative session to remove the voter suppression sections from the Bill, while advocating for the positive sections. Turcer noted that besides providing the ability to register to vote at the license bureau, House Bill 294 also improves the state's current process of removing people from the voter registration rolls. Turcer outlined House Bill 294's provisions that need to be scrapped. An additional ID- requirement when applying to vote absentee would make this process more difficult for many Ohioans. Further, the Bill calls for throwing out mail-in ballots that are not properly sealed in the envelopes provided by Boards of Election. Finally, the Bill shortens the time period for dropping off ballots in drop boxes, and it limits the placement of these drop boxes to County Boards of Election. Turcer emphasized the importance of citizen contact with House Reps and State Senators once negotiations begin again on 294 this September. Turcer also confirmed that House Bill 13, the disclosure proposal supported by Common Cause, is still in committee. If citizens don't call on their Representatives to take up this Bill in the fall session, she warned, then it could quietly expire. This proposal would require the now prevalent independent political action committees established to support candidates and issues to disclose the names of large donors. Common Cause would like to see this proposal amended to better maintain the separation between these PACs and the campaign operations of candidates for public office. Next, Turcer described the activities now underway to prepare for the redistricting process that will occur in Ohio this fall. Since the last round of redistricting in 2011 that produced highly gerrymandered Congressional and state districts, Ohio voters have passed two State Constitutional Amendments that reform this process. This is the first time that the changes spelled out in these Amendments will be utilized in drawing up the new district maps, and reform groups like Common Cause and the League of Women Voters want as many citizens as possible involved in order to insure an open and fair process. In fact, several coalitions exist to oversee and participate in the upcoming map making for the state's political districts. For instance, the Equal Districts Coalition, represents twenty citizen groups concerned about this issue. Turcer outlined what groups like Common Cause are presently doing to focus citizen attention on redistricting. It works with other organizations to recruit and administer a speaker's bureau to keep people in communities across the state informed. Since the new procedures allow Ohioans to submit their own maps for review, Common Cause has also hired a person with map making expertise to work with local groups interested in drawing up their versions of fair and compact district lines. Common Cause and its allies, concluded Turcer, are also supplying people with yard signs that call attention to the need for fair districts. Finally, concerned citizens need to keep up to date on reform legislation taking shape in the U.S. Congress. Common Cause and a host of other organizations concerned about preserving voting rights are spending the summer promoting the For The People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Due to the many voter suppression laws being enacted in states across the country, this campaign has taken on even greater importance in the battle to preserve democracy in this country. The recent flight of Democratic Representatives from the Texas Legislature in order to temporarily block the passage of another voter suppression law gave new energy to this reform campaign in Washington, D.C. The Texas Reps flew to the nation's Capital to establish a safe distance from possible arrest at home and to call attention to the need for an effective national voting rights law. While in D.C., the Texans are lobbying Senators to pass such legislation in order to prevent what is happening in their state and many others. Their presence and a recent speech on this issue by President Biden provides a lot of news media coverage and it puts added pressure on Senators to take some action. It should also inspire us to write or call our Senators. We may be in the midst of the summer doldrums, but we are also living through a critical time for the health of our democratic institutions.

By Robert Park First, the crumbling British empire and its competitors divided up South Asia into manageable post-colonial client states like Pakistan, East Pakistan, India, Kashmir, Burma, Afghanistan, Iran, etc., choosing boundaries accordingly. In Afghanistan, like the rest, they left state power in the hands of competing fiefdoms and warlords, former enemies and new friends. Formerly sustainable societies, deformed by global multi-national colonialism, retained cultures with some attributes that fail by todays’ standards: tribal dominance, enforced class stratification, ethnic conflicts, religious mythologies and male supremacy. The mistreatment of women has been a robust feature, prevailing over centuries: denial of education, arranged (child) marriage, prohibition of activities and freedoms routinely afforded men. As the Taliban establish the new normal in Afghanistan this is the future for women there. Before we get too self-righteously indignant, let’s remember that some of our (white) ancestors drowned witches (women who didn’t obey) in Salem Massachusetts. Somewhat earlier others of our ancestors (also of the Christian persuasion) burnt women at the stake. (Don’t forget Black women and the police in America, today.) The lesson here? Cultures can get better; they need help, not exploitation. Let’s examine how the U.S. got into this latest quagmire where leaving is almost as bad as staying. In Afghanistan there have been progressive, successful movements promising a much better future. But colliding imperialisms dashed those hopes. An elected government with laudable ambitions made progress including secularized education for all children in the 1980s. The neighboring U.S.S.R saw an opening to counter U.S. hegemony in South Asia and offered assistance. Maybe the locals were too eager to take advantage or could have negotiated a more defensible relationship. When political intrigue and immature institutions resulted in a crisis in civilian authority, traditionalist forces and sponsors sprang into action trying to preserve the least desirable features of the Afghan past. Russia offered to defend the government while the cold war Democratic Party strategists in Washington saw an opportunity to advance ‘our’ vital interests. How did they do this? They created the Taliban. From a bunch of ragtag fundamentalist Islamic gangs, they synthesized a modern fighting force with generous financing and provision of modern weaponry. So many shoulder-launched missiles were provided to bring down Russian helicopters (Russia’s Vietnam) that later these weapons started showing up elsewhere on the black market: worrisome chickens coming home to roost. These policies were not original; that’s what the U.S. and Britain did in 1954 to remove a progressive, rogue, popularly elected (aristocratic!) leader in Iran (look up Mossadegh) and replace him with their guy, the “Shah of Iran.” At that time the crime of the Iranian government was claiming that Iranian oil actually belonged to the Iranians, not to British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. When the western bullying became intense, Iran reached out to the U.S.S.R (not their favorite model of democracy) for help. Well, we know how that worked out: ramming global capitalist development down the throats of Iranians produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Another example of bad policies with really bad forever consequences. Sort of like decades of neoliberal policies in the U.S. by centrist Democrats (deregulation, privatization, anti-union, continuous war) creating an opening for fascist Trump. As the U.S. and puppet allies leave Afghanistan their local collaborators are once again expecting to rely on the warlords to save their butts. It won’t work. The Taliban can deliver less corruption and more economic progress than the warlord amalgamation (a pretty low bar); and their retro social policies won’t be that different from what the warlords have to offer. What can countries that were part of the problem do to promote recovery in Taliban Afghanistan? Tie all foreign assistance, investment and trade agreements to enforceable goals. Of course, if they don’t apply the same rules to Saudi Arabia or Myanmar, that’s a problem. Provide examples in other societies where dramatic improvements in economic progress with human rights are achieved (not that easy in the current global system; Namibia comes to mind). Require all “progressive” countries to provide unconditional asylum to women and children fleeing the Taliban dystopia. Build friendly terminals for an underground railroad. This is another example of progress in really sad places requiring progress in lots of other places.

By Alex McIntosh My parents started their swimming pool service business in 1999. My mom had just gotten out of the shower when my dad burst in with a tentative grin on his face. She recognized the expression, a mix of embarrassment and self-assurance, a look she knew meant that he had quit his job. “Let’s start our own company,” he said as my mom towel-dried her hair. This decision shaped my family life and allowed my parents to build the kind of workplace they desired. Even in the lean, early years of the business when they were struggling to pay their own bills, I remember my parents giving generously to their workers, bagging up our hand-me-downs to give to an employee whose kids were younger than us. When my brother and I outgrew the swing set in our back yard, we loaded it piece by piece into one of the employee’s trucks for his kids to enjoy. Now that I’m older, I’ve realized my parents gave away much more than hand-me-downs; I can’t count the number of times they’ve given out paychecks early to help ease an employee’s stress; they’ve helped with medical payments, been flexible with time off, and even bailed employees out of jail without asking too many questions. I see the way they worry about their workers, the way they wish for the best for their families, and the way they try and pass down the wisdom and experience they’ve gained to empower others to be as successful as they’ve been. I’ve seen them live out their commitment to the trade, to providing excellent service at a fair price, and their belief in the dignity of blue collar work. In short, they’ve run their business with humanity, and treated their employees like humans. I’ve also seen the stress in their faces when we pass a sign for an Amazon warehouse job starting at $18 an hour. I’ve heard their strained discussions when another young hire leaves the company to work somewhere else for more money, for a job that is indoors and doesn’t require as much technical knowledge. My parents’ business pays high above minimum wage and provides stipends for health insurance and cell phones and gas, but they struggle to compete with the pay or health benefits of a huge corporation. There are a lot of memes floating around posing the worker shortage as a rebellion against the archetypical wealthy business owner—the billionaire who is paying his workers pennies, wearing a top hat and grinning sleazily. My disdain of late stage capitalism tempts me to categorially distrust businesses; the startling discrepancy between minimum wage and the cost of living makes it easy to group all business owners into this wicked caricature. But watching my parents’ attempt to maintain a small, healthy, profitable, and equitable business tempers my rage. What I’m basically saying is, “Not all businesses…” which is a statement layered in irony and founded on avoidance of white middle-class responsibility. But surely there is a difference between Amazon and my parents’ business. For one thing, my parents know all of their employees personally. They see them as people because they know them as people—they know their families, their hopes and dreams, their work ethics, and funny catch phrases. When my dad complains of the worker shortage—or as he sees it, “young kids not wanting to get their hands dirty”—I try and remind him there are plenty of people who want to work, but there are also plenty of people who are fed up with working 40 hours a week and struggling to pay their rent, afford groceries and health insurance, childcare, and the countless other expenses of modern life. I try and remind him that we are on the same side—all of us working class people, all of us people who believe in contributing to our community and benefitting from that contribution. When I hear my peers complain about the soulless conditions of the modern workplace, of their disdain for the billionaires whose money is multiplying exponentially as I type this, I try and remind them of the value of small businesses. I know that a good work environment alone doesn’t put food on the employee’s table; I know that fair pay is essential. I don’t know the complex economic answers that will solve America’s living wage problem—though, I’ve read that housing stipends, socialized medicine, and public childcare might help even things out. But I do know that we can’t lump small business owners into our cultural disdain for “the boss.” And I know that small business owners need young employees who are willing to work hard. What I’m saying is that we need each other. All of us non-billionaires need to realize that we want the same things out of the American workplace—safe, meaningful jobs that provide for our financial needs. Small businesses—where workers are treated as humans, where they have a stake in the company’s success— may be a good place to start. I’m certainly not advocating for capitalism as a value system—I realize the toxicity of the vision of growth for growth’s sake, and the devastating potential of American consumerism. But I see small businesses as harm reduction in a society that is desperately hurting from the inhumanity of late stage capitalism. Until my communist friends’ dreams of a Worker State are realized, small businesses are some of the most ethical, caring places to find work. If you or someone you know is interested in working for my parents’ small business—they’re hiring! Check out their job posting on www.facebook.com/ProPoolSpas or send an email to poolmac@twc.com.

By Dr. Mark Mussman Over the past year we've seen one thing - the powerful will do what they can to remain in power, regardless of who it hurts, and when it hurts. During the pandemic, 3CDC seized the opportunity to do what it had intended to do for so long - take as much public property and turn it into a profit. From park-like spaces like Imagination Alley and Findlay Playground, to public right-of-ways, like Court Street, 14th and 15th Streets, and the DORA, to the Streateries, 3CDC took advantage of the unfortunate situation to push through, and get paid for, their privatization of public space. Anyone who has dealt with water control issues, knows that the power of water is boundless. A little drip becomes a rush, and that rush will push until it gets to its destination - the ocean. Anything in the way becomes Swiss Cheese, full of tunnels of different sizes. In their rush to get the Streateries in before the summer season, 3CDC installed wooden platforms throughout the city without a proper drainage plan. Pooling water can be seen throughout the neighborhood, creating hazards, conditions for infestations, and structural damage. (If you are unsure what a Streatery is, it's an outdoor seating area for private businesses, usually in the place of parking spots, on roads or extended sidewalks. The Streatery program was funded by the City of Cincinnati and other private partners, and is administered by 3CDC, not the city.) Like the unstoppable drip of water heading downhill, the privatization of our neighborhood's parks and recreation spaces continues. Like the Streateries, fueled by public TIF money, Imagination Alley has been razed, except for the Arch, and new concrete and planting areas are to be constructed. After granting 3CDC the management rights to pocket a park in the 1300 block of Vine and Republic, 3DDC worked with a local group of community members to provide engagement about the space. This group, Storefronts, reported that the space should be welcoming to the current users after renovation, and that children should have a usable space to play, among other recommendations. Nearby residents requested bathrooms and water fountains at Imagination Alley, but were told that the budget and space wouldn't accommodate them. After that process finished, the city allotted half a million dollars to 3CDC for the remodel. Just a couple of blocks away from Imagination Alley, 14th and 15th Streets are closed for restaurant and bar access. The closure of these public streets by 3CDC was opposed by the community council. 3CDC had requested 15th Street be closed years ago, but due to community concern, the plan was halted; however, with the excuse of COVID19, 3CDC was successful in lobbying the city to agree to the closure, plus the additional closures, and provide the funding to do so. Hidden deep in the plans for the street closure was a declaration that 3CDC was creating a permitting process so that Imagination Alley could be used as a small events venue, and rented out to neighboring restaurants and bars. This information, as well as the final designs, budgets, and plans for the children's area, were never presented to the community council. Up the street, around Findlay Market, 3CDC is packaging four publicly owned and controlled properties into a portfolio to be reimagined by 3CDC. These properties include Findlay Playground, Findlay Park, the Over-the-Rhine Rec Center, and Grant Park. These public properties are in an area where 3CDC is rapidly developing - whether it be upscale housing, or breweries and restaurants, 3CDC is using tax credits to develop several buildings around Findlay Playground. A few years ago, Findlay Playground was fenced off, purposefully disrupting the community, forcing neighboring small businesses to close, social networks to be undermined, and the loss of public space. During the pandemic, the community fought to have the fence removed from the area, yet part of the fence still remains today. The public input process that 3CDC is using involves a survey asking questions about services and amenities that are needed, but fails to list public restrooms, even though neighbors have said this is the number one issue. People filling out the survey could add that under "Other" but the fact that it's not even included, knowing that this has been a concern, may mean they are steering participants away from basic needs, such as bathrooms. But even more concerning, is that 3CDC has already renamed the Over-the-Rhine Rec Center to the Findlay Rec Center, and as we may know, to name is to own, which brings even larger questions to why 3CDC is involved at all with these properties, other than their ownership of neighboring undeveloped properties. You may have heard about the recent struggle for residents on Court Street to remain in their homes. Unfortunately, the international investor-backed developer has chosen Cincinnati because of our eviction-friendly laws and relatively low cost of housing. They have purchased more than a thousand units in under two years, and they are hoping to drive up the cost of living and fulfill their obligation to their investors. Their model is to vacate the property and create "luxury" units and charge the maximum rent that the market will allow. Unfortunately, because we are in a housing crisis, the market has no limit, and many families are forced to pay way more than 30% of their income towards their housing. As long as it creates a profit for their shareholders, the system is working as intended - to make the rich richer. Some have noted that the recent city investment in Court Street, creating a pedestrian area, and the TIF money going to fund 3CDC's high-end condos, may have contributed to the displacement of the long-time residents. Just as we saw around Zeigler and Washington Parks, and we will see around Findlay Playground and Grant Parks, the more public investment in an area, the higher the likelihood that longtime residents will be displaced. Just look to the West End, where the soccer stadium has increased the property values following tens of millions of dollars in public investment there. This is how 3CDC is cornering the market. Finally, another way 3CDC took advantage of the pandemic was with the DORA on the Banks. The DORA is an outdoor area for public consumption of alcoholic beverages. People are able to buy a specially marked cup and drink in the entire Banks, excluding Smale Riverfront Park. As was true for every single one of the aforementioned projects, the public input on the DORA lacked true engagement and has created a festival atmosphere that is incongruent with a residential neighborhood. Fortunately, the Banks was built for tourism, and the DORA may be a welcome addition, but it does not come without a cost. Ultimately, 3CDC is like a trickle of water that seems innocuous until it's too late: today, the trickle has poked so many holes through the fabric of the community that the result is a community that is wholly unrecognizable. The shift from a residential neighborhood to a tourist destination was finalized at City Hall during the pandemic through a partnership with 3CDC. The goal to bring the restaurants and bars back was achieved without adequate community input. The fact that the road closures and Streateries are permanent, demonstrates how much power the city is willing to concede to 3CDC, without ensuring a proper review process, and it should be chilling enough to freeze the pools of water caused by the ill-designed Streateries.

By Katelyn Lusher Gentrification has a certain “look.” Once you know the telltale signs, it is impossible to not notice, even if you are not from that particular city. In May, my husband and I visited my brother in Denver. I had never been to the city before, but it was clear to me that certain areas were changing rapidly. For example, older buildings with graffiti art were juxtaposed with shiny, modern looking apartment complexes with signs advertising available units. Small, independent family-owned shops were flanked by hip restaurants and boutiques. In a brewery, I saw a sign urging people to “Save Welton Street” from gentrification, which confirmed my suspicion that the area was undergoing aggressive change. The same can be witnessed in Over-the-Rhine on Vine Street, which quickly changes as you approach downtown. It is no coincidence that while Over-the-Rhine has been a predominantly Black neighborhood since the 1950s, the areas which have been “redeveloped” are now primarily white spaces. The same is true in gentrified areas across the country. Denver, Cincinnati, Detroit, Cleveland, and New York City are all prime examples of cities that have used architecture to gentrify and, by extension, eliminate Black spaces. Recently, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York put on an exhibition called “Reconstruction: Architecture and Blackness in America,” which explores how racism is embedded in architectural choices without most people even knowing it. Architecture has been used to purposely separate and divide people within cities by design; one of the artists of this exhibition, Sekou Cooke, states that “the predominant spaces of Black inhabitation in this country have been leftover, disposable, and characterless environments.” For example, when white residents leave an area, it is then possible for Black residents to live there as long as they can accept that their residences may be shabby, outdated, or undesirable to most. It is not uncommon for people to drive through a neighborhood with older, shabbier buildings and label it as “bad” or “rough.” Many times, those areas are occupied by non-white and/or low income residents. An area may be purposely neglected to further segregate less “desirable” residents from more affluent white populations. Over-the-Rhine is a perfect example of this. Over-the-Rhine became a predominantly Black neighborhood when most of its German immigrant population left because of anti-German sentiment after both world wars. The neighborhood remained that way for decades until redevelopment projects by 3CDC introduced high-end luxury apartments that are now mostly occupied by white professionals. The 2020 census results are not out yet, but it is likely that Over-the-Rhine’s demographics will be quite different compared to the last census in 2010. This is not to say that non-white residents can’t occupy these spaces and rent out a luxury apartment; however, many landlords and mortgage lenders are guilty of discriminatory practices and make it difficult to do so (even though it is illegal, it still happens). Furthermore, many architectural projects are designed by white, male architects so other voices are not heard from the very beginning. In a panel discussion published by Architectural Record, two architecture professors, Dianne Harris and Louis P. Nelson, and a practitioner, Damon Rich, discussed how white supremacy is built into the environment and education. Nelson comments that it is impossible to talk about architecture only in terms of aesthetics. Doing so, in fact, “masks a dominant Western, white framework that, once we expose it, helps us look at how all architecture is a cultural product and cultural agent, as well as political and racial.” In other words, you cannot look at architecture without also considering how it is used to exclude certain people and obscure disparities behind a glossy front. Harris further states that anyone who is not a white man—or maybe a white woman, in some cases—is shut out of the room when design decisions are being made, and that further widens the divide: “When white architects refuse to see who’s not at the table, and refuse to acknowledge that structural racism is a critical issue for professional practice, they reinforce white supremacy over and over again, both in the profession and in the built environment.” If new developments in Over-the-Rhine, for example, are primarily designed by white men in an area that is primarily occupied by Black residents, then how will new architecture ever reflect the needs of the community that already exists there? In fact, most of 3CDC’s leadership appears to be white. There are also, Harris states, many “erased landscapes” in Black history which render certain events invisible to white Americans who don’t want to acknowledge their presence or didn’t deem it important to preserve. For example, the 1921 Tulsa massacre on Black Wall Street has only recently started to earn public recognition from white Americans in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement. When those homes and businesses were destroyed, Black spaces were also destroyed. When Black spaces are destroyed, spaces that have been leftover and discarded by white residents are all that is left, corroborating Cooke’s earlier point about Black inhabitations. New development projects in gentrified areas stick out intentionally. Gentrification and racial disparities are closely linked. Through architecture, gentrification can call attention to how certain populations are encouraged while others are forced to live on the fringes.

Bill Woods Suddenly, recent legislation has produced a policy with the potential of significantly reducing poverty in this country. Included in the major COVID-relief bill passed by Congress in March is a section that temporarily extends the child tax credit. At a special Community Issues Forum on June 25th, Senator Sherrod Brown, one of the architects of this extension, talked about how this policy will provide needed income to low-income families when it goes into effect in July. With income inequality at an all time high, Senator Brown sees the tax credit extension as a big step in the other direction. Previously, only families with significant taxable incomes could avail themselves of the federal child tax credit. With the extension, families with little or even no taxable incomes can take advantage of the credit. These families are now eligible to receive $300 a month for a child under five years of age, and $250 for children over five. For instance, a single mother with two children under five can now qualify to receive $600 a month from the Feds. Brown noted that the temporary extension of the child tax credit will be in effect for twelve months. He thinks that the positive results of this policy on low-income families will help build the case for making the extension permanent. He told Forum attendees that they needed to start collecting positive stories about how child credit tax payments make a major difference in the lives of low income families. With a year of positive evidence amassed, he speculated, it will be hard to make the case not to make this extension permanent. Senator Brown had to leave for a meeting halfway through the Forum, but the discussion of this policy continued. Providing further insights was Stephanie Moes, of the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio. She stressed that not enough people knew about the tax credit or how to sign up to qualify for it. She emphasized that social service agencies that serve low-income families must become knowledgeable about the process so they can help their clients get through the paperwork and qualify. For instance, families who have not filed a federal income tax return recently must now fill out some forms in order to receive this benefit. Moes also stressed Senator Brown's point about collecting stories during the next twelve months that show the benefits of this child tax credit extension. This type of information as well as effective citizen advocacy will be needed to help leaders like Senator Brown promote legislation to make the extension permanent. For further information, contact Stephanie Moes, smoes@lascinti.org, or www.brown.senate.gov.

By Gabriela Godinez Feregrino The emotional push and pull of science during a pandemic is an experience no one was prepared for. Just when we feel it’s about to be over, the goal post moves. With the new delta variant of COVID-19 many questions may rise and new anxieties might develop. It’s important to preface any article or conversation about COVID-19 that our mental health is a vital part of our overall health. While science advances everyday and it’s important to stay up to date on new protocols, taking care of our brains is just as important as the rest of our body. Vaccines and the Variant Right now, we know that the Johnson and Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines are all currently effective against the delta variant. Vaccines are so important to stopping the spread of and mutation of COVID-19 that President Biden has begun to push for door to door vaccinations. With the delta variant being more aggressive in young bodies than the alpha variant, all ages need to be getting the vaccine when available. Once vaccinated, according to the CDC the individual does not need to wear a mask. However both Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization recommends the vaccinated public should wear a mask in “confined or crowded environments” and in areas “with low vaccination rates.” The stance of wearing a mask even after vaccination came with the introduction of the delta variant. Anxiety The CDC says that after getting vaccinated we are allowed to resume activities that we engaged in prior to the pandemic. However, while this may be physically true, this might not be psychologically true. According to the American Medical Association, “While stress, fear, worry, sadness, exhaustion and numbness are normal—and expected—emotional responses to a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact on mental health cannot go ignored.” They recommend that we take pauses, and “give yourself permission to take it slow.” We need to be respectful that people will be in different head spaces when it comes to wearing masks. If you are vaccinated you may not physically need to wear a mask, but if it helps you feel better about re-entering society then by all means do so. Trust in science, but give yourself the space to make small incremental changes even when it feels like everyone else is diving head first into society. Burnout and Boredom According to Dr. Maclean at the AMA noted that “women and people of color seem to be more negatively impacted.” Feelings of low motivation, sadness, and feeling tired/burned out should be taken seriously. Not all of us have the privilege to take time for ourselves, but if you do the AMA recommends taking time for self care and therapy. What we have experienced and are experiencing is a type of trauma and should be treated as such. It’s also important to remember that we all process trauma differently. While it may make sense for stress to manifest as nervousness or lashing out, fatigue is also a valid and common reaction. Reconnecting with small hobbies that bring us joy at our own pace and connecting with friends is helpful, however reaching out for help might be necessary. Having an open and honest conversation with your general practitioner is always recommended, including topics of mental health. Do What You Can Do your best and let go of the rest. We will continue to have to engage in conversations about the pandemic, new variants will pop up, and yet the world will keep spinning. It’s normal to feel angry, sad or scared, but we cannot stay in those places for too long. Stay up to date with what’s going on in the areas that affect you and then take a break. We don’t need to know every detail at all times. The most important thing is to continue following your local protocols and get vaccinated. After that give yourself the time and space to feel what you are feeling, and do what you need to do to cope. Reach out to friends, family, and mental health professionals. Above all, know you are not all alone, quite literally we are all in this together.

By Bill Woods Common Cause celebrated its 50th year in operation on June 10th. This national citizen reform organization was founded by John Gardner in 1971 during the first term of the Nixon Administration. Founded during the turbulent time of Vietnam protest, urban unrest, and the counter culture versus Main Street U.S.A, the organization sought to renew the health of democracy by empowering citizens to get involved in government and politics. Although Gardner saw the need for reform in 1971, groups such as Common Cause are even more necessary today. Politics in this country was quite different fifty years ago. In Washington, D.C., for instance, the House of Representatives and the Senate were a lot less polarized than today. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties included conservative, liberal, and moderate members. Most members of Congress from the South were still Democrats who tended to side with conservative Republican members from the Midwest and West. Meanwhile, there were a number of liberal and moderate Democrats and Republicans elected from eastern, Midwestern, and western states. This diversity within the two parties meant that a lot of compromises had to take place within the parties themselves. This situation also meant that informal coalitions were formed between Republicans and Democrats in order to pass various bills in the House and Senate. This party diversity led to a lot of bipartisan negotiations in order to get laws passed. The landmark Civil Rights legislation enacted during the Johnson Administration could not have taken place without these informal coalitions of Republicans and Democrats. Liberal Republican and Democratic members of Congress provided the foundation of support for these bills, while enough moderates from both parties were finally convinced to pass the legislation. Meanwhile, President Johnson was able to convince prominent Southern Democrats not to attempt to block these Bills by using the filibuster. The Vietnam War existed as the most controversial policy at the time Common Cause was founded, but opponents and proponents of this conflict could be found in both parties. Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern were leading Democratic opponents, but they were matched by Senators Mark Hatfield and Charles Percy, and Congressmen Charles Whalen from the Republican side of the aisle. When compared to the current makeup of the two parties and how they function in determining legislation, the diversity of the 1960s and 1970s appears much healthier for a functioning government and for representative democracy in general. Neither party today possesses much ideological diversity, and Congressional leaders like Mitch McConnell set a higher priority for building their party's power than working toward policies that will benefit "we the people." In fact, instead of working toward any compromise legislation with the Democrats during the Obama years, McConnell's stated aim was to block any Bills supported by that Administration. With Joe Biden now in the White House, the Kentucky Senator has again publicly announced that same goal. Although numerous economic and social problems need public attention and creative legislation, this kind of intransigence will make such action difficult, if not impossible. Another concern of Common Cause at the time of its founding was the growing influence of money in the political and governmental process. During the 1970s, contributions to campaigns from big donors were beginning to warp the normal course of campaigns. This compulsive need for candidates for big donations to pay for TV advertising distracted them from focusing on the issues confronting their average constituents. Candidates for Congress spent a lot of time dialing for dollars. During this first round, when members from Common Cause and other citizen groups championing campaign finance reforms, some progress was achieved. Many states and cities adopted contribution limits and requirements for candidates to publicly disclose campaign donations. Some went even further and enacted legislation that provided for the public financing of campaigns. Even in this earlier period, the Supreme Court erected legal barriers that blunted effective reform. In the Buckley versus Valeo decision of 1976, the Court ruled against a federal reform law that established a limit on how much a candidate for a Congress could spend. The Court equated spending money on a campaign to freedom of speech and ruled that governments could not put in place such a limit. Although the Court upheld establishing contribution limits, it also held that candidates could spend as much of their own money as they wanted on their campaigns. Today the influence of "big money" has grown even greater in our political process. Once again, the Supreme Court has been a major factor in increasing the power of corporate campaign donors. The Citizen United Case of 2010 opened up a whole new world of political spending that has steadily mounted since the Court made its ruling. Adding to the earlier ruling that equates campaign spending to freedom of speech, Citizens United gave "personhood" to corporations and said that these entities could not be denied the right to spend money in support of issues or candidates. The Citizens United Case has weakened earlier reforms like contribution limits and the public financing of campaigns. For instance, if it declares that it has no official ties with a candidate's campaign organization, a corporate or union PAC can launch a campaign for a candidate with no concern for contribution limits or other restrictions. Such separate spending, if large enough, can make contribution limits and public financing irrelevant. This kind of Super PAC activity has become common since 2010, and it has led to a lot of disillusionment about whether the political system really serves "we the people" anymore. Reformers continue to wrestle with finding the appropriate reforms and strategies for dealing with the "big money" factor. The most difficult but comprehensive approach is working for an Amendment to the Constitution that would overturn the Citizens United decision. Thus, after fifty years of operation, Common Cause currently exists in a public environment that is even more in need of a group dedicated to organizing citizens to reform politics and government. In a recent email to members, its current President, Karen Hobert Flynn, called for "persistence" in what she described as "a once in a generation fight to save democracy." Besides the warping impact of "big money," the multi-state voter suppression campaign must be taken on. With one of the two major Parties working to undermine public confidence in our election process, Common Cause seeks to renew representative democracy and restore that public confidence. While Common Cause state chapters work to defeat voter suppression legislation such as House Bill 294 in Ohio, Flynn, and her Washington, D.C. staff have dedicated the summer to mounting an effective citizen campaign to convincing the U.S Senate to pass both the For the People Act and the Voting Rights Act. When announcing this campaign, Flynn described how this legislation directly takes on voter suppression, gerrymandering, and "big money" while strengthening transparency. If enacted, these Bills would prevent much of the state activity to hamper people from voting, while the For the People Act also includes public financing for Congressional elections. The goal is to keep the pressure on both the Senate and the Biden Administration until these Bills are passed into law and signed by the President. For further information about this campaign, go to Common Cause.org.

By Michael Burnham and Barbara Wolf When Bob Moore died from esophageal cancer at 81 on the afternoon of Thursday the 18th of March, Cincinnati and the world lost one of its most persistent, inclusive, and kindest social activists, not to mention what U. Utah Phillips, one of Bob’s favorite folk musicians, would have labeled its “best political tool”, aka “a long memory”. Educator and Over-the-Rhine activist Bonnie Neumeier recalls, “From the moment I first met him, he was a history book, always sharing stories about a wide range of struggles for justice.” Bob’s younger brother Richard calls him “the jokester and the trickster” of the family, especially early on. The US Department of Education’s Gregg Corr calls Bob “a fighter. He fought against oppression, injustice, and inequality. He supported people’s struggles on a variety of fronts. He didn’t take the easy path, but always strived to do the right thing.” Mary McCoy, who worked with Moore to establish PeaceWorks, a coalition of activists concerned with various social justice issues, says, “When I think of him, it is not foremost as a comrade and crusader. I think of him as my friend. I suspect that is true for others, as he had a way about him that made us love him no matter what else was going on. I suspect his warm heart, gentle push, and easy smile changed many lives besides mine.” But it wasn’t just that—Lucy Crane remembers that “Bob was also a very kind and gentle man...and he had the sweetest crinkle in his eyes every time he smiled at you.” Bob Moore’s life proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s possible to be all those things – scholar, joker, fighter, and kind friend – at one and the same time, not to mention be all of them at once to a hell of a lot of people. Perhaps inspired by his father – the Robert R. Moore who captained the ship delivering Admiral Byrd to Antarctica – Bob hoped to fly C130 rescue planes in Vietnam, didn’t get into flight school, and served as Executive Officer on a Coast Guard cutter instead. Then, while putting his BA from William and Mary to use in the University of Cincinnati’s School of Education (M.Ed and ABD/Ed.D), he proudly joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. As he became aware dollars spent on the war were making life miserable for the poor at home and that veterans often became homeless, Bob’s activism expanded to embrace those issues. To earn an ethical living, Moore taught at UC and then at Union Institute, later working for the Urban Appalachian Council, St. Raphael Social Service, and Interfaith Hospitality Network. He served on the boards of the Appalachian Community Development Association, the Association for Community Based Education, the Urban Appalachian Council, the Butler County Human Services Council, and the Society for the Preservation of Aurora. He cofounded the Butler County Self-Sufficiency Coalition, founded the Butler County Homeless Coalition, co-chaired the Cincinnati Central American Task Force, chaired UAC’s Research and Education Committee, and cofounded the political theatre StreetTalk. As for honors, after his death his wife found boxes labeled “Bob’s Awards” in the garage. Georgine Getty – the executive director of the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless from 2002-2007, then director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network for six years, and now the director of Our Daily Bread – remembers being befriended by Bob during a time of some stress. As she recalls it, “I first met Bob because I got stood up. I was 26 years old and the new director of the Coalition for the Homeless. It was a cold and rotten day, and I was supposed to meet a prospective board member, but she never showed up. This was at Mullane’s during lunchtime so, of course, Bob was there. He was alone, but not really because Bob was never alone. He sat there, eating his meal and surveying the room with his trademark blend of curiosity and good humor. He noticed me getting stood up – the looks from my watch to the door – and he asked me to come eat with him. Normally, I am not one to sit with strangers but I said yes because this man with the ponytail had the kindest eyes I’d ever seen. It was like I’d stepped into a story that had been going on before me and would keep going on after me.” So it’s easy to see why a lot of people in this region of the country have started feeling like Executive Director of the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, Josh Spring does. As Spring puts it, “Bob was on the board of the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition for many years. He was the executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network of Greater Cincinnati, a longtime Member-Organization of the Coalition and really, Bob had been with our Coalition since before its founding. It is hard to imagine Bob not being around. From when I was interviewed to work at the Coalition, there has been some level of security in knowing, even if Bob wasn’t in the meeting or discussion at hand, he was always just around the corner.” As Bonnie Neumeier says, “It was just recently that he had to vacate his participation on the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition Board for health reasons. When I think of Bob Moore, I see his smile that is gentle and kind. But within that gentleness, there was a fire in his soul to right wrongs so all peoples could live in dignity and peace.” To that, Mary McCoy adds, “He was a rare individual who spent much of his life serving others, especially those who faced oppression, yet he had not an ounce of self-righteousness in him. He did not see himself as better than those I thought were downright wrong.” Spring suggests we not cut the cords of solidarity that link us to the dead: “It felt like a gift to work with Bob, to be joined with someone who had been in the fight longer than I had been alive and who for decades had seen systemic ills and decided to fight and fight. Whatever the meeting, the discussion, the debate, the controversy, etc., I always knew Bob was on a part of the fabric of our side. “As the Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, we love Bob Moore, are very grateful for Bob, and forever will be tied to Bob. We stand with his wife Patty, his Family, and all of his People.” Edited from the Michael Burnham and Barbara Wolf pamphlet by Barry Klein, Steve Sunderland, and Chris Wilkey.

By Bill Woods After nearly five months of a new Administration in Washington, D.C., it seems time to conduct an assessment of government and politics in this country. How have policies and priorities changed? How healthy are our public institutions and democracy in general? After surviving four years of Donald Trump in the White House, the Biden Administration provides a refreshing change in priorities and behavior. Its first legislation, the major stimulus bill, pumps funds across the country for a range of activities related to recovering from the impacts of the pandemic. Most importantly, it puts money in the hands of struggling families who often faced job losses, food insecurity, and the inability to pay for basics such as rent, utilities, and child care. Meanwhile, as the Chief Executive, President Biden has rescinded many of Trump's executive orders that hurt environmental protection, hindered addressing climate change, or promoted inhumane immigration policies. The current priority of the Biden team is to pass a large infrastructure bill. Besides dollars to rebuild highways and bridges, it includes money for societal infrastructure needs such as child care. Also waiting in the wings for passage by the Senate are a comprehensive voting rights act, and a police reform bill. This positive news, however, doesn't tell the whole story. It must be contrasted with some negative factors that still pose threats to well-functioning government and the democratic process. The Republican Party must currently be recognized as the biggest danger to our representative system of government. For instance, the fifty Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate represent the major obstacle to the passage of the Biden legislative agenda. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to block all Administration bills, and with the assistance of the Senate filibuster process, he may be able to do just that. Last week, the filibuster was employed to kill the plan to establish a bipartisan commission to thoroughly examine the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. The blockage of the January Commission represents an example of the Republican Party's dangerous anti-democratic course that includes fealty to the views of former President Donald Trump. Since Trump spoke to the marchers and promoted the January 6th march on the Capitol, Republicans seem hell-bent on burying any revelations that expose Trump's and the GOP's ties to this violent insurrection. The reason for the march on the Capitol was Trump's refusal to accept the fact that he legitimately lost the November election to Joe Biden. Trump has continued to promote "the big lie" that the election was stolen, and much of the Republican leadership pays lip service to it. Supporting the vocal non-acceptance of a legitimate Presidential election is harmful to democracy, and it is especially so when one of the two major political parties gives legitimacy to this misinformation. Polls indicate that a large majority of Republicans believe that Trump actually won in November. Accepting "the big lie" legitimizes other anti-democratic actions taken by Republicans such as voter suppression laws. In-state legislatures across the country, Republicans are drafting and passing laws that make it more difficult for African-Americans and other minorities to cast ballots. Several of these laws even go so far as to allow the state legislature to disallow an election with little or no evidence of voter fraud. This voter suppression movement requires grassroots citizen involvement to counter these efforts. In Ohio, for instance, Common Cause and other pro-democracy groups are rallying the public to oppose Bill 294, this state's version of voter suppression. Finally, the Party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt has become the Party that caters to white supremacy groups that have a predilection for promoting hate and advocating violence. Some of the groups involved in the January 6th insurrection such as "the Proud Boys" fall into this category. While the Party purged Rep. Liz Cheney from her leadership post in the House for defending democracy rather than Donald Trump, it remains silent when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene advocates her Qanon beliefs. Thus, this is no time for citizens who believe in democracy to become complacent. People need to get behind political and government reform efforts and the groups that support them such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. Although it is sometimes tempting to laugh off and not take seriously the crazy ideas and conspiracy theories that surface on social media and Fox News, the visual images of January 6th should warn us that there are people out there prepared to violently act in the pursuit of these beliefs. The election of Joe Biden was one positive step, but a lot of reforming needs to happen before our representative democracy is restored to health. So, stay well informed and active!

By Katelyn Lusher A couple of weeks ago, a few friends and I were at a bar in Over-the-Rhine not far from the Homeless Coalition. It was a warm night and we were chatting on the bar’s sidewalk patio when an older man, who was presumably experiencing homelessness, approached us asking for bus fare. None of us were bothered by him at all, but the bouncer at this establishment apparently had a problem with him speaking to us and tersely told the man to stop bothering us. I told the bouncer there was no problem with the man speaking to us and we were just talking. The bouncer, however, insisted that the man was a problem just by being there and told me “you don’t know, you’re not here every night and this is my patio” (although I am almost positive that the bouncer is not, in fact, the owner of this bar). When the man protested against the bouncer’s behavior, the bouncer quickly became aggressive and antagonistic, telling the man that his breath stank and he smelled bad. At this point, my friends and I were so disgusted that we knew it was time to leave because we didn’t want to support a business that supports that kind of behavior. We asked the man to walk with us so he could remove himself from the situation since the bouncer was clearly trying to start a fight. However, the bouncer continued to harass the man as he was walking away, yelling that he “could take him and his boys” and following us. My friend told the bouncer that you cannot treat people this way, but the bouncer continued yelling that this was “his” patio and telling us to not tell him how to run his patio. We led the man away and advised that he stay away from that business because it wasn’t worth getting into an altercation with the bouncer. What happened at this business, however, is anything but an isolated incident. Time and time again, people who work or pass through Over-the-Rhine treat people who are experiencing homeless as less than human and undeserving of common decency and dignity. The larger issue at hand though is how people like the bouncer claim ownership over something that clearly is not theirs because they are power-drunk. Cincinnati has seen its fair share of police brutality and many people experiencing homelessness have a story about poor treatment from law enforcement, but since the police are supposed to be public servants, they are (somewhat) more likely to receive a public reckoning. But what happens when security officers or bouncers at private establishments go too far? Private sector policing is also just as guilty of encouraging or causing violence against people experiencing homelessness, and they have far less accountability. Furthermore, the treatment that people receive from security immediately shows who is valued at that establishment and allowed to act out and who is not. For example, just before the incident described earlier, my friends and I witnessed an inebriated man making a pass at three young women on the patio who were clearly uncomfortable with his advances. He was invading their personal space, but the bouncer did not do anything and let it happen. When moments later the man presumably experiencing homelessness approached us, however, the bouncer immediately jumped in and started a confrontation even after my friends and I insisted that nothing was wrong. There were glaring—and very telling—differences between the inebriated man and the man experiencing homelessness. The first man was a clean-cut white man who was well dressed while the other man who approached us was Black and his clothes showed signs that he may have been unsheltered for some time. His appearance was not his fault, but the bouncer faulted it against him regardless and wouldn’t even allow him to speak. These kinds of problematic interactions not only reflect the values of the establishment, but also the environment that is encouraged in gentrified areas. When a neighborhood becomes gentrified, the common refrain is that an area is being “cleaned up.” Often, that also means scrubbing the image of homelessness in that area no matter the cost, while not actively investing in affordable housing and programs to actually get rid of the issue of homelessness. Over-the-Rhine, as many people know, has been aggressively gentrified and the gentrification is spreading further each year. While not every business in Over-the-Rhine is necessarily aggressive towards people experiencing homelessness, the “upscale transformation” of the neighborhood makes it more and more difficult for people experiencing homelessness to get the services they need as those services move farther and farther away from the city center. Shelterhouse (formerly known as the Drop Inn Center), for example, used to be near Washington Park and was much more accessible for the population it services in the area. But because city developers wanted to change the atmosphere of the area, the Drop Inn Center was pushed out and relocated west of downtown, in an area that is not as easy to get to. Even more troubling is the fact that the people who are attracted to gentrified neighborhoods like Over-the-Rhine seem to be disgusted by the very presence of people experiencing homelessness. A few Streetvibes distributors, for example, have told me stories about how people treat them terribly when they are selling their papers, telling them to “get a job” or just pretending they don’t exist. One person even told me that someone tried to urinate on them. Even more recently, 3 people were caught on security footage shooting BB guns at people experiencing homelessness on the street. While this kind of treatment is unfortunately common all over the country for people who are experiencing homelessness, gentrification makes it clear that the city says they do not belong. The combination of a changing local environment and the poor treatment from people paid to “protect” patrons at an establishment results in a very hostile situation for people experiencing homelessness. While it may seem on the outside like people like the aggressive bouncer are keeping people safe, we need to ask ourselves one important question: who do they serve and who do they protect?