I wrote this 5yrs ago, but it seems worth revisiting now, as #openstreets advocates continue to speak over those who raise questions about who gets left behind when the needs of those who can't access their streets in the best of times are left out of the conversation.
It's so weird to reread my own words and recognize that a (very tiny) part of me clung to the hope that if I could just lay this out in a way advocates of privilege could understand, they would get it and at some point, we might see a shift in the conversation.
I'd mark any hope I had as officially being buried in early 2017, when I watched L.A.'s bike community rally itself to explain away the racist & otherwise bigoted shenanigans of one of its leaders who was running for city council. But in truth it was dead well before then.
The #openstreets conversation continuing unabated while we're watching youth being punched in the face by NYPD cops who are not wearing masks (or who don't know how to wear them) over concerns about social distancing is one thing...
But having people tell advocates for just and inclusive streets that you hear them bc you are against cops monitoring closed streets is a form of silencing I can't wrap my head around.
You need to know you're not having the same conversation.
Hence the reposting of this story. There's a difference between being against having cops monitoring a closure and actually centering the legacy of police violence in your effort to make cities more just and welcoming to all. la.streetsblog.org/2015/07/17/man…
And that's just police violence. There are so many other forms of racialized violence that conspire to create barriers to community ownership or unfettered access to the public space for folks of color, and particularly Black folk.
I don't even know where to begin with Ahmaud Arbery - it's too much. I mean, I do know. But the pain is so searing that words escape me.
I should have a more coherent end to this thread. I'm still trying to figure out how to put all of this in an actual story/post, but I haven't been able to. I'm too angry at feeling forced to engage transpo advocates on terms that have zero relevance to the communities I cover.
So I will just engage in bad form by quoting this tweet of mine yet again until I can come up with that post or until advocates of privilege do better. I imagine the former will probably come first.
[And I will just tack this on the end here, it addresses access to the public space from a different angle, and offers a list of stories on the intersection of disenfranchisement, repressive policing, gang violence, and mobility at the bottom.] la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/01/i-c…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This (re the 110) is a bit oversimplified. The 110 was constructed as the Black pop. was experiencing rapid growth in South LA (which was still largely white then) and was spilling beyond the borders of redlined zones. It was more about containment/division than displacement. 1/
Where the East LA interchange was actively about "slum clearance" the 110 S. route was contentious b/c it was going to run thru white neighborhoods wherever it was put. Kenneth Hahn & protesters tried to push it much farther east to no avail. newspapers.com/image/68933525…
But the original Figueroa Pkwy plans had it running through the middle of S. LA. And the 110 rte had the added benefit of running alongside redlined zones and containing the rapidly growing Black population to the Eastside.
The LAPPL claims CM Soto-Martinez called for patrols to watch over his Lexus, but even Fox's own story has been corrected to note the CM doesn't own a Lexus & that it was a staffer who made the call about their personal vehicle. But why should police let facts get in the way...?
What about the hypocrisy of targeting someone for a public smear campaign when the evidence indicates they are not the guilty party? Just asking for the public...
On 1/18, Feezy filed a $10M tort claim vs. LASD for the NYE incident where dep. Justin Sabatine put a gun in his face & threatened to blow a hole in his chest. Audio of the threats quickly went viral. But the Sheriff did not respond for nearly a week 🧵: la.streetsblog.org/2023/02/03/any…
When they finally did, the statement was underwhelming, categorizing the threats to Feezy’s life as “unprofessional language” & the displaying/drawing of a weapon. It didn't mention the intimidation Feezy faced at the station or answer any ??s I asked.
LASD also released body cam footage of the incident. Though the detention lasted half an hour, the cam footage is just 4 min long, and only from Sabatine’s camera, which he did not turn on until a min. into the encounter, in violation of LASD policy.
Now @kdeleon is just making sh*t up. He didn't suggest @mhdcd8 take LAX from CD11 to expand the Black middle class there. He didn't want assets taken from CD9 b/c it would likely result in KDL/CD14 losing assets.
Tavis Smiley: My point is that you're not in the room...you're not voting on the issues that matter to your constituents. So when you say that your constituents will be left w/out a voice if you aren't there... You ain't there now.
LAPD's statement that they turned off 🚨/sirens to indicate "they would no longer be attempting to stop the vehicle" as they approached the intersection doesn't make a lot of sense. Nobody being pursued thinks, "phew!" while 🚓 is just 50ft behind you. latimes.com/california/sto…
Sirens are as much a signal to the person being pursued as an indicator to other road users to stop/slow down/move right/get outta the way. This is the moment the signal was turned off. They're both speeding & the first vehicle is probably 3-4 car lengths from the intersection.
Captured on a dashcam as the vehicle being pursued and LAPD speed toward them. LAPD has just turned off their lights in this image.
Saying the car part carried by Petit resembled a "nonfunctioning firearm" was bad enough, but it wasn't the only troubling assertion LAPD made at the hastily called "town hall" on the shooting the other night. la.streetsblog.org/2022/07/29/lap…
To justify the shooting, LAPD is working to anchor the narrative about the threat Petit allegedly posed in the 911 call. To do so, they took the highly unusual step of embedding a partial transcript in their official statement on the shooting. lapdonline.org/newsroom/offic…
I say "partial" b/c LAPD has also said that the caller followed Petit for some distance. That transcript is not included here, likely b/c it would contradict the intention of the excerpt above, which is to suggest Petit was brandishing a weapon/engaged in threatening behavior.