When I wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times, there was a pretty extensive fact-checking process (shout out to @jdesmondharris). Apparently, that is not the case at the Wall Street Journal, at least when a piece advances a highly partisan, fundamentally racist view...
So let's dig into just how wrong Bob Stefanowski's screed against Hartford is. To be clear, Hartford has a lot of problems! But Stefanowski diagnoses them all exactly backwards. He is consistently and astonishingly wrong...
So, yes, Harford has high violent crime *relative to other cities*. But crime has been at historic lows for a decade, so being the most dangerous doesn't mean "actually dangerous for middle class people who live in the suburbs."
(It is unsurprising that Stefanowski is more concerned with the mostly white, mostly nonresident staff of the Courant than with the Black and brown Hartford residents who *are* affected directly by violent crime.)
Bob is so close to getting it here. White flight and resource-hoarding (and the loss of manufacturing jobs to globalization and souther states with poor wages) *did* hurt the city badly.
Guess what: if you create an education system that puts all the neediest and poorest students together, in a city with a median household income that is half of the regional average, spending marginally more per student won't be enough!
Now Bob wades into pure fantasy. Bronin did not "embrace" the defund the police mantra. He explicitly rejected it, proposed a $1m reduction (and 5-year projected increases) and grudgingly acceded to the $2m reduction (after thousands of BLM protesters showed up at his house).
Hartford has more than double the average per-capita number of cops, and did not reduce that number after the budget was approved. The spike in gun crime began before the budget was approved and mirrored spikes in other cities that didn't cut public safety budgets.
This is my favorite part. Bob accurately notes that the city can't generate enough tax revenue because it hosts the large untaxed services that the whole region uses but doesn't pay for. Then he blames the mayor (who can't fix this) for asking the suburbs (who can) for help.
Dude! The "well-managed" towns exclude the poor and let impoverished cities provide needed services. THAT IS THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM, WHICH THOSE CITIES CAN'T SOLVE.
The special interest here is suburban legislators and resists unwilling to give up segregated schools and fiscal free-riding! Hartford's taxes are high because half our taxable property is held by nonprofits and government and the state won't reimburse us adequately!
Districts wouldn't underperform if they were drawn to be economically and ethnically diverse, because they would then benefit from the political influence of affluent parents, and the motivation for those families to hoard their resources in segregated towns would decline.
OK, I'm done. Stefanowski is advocating for retrenchment the structural problems that have hurt Hartford because he's unwilling to recognize, like most suburbanites here, that he is complicit in an extractive, racist system of segregation.
I want white folks in Connecticut suburbs to make a New Year's resolution: recognize that if you live in a municipality that gets its core services (governance, hospitals, social services) from a nearby city, you are benefiting from a system of economic and racial segregation...
It does not matter that you didn't build it. It does not matter that you felt your only choices were the "good" (mostly white) segregated schools or the "bad" (mostly Black and Latinx) segregated schools. You are on the happy end of a system built to maintain that divide.
If you don't actively fight it while it advances your material interests, you are complicit in it. Resolve to do something more than put up a BLM yard sign or give your kids an antiracist education. Demand that your elected officials advocate for redrawing school districts.
Man, I remember a certain era when my friends who came to NY for college but weren't from there always wanted to go to some expensive-ass restaurant NYE parties and I, a Brooklyn boy, just wanted to bounce from house party to house party and drink in the street.
It has been a long time since I had that kind of NYE (because kids) but I could really go for that about now. Maybe next year.
Does it help my nostalgia that I'm listening to MF Doom's whole catalog while drinking and cooking? It does not.
It has been a full, challenging year - not as much for me as for many, thanks to good health and steady employment - but still: new baby (Sept. '19), new job (City Council), and back surgery kept it interesting. So I want to pat myself on the back for making a lot of music (🧵):
Early in the year, while recovering from surgery, I recorded a bunch of songs I was making up for the baby. This one is about her and me both being immobile and in bed: soundcloud.app.goo.gl/mWct8
These are the ones that her mom appreciated because she could play them when Mailén was fussy in the car to calm her down: soundcloud.app.goo.gl/t5zBP
The other day, @constanz_a was pointing out how much room this story makes for this guy's humanity and how little it makes for the humanity of the people who bought the guns:
I mean, here's how the dude is described and referred to:
The folks who bought the guns, on the other hand? Do they have children? Are they driven by addiction or other factors? We will never know.
With COVID spiking, our president is on a run of unmasked rallies; already overpoliced, our cities are responding to a rash of shootings with... more cops. More than ever, the US is like a couple that tries to solve incessant fighting by getting married. So let's read Vows!
Look, I do not want to underestimate to weight of everyone's lived experience, but 210,000 people dead from a respiratory illness might win here.
OK! Is this how the Times says that several Fs went down?
The mayor used a series of examples to make the case that we need higher bonds for people charged with gun crimes. But argument by anecdote can be deceptive:
The mayor recited (I think) six instances (maybe eight?) of people who were arrested on gun charges, released fairly quickly, and went on to be arrested for new serious charges soon after. If that were the whole universe of gun arrests, his would be a compelling argument.
But that is not all the gun arrests. In 2017, for example, Hartford had 400 serious gun crime convictions (murders + robberies + aggravated assaults), per data from the Office of Legislative Research: