Warren Riley! Stacy Head! In 3-D! On Ice!

Update: WDSU just caught up with Superindendent Riley and he appears to be meekly backing off. It makes his comments on the radio last week all the more slanderous.

Off-camera, Riley told WDSU that he doesn't believe the e-mail is a big deal, that he's never seen the message and he doesn't have proof that Head actually sent it.

Update II: Seriously, I cannot believe how pathetic this walk back is by Riley. Unbelievable. He should apologize to WBOK's listeners and to Councilwoman Head.

--

Warren Riley leveled some pretty serious and racially charged allegations in an interview with WBOK last week. I really wish WBOK archived its broadcasts. Thankfully, the T-P's Brendan McCarthy was tuned in.

The allegations about Head's e-mail came up when a radio station caller, who went by the name Malcolm, mentioned the alleged message.

The caller said: "I hear some of our council members are sending e-mails out -- one in particular, Ms. Head, sent an e-mail saying she hopes you fail and let's not approve your budget. But anyway, she's the failure in all of this anyway.

Riley responded: "You forgot the N-word that was in that e-mail, from what I understand."

"Well, yeah, you heard about it," the caller responded. "She said 'Let's make this Negro, not Negro, but she used that other one."

The caller then lambasted the media for ignoring the message. "The news (media) did not, nobody else put that out, nobody else interviewed, nobody made a big story about that. And if it was somebody of color that sat on the City Council who had that kind of behavior, would have been asked to step down."

Those who know Stacy Head personally have been quick to insist that this allegation is baseless and that such behavior would be unimaginable. But considering Stacy Head's history of off-color and, in a general sense, prejudiced language, Riley's allegation must at least be considered plausible.

Saying something that reflects ignorance, prejudice, or bias is different from saying something indisputably racist with malicious intent. Riley's accusations, if true, would be far more condemning of Head's character than her casually offensive observations in the Walmart checkout aisle.

If Head indeed used that epithet toward anyone, she would have to resign. She should not and cannot represent a population for which she has such an expressed, visceral hatred. The public pressure would be intense and well-deserved.

Luckily, we don't have to live in a world of 'what ifs.' Warren Riley claims Councilwoman Head used that particular slur in an e-mail. He should immediately produce the email. Regardless, news organizations should submit a public-records request to Head to obtain it.

Head's colleagues should hold immediate hearings to demand Riley produce the email, to censure Head if he can come through, or to call for Riley's ouster if he cannot.

If this email does not exist, Riley would be guilty of an extraordinarily insidious, divisive and manipulative slander. He knew that the forum he chose to air this allegation, WBOK, would not challenge him. He knew he was speaking to an audience predisposed - because of Head's past intransigence and WBOK's listener base - to believe a plausible, even if baseless, allegation of racism about the councilwoman.

And maybe he thought Head would prefer to ignore the story and minimize its media echo amid a tough reelection fight instead of throwing down the gauntlet to make him prove his charge.

Stacy Head should not and cannot simply ignore this story. Merely asserting that the allegations are totally baseless and false, as she did to the Times-Picayune, is not enough. Because of her salty language in the past, there is a special burden on her to substantively prove her innocence to the extent that she is able. When the e-mail controversy first began, Head took it upon herself to release a large set of emails to the public by publishing them for download on her website. Those emails have since been taken down. She owes it to herself and her supporters to more substantively address her views on race, language, and the allegations being leveled by Warren Riley, perhaps first by reopening her email outbox to additional public scrutiny.

As someone who has interacted with Stacy Head and parsed all of her emails released to date, I personally, have an extraordinarily hard time believing Riley's accusations.

This is different than a blind caller on talk radio throwing out an accusation. This is the Police Superintendent, one of the most important and powerful people in the city.

For someone of that stature to level this kind of accusation without prepared evidence is irresponsible, dangerous, and wrong.

It's not just manipulative.

Mr. Riley seems... a bit... delusional, and here's what I mean:

Riley said the recent release of a poll - showing that only 33 percent of citizens are satisfied with the NOPD - was timed to dissuade him from entering politics. The poll was unveiled by business leaders shortly before the political qualifying period. Riley also alleged The Times-Picayune chose that week to release several negative stories about him.

"There's a revolution going on, and we are missing it," he said.

Riley also criticized the slate of mayoral candidates and promoted his tenure as police chief.

"You know, I listen to the mayoral candidates," he said. "I run a bigger organization, and have had bigger budgets than any of these individuals. And I'm not knocking any of them. I'm just saying, I have had the ultimate challenge. The only person ... there are two people who have bigger challenges than I. And that's Mayor Nagin and President Obama."

Riley appears to be saying that he was all set to enter the mayor's race until that poll, which showed faith in the police force at an all-time low, was released.

Riley apparently put out feelers for a mayor's race over the summer before explicitly announcing in August that he would not seek that office, saying that he had "absolutely no interest."

So Riley is essentially saying that just weeks before the qualifying deadline, with no money raised, and with no campaign team assembled, he was considering swooping into the mayor's race. That is, until, a poll was strategically released to demonstrate his department's almost cartoonishly low approval ratings. Riley is intoning that he had a really great shot at raising money and gaining popular traction had it not been for that poll.

Think about how crazy that is.

Objectively speaking, Riley has presided over one of the most dysfunctional police forces in the country, to say nothing of his own conduct during his career on the force. The feds are looming over the NOPD for its unjustifiable pattern of police brutality, missing evidence, and who knows what else. Hasn't Riley been one of the most unpopular figures in local politics for over two years? Would people argue that the poll released in early December said something they didn't already really know?

If Riley had assembled his record of sloppy, ineffective catch-and-release, fire-when-ready police work during a Presidential administration that put any effort into exercising the powers of the Clinton administration's COPS bill, the NOPD might currently be in the control of a federal receiver right now because systemically discriminatory pattern and practice.

He's not just delusional and silly. He's not just calculating and manipulative.

He's desperate.

Riley's plans, given that this conspiracy of unpopularity dissuaded him from seeking the Mayor's office?

"I'm looking at a public venture ... with a couple people here in the city that I think would be profound and lucrative," he said. "I also am looking at another position that I will absolutely not talk about. Regardless, I am going to do well no matter what. As I stated, my future is bright. If I don't work another day in my life I'll be OK. I'm not just a police chief."

re: e-maelstrom

From a T-P editorial I largely agree with:

[O]ne thing is clear: The council and its attorneys are trying to keep legitimate public records under wraps simply because they may be embarrassing or offensive. Saving public officials from their own words, however, is not one of the exceptions in the open records law. If the council truly favors transparency, it should stop fighting the release of records to which all Louisianians are clearly entitled.

Get 'em out. Leaks of selective emails make the whole thing just into a political hit on Head. While I'm sure some will say that that's precisely what the request was about in the first place, I'm not sure that remains relevant to the question regarding whether the rest of the emails - which include those belonging to three other Councilors - should be released.

Also I think adrastros' take on this is spot-on.

Jeffersontext

There are a million sides to every story. Be back with more later.

-
It's later.

As things get sticky for Councilwoman Head around these emails let's me make sure that I'm telling the whole story.

We'll ultimately get many of these emails released but if what was leaked to me and others yesterday by LJI is the worst of the worst, count me as mostly unimpressed.

The Councilor is going to have to answer some questions about this for sure.

But...

Let us not forget the unusual circumstances around the early off-the-books release of the emails to LJI through Veronica White.

Connections to the Jefferson machine are quite transparent.

I actually have grown to have a lot of respect for what Head has brought to District B after ages of careless representation. Those changes have been good and I would hate for a sensationalized feud between Washington and Head to lead to the undoing of what I would say has been largely progress.

What really makes me angry and uncomfortable with the whole thing is that in my heart, I think that the LJI world and the Stacy Head world ought to be allied instead of feuding. I would say that 80% of their substantive interests align but that personal beefs around mostly inconsequential BS have distracted both sides from doing some really important things.

I have occasional email contact with both camps.

It's amazing how often they're on the same side of an issue but think they're working against one another. It's almost funny but it's mostly distracting. And I hate feeling like I have to pick a side.

Caontext

Councilor Stacy Head's elitist checkout commentary aside, there's a much more comprehensive picture that puts those comments into an even more unfortunate context.

Though I've often vehemently criticized certain comments she's made and more importantly, policies that she's championed, Councilor Head earned a lot of respect from yours truly because of her work ethic and the lengths she goes to provide effective constituent representation. More respect than I ever thought I could possibly give her after the stances she took on housing.

But there's not much excuse for all this.

Ya know, when you hold yourself to a higher standard...

I received these early yesterday afternoon.

UPDATE:

Publishing items with personal email addresses of people I don't know without permission violates my own personal comfort level. I was too hasty earlier so I've decided to take down those emails. Essentially, Stacy Head was receiving extremely detailed communications on the mechanics of the Cao campaign. She was not responding to them in a particularly substantive way and was redirecting them away from her official council email account. But there may have been some questionable activity involved.

UPDATE II:

ABC26 actually already published the same emails minus the addresses. You can go check 'em out there. Link! And here I'd thought I may have broken one... ha ha on me.

Stacy Head steps up to the plate

The Councilor for District B has written a letter to the City Planning Commission in support of a full public town hall on the LSU/VA site selection.

By Hand Delivery
Edward Robinson
Chairman, City Planning Commission
1340 Poydras Street.
Suite 900
New Orleans, La. 70112

Re: Public Hearing on LSU/VA proposal March 16, 2009

Dear Chairman Robinson:

I believe that the decision regarding the location of the proposed Southeast Regional Veterans Administration Hospital and Louisiana State University Health Sciences Medical Center are decisions made by the federal and state government respectively. Nevertheless, as the costs and benefits of these hospital facilities will be felt directly by the citizens of New Orleans, I fully support a City Planning Commission public hearing. This would allow all parties of interest to present their respective positions. There appears to be confusion, misinformation, and legitimate questions that need to be vetted. You have my commitment to attend this meeting and I hope the entirety of the Council will do the same.

Please let me know your decision and I will assist you in any way I can.

Sincerely,



Stacy Head
Councilmember, District B

Wow.

How about it?

Give it up for Stacy Head!

It takes real political courage to be the first to stand up and say something. I hope all of our Council representatives will also get behind this effort.

---

So much for 'done deal,' eh?

Ugh, Stacy, Stop it.

Stop doing things like this.

Following the lead of some nearby parishes, the New Orleans City Council voted Thursday to continue using 2006 advisory base flood elevation maps to determine minimum construction elevations in Orleans Parish until at least 2011.

The vote was 5-0, but Councilwoman Stacy Head used the occasion to denounce eastern New Orleans and Lower 9th Ward "activists" who refuse to look at the good of the city as a whole and insist on special treatment for their heavily storm-damaged neighborhoods, she said.

--

She then compared her willingness to "do the right thing" with what she depicted as the selfishness of "activists" in eastern New Orleans and the Lower 9th Ward. She said they demand preferential treatment for their parts of the city as "a perceived right" because those areas suffered heavily after Hurricane Katrina, even though many other parts of the city also were flooded and badly damaged.

Head did not include any council members in her criticism, but Councilwomen Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and Cynthia Willard-Lewis, who represent the areas to which Head referred, have in the past complained that their districts have been treated unfairly in the distribution of post-Katrina aid.

Totally inflammatory and 100% unnecessary.

Guess what? Eastern New Orleans and the Lower 9th Ward DO deserve preferential treatment. They do! They do! They totally do!

I don't want to have to go into a long rant about privilege and victimization before, during, and after Katrina right now. I really don't. I hope that my position has been consistently clear.

But even if you've never understood it or still don't buy it, you have to recognize how out-of-touch or intentionally mean-spirited this kind of language is.

The words and tone are explicitly evocative of Reagan-era Republican arguments against helping inner cities and emblematic of why Stacy Head has become such a magnet for criticism from the African American community. "Activist" and "perceived right" are especially insulting code words when used in this context.

I would have thought someone as sharp as Stacy Head would have picked up on this by now.

It's infuriating.

And of all the times for Cynthia Willard-Lewis to hold her tongue...

Kingdom of the Wicked part 1

Did cruelty live in the bones of this late pastel double joined shotgun -or is the world really this evil?
.
This unremarkable double shotgun was demolished yesterday by city contractors after being declared an imminent health threat in danger of collapse. The wrecking ball punctuated a pattern of neglect, and in the sharp tongue of the New Orleans Police Department, "slum conditions."
According to a 2004 police investigation, the son of the house's owner "willfully neglected to provide adequate living accommodations to a 76-year-old female who rented a home from him. The suspect refused to make structural repairs to the home. The home’s interior and exterior had unsanitary conditions and the City of New Orleans’ Health Department declared the residence unfit for human habitation."
Five years and one mama storm later, this house was still unfit, and still inhabited.
In the weeks before the bulldozers arrived, a homeless family had been squatting there, taking shelter inside the house's unsteady walls while they waited for transitional housing to open up. It was probably not a great place to be; on a recent Thursday night, a lone man stood in front of a nearby house, also unlit, waving his arms frantically at passing cars. Finally late last week, the city called Unity of Greater New Orleans , and requested the housing non-profit place the family in some kind of transitional housing. By Monday afternoon, the house was gone, a patch of mud in its place. By evening, the frenzied waver was likely back on site.
While confidentiality rules prevent Unity from providing any information on the family's whereabouts a case worker said today that they, at least temporarily, were staying somewhere more secure than the South Liberty Street house. The organization estimates there are thousands of people living in homes awaiting demolition. The Beck contractor who handled the eviction of the squatters on South Liberty, Justin Augustine, agrees.
"It’s very common that people are living in the structures we are demolishing,” said Augustine told a today.
Imagine spending your days traveling from decrepit house to decrepit house, sometimes finding extreme decay, other times a freshly made bedroll and on occasion, a family that you must evict. Now imagine doing that with relatively little support from the city. Unity, an umbrella of more than 70 social service providers and community organizations, relies on its vast network to point its outreach workers towards the 1619 South Liberty Streets in our midst. Last year it launched a program, "No One Suffers Alone" aimed at moving people from abandoned houses or the streets and into permanent housing that will be paid for with an increased number of supportive housing vouchers the organization is currently asking federal officials to approve. The organization is also advocating for the city to rewrite zoning policies to mandate developers to make a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments available to low to moderate income renters or buyers. The practice, known as "inclusionary zoning," is done in New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco, and other major cities.
But these progressive housing policies alone won't solve the problem of New Orleans' impatient wrecking ball.
Other tools are needed. One the most critical is an active and engaged City Council. District B Councilwoman Stacy Head was able to get three properties back on the tax rolls with a successful sheriff sale on the courthouse steps. Head said the sale netted the city almost $50,000. She plans to spearhead more of the sales in the future.
"Rampant demolition is NOT the answer," Head wrote (the caps are all her) in an email today. "If the properties are salvageable, the city should secure them and code enforcement should push the owners to compliance with codes, to sale or to expropriation."
Wise words. Maybe the next mayor will listen.


credit: Ariella Cohen.
Ariella is a freelance journalist and a contributor to the New Orleans Institute

This Day In City Politics

Today I put on my Wednesday best and went to City Hall for the budget vote and then to check out the Committee to Reopen Charity's protest of LSU.

And I took notes.

City Hall buzzed more than usual. Somehow this was the first time I'd ever made in time to see the official opening credits. Here's what I wrote down shortly after it was appropriate to sit:

Did you know that every city council meeting begins the same way?
First is an exceedingly long prayer. This made me uncomfortable.
Then is the pledge of allegiance.
Then is an extremely poorly produced video of the star spangled banner with all sorts of images of New Orleans – Pre Katrina. It’s weird and it’s a waste of time.

Normally I'm okay with Christian prayer, even when the venue is somewhat inappropriate in a secular society. (I'm an agnostic Jew) I think that a lot of times, those that care about the separation of church and state pick poor battles by going after things like the ten commandments on courthouse walls, etc. This prayer before the start of this Council meeting felt pretty wrong. Generally, it's not a matter that I get worked up about, especially considering the other types of things that get decided sometimes at Council. Today however, it certainly foreshadowed my discomfort with the entirety of the proceedings.

The stupid New Orleans chamber of commerce Star-Spangled Banner public access video is unintentional comedy and is especially redundant after the pledge. I'll stand by that.

Okay so taking stock of the attendees...

Lots of employees wearing SDT Disposal apparel. Trashanova himself wore a suit and sat front and center, right in the middle of all his guys. Smart.

We also have a whole mess of protesters. They’re not here to push for the reopening of Charity, they’re here to rabble rouse against Councilwoman Stacy Head.

They have lots of signs.

“Recall Stacy Head”

A lot of these protesters are here representing the local chapter of the SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Council.

More on them later.

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, as chair of the budget committee, is in charge of the talkings once Jackie Clarkson finishes testing the vote buttons. I don’t know what it is, but I really like the way Cynthia Hedge-Morrell conducts herself from her budget seat, on a personal level. She carries herself with a certain sarcastic dignity, like she hates her job but doesn't want anyone to know. She somehow always emerges from these food fights with less mashed potatoes on her clothes than everyone else.

They will be voting to override the Mayor’s veto, with some changes. Twenty-Five percent of the sanitation budget will be placed in reserve, pending the “audit.” Also, Council recommends that the Mayor make no service cuts once that money is released from reserve. As the Mayor, Ray Nagin has the power still choose not to execute parts of the sanitation contracts. So the lemon chemical spray will continue to be part of our lives.

Before we get to the vote, Cynthia Willard-Lewis is given the opportunity to grandstand for awhile because she has decided to buck her colleagues and vote to sustain the Mayor's veto. I've said it recently in this space but I'll say it again right now, Cynthia Willard-Lewis is Mayor Nagin's staunchest ally and most reliable vote on City Council.

It is important not to gloss over Councilwoman Willard-Lewis' speech because I thought it was quite revealing. The entire thing was a lie. I wish I had a transcript for you but allow me to relay a few of the key points she was making.

- There are a lot of people out there that question why resources are going into the city's most devastated neighborhoods, like the ones in her district. These discussions are "fallacious" because these areas are returning and she'd like to symbolically put an end to those "fallacious" discussions today.

- She is voting against Council because she wants to vote for a budget that has "humanity" in it as well.

- Throws in the prerequisite dig at Stacy Head with a comment about the sanitation contracts: "Some people say we paid for a Cadillac. Well we asked for a Cadillac."

Then the rest of City Council voted to override the Mayor's veto, cancelling the spending cuts Mr. Nagin had proposed across the board.

Each was allowed to say a few words. A lot of high fives over funding for the DA and for the office of the public defender. James Carter says this is the first time that Orleans Parish has ever funded the public defender. Is that true? That's sad if it's true. It's about time.

Cynthia Willard-Lewis then got another chance to grandstand, touching on many of the same themes. This may have been when she used the "humanity" term but the speeches were more or else the same.

Cynthia Willard-Lewis

I want to go into some detail here because I found her statements to be some of the most hypocritical I've ever heard delivered by an elected official in a public setting.

It's one thing if she's going to talk about the nefarious intentions of those still trying to backdoor a shrink the footprint campaign to raze her district, but she really just used the idea of that threat to create an unidentifiable other. She voted to sustain the Mayor's veto, so she was quite literally voting for the Mayor's budget that would have made major service cuts to her district. The other sad irony is that if Cynthia Willard-Lewis really cared about injecting "humanity" into the budget process, then she would have made an issue out of the proposed $79 million to be spent buying houses to raze in Lower Mid City instead of going toward the rebuilding and reopening of Charity Hospital. She has the power to question expenditures like $30 million for the Reinventing the Crescent project in the Marigny. She could have come out and opposed the school facilities master plan, which I argued shortchanged damaged neighborhoods. Instead, she voted for the Mayor's budget and his plans to strip the public defenders office and to strip after-school programs. She could have offered Councilwoman Midura some help in restoring the money needed to pay to fix bad street lights. She did not. She instead voted for the Mayor's service-cutting budget and gave a speech about how she was this great champion for social justice. It was an insult to anyone that pays attention to anything in this city. Cynthia Willard-Lewis is a toady for the Nagin administration and it is Nagin administration policy to shrink the footprint by contracting out master planning services to firms that work to implement artificial measures of neighborhood "viability" as the primary means of determining who gets rebuild money and who gets nothing. Cynthia Willard-Lewis is no champion of social justice and her speech of lies today made her look more like a scam artist than a public official.

Sorry for the rant but that speech made me so angry.

Anyway, then Cynthia Hedge-Morrell explained how awful this whole budget process is, how rushed and inefficient it is. Word. It's totally disorganized.

She promises to get with Mr. Cerasoli to work on ways to improve the process.

Then it was time for public comment and Spiver Gordon of the SCLC was permitted to speak first.

The SCLC was once a great organization at the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Dr. Martin Luther King founded it.

Some things have changed but SCLC's membership has not. The organization has not been dynamic, has not recruited a new leadership class, and has not been fully engaged on the issues where other AA political insurgent organizations are leading.

This can happen with movement organizations sometimes. After a series of initial successes, some organizations lose focus or are unable to shift to respond to changes in political opportunity structures. As organizations earn victories, they are unable to reframe their purpose in a way that effectively maintains rank and file mobilization. Or, they are co-opted into establishment structures.

I'd argue that this occurred to the labor movement as unions appeared to become more concerned with the maintaining bureaucratic norms they were able to win during years of boom (perhaps because they got to close to the leaders of the Democratic party) than with actually fighting for higher wages and better workplace protections. It is happening in the LGBT movement right now as grassroots activists are rebelling against the Human Rights Campaign for their narrow focus on organization building and 'acceptable' campaigns for reforms to hate crime laws.

The SCLC also succumbed to the bureaucratic temptation of many movement organizations before it and after it, they became establishment.

Spiver Gordon

I wrote about this extensively well over a year ago when I went to the Jena 6 protest and watched Spiver Gordon hog the microphone while the much younger crowd rolled their eyes. I wrote about them again last year when Spiver Gordon threatened to boycott the city of New Orleans for investigating the sanitation contracts. Oyster wrote about SCLC then too, noting that the organization that once mobilized 42,000 people to march in Selma now only has 3,000 dues paying members worldwide. He highlighted a sad quote from former SCLC President Fred Shuttlesworth as he lamented a disastrous meeting in 2004 shortly before his resignation:

For years, deceit, mistrust and a lack of spiritual discipline and truth have eaten away at the core of this once-hallowed organization.

And here was Spiver Gordon once again in front of City Council railing against Stacy Head because Councilwoman Head has this history of rudeness when it comes to interacting with some African American preachers.

Reverand Dr. Marshall Truehill, who is someone I respect a great deal, explained Stacy Head's conduct in the context of her policies, by highlighting the kissing incident that occurred at that unfortunate Council vote that sealed the fate of the city's public housing developments.

Reverend Truehill has the credibility to speak out against Stacy Head because he was there outside of City Council last year and fought for the rights of the city's poor public housing residents every step of the way.

But Spiver Gordon and SCLC were not there last year. They mobilized to protect Jimmie Woods and Alvin Richard but they are too often MIA when it comes to issues that really matter to young black people in the city of New Orleans.

--

So I got up and walked over to the protest being conducted by the Committee to Save Charity Hospital. These guys are doing something that's really important. The failure to reopen Charity remains a scourge on this city's reputation. It's absence has contributed to the public health nightmare that is Southern Louisiana. Poor black people have relied on Charity for decades but our state and municipal leadership would rather raze a residential neighborhood to build two private hospitals than to even entertain the idea of rehabilitating Charity.

There were about thirty people there to picket an LSU administrative building. They had signs and slogans but the thing they had more than anything else was an issue of critical importance. I don't know if I can say I was empowered by the turnout, I thought the protest should have been at City Hall, but it's easy to second-guess. Certainly, there is a core there but it will be important for mobilizations to get bigger and louder if mobilization is indeed critical to blocking the plans.

Renew - Restore - Reopen Charity Hospital

Spiver Gordon and the SCLC didn't turn up here, I'm sorry to say. Could've used 'em.

--

There were several ironic juxtapositions to think about as I walked back to my car. They were all disheartening to a certain degree.

Cerasoli and City Council

First, refer to Michelle Krupa's article for the T-P.

Mr. Cerasoli actually gave money back to the general fund, unable to spend all of his 2008 budget.

Part of the reason for that is the bureaucratic holdups that continue to gum up his ability to fully engage his office. For instance, the city has not yet delivered secure computers. Computers. He's also had trouble navigating the civil service rules in order to hire his desired staff.

-

But there's something really fun about watching Cerasoli and Council interact with each other that you'd need to see in person to really understand.

Council learned the news that the IG would be returning money to the city. Then Cerasoli outlined a couple of new initiatives, including a tipline and some new hires. It's not so unlike most other presentations, except for the confidece and competence.

Then Council gets to ask questions.

It started off normally. Councilman Carter, recently found alive and returned to his parents, asked some good questions about the independent police monitor. Then Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and Arnie Fielkow went back and forth about establishing a protocol for calling on Mr. Cerasoli to lend official comment, since now the office receives requests from Councilors haphazardly.

But it becomes clear that all of the Councilors want to ask questions about this process or that process. They want to know what he thinks about the budget process.

Because it is absolutely ridiculous to present Council a budget outlined with hundreds of pages of supporting data and expect them to be able to properly evaluate it, modify it, and pass it on a time frame of three or four weeks.

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, for instance, wore this exasperated look on her face that told it all. She's the chair of the budget committee, and it looked like she just wanted Cerasoli to come up and give her a big hug and a hot chocolate.

Councilwoman Stacy Head lifted up her budget binder, at least two inches thick, and just nodded.

Inspector General Cerasoli couldn't do much more at these moments than flash a bemused and knowing smile. He agreed that the budget process was extremely outdated. The schedule is such that the Council has its back against the wall to pretty much just pass whatever the Mayor puts in front of them. There just isn't enough time to fully vet every department or modify the Mayor's proposals before something just needs to be passed.

Plus, Cerasoli explained, Council really doesn't have all the tools it needs to do a good job anyway: (paraphrasing)

"There isn't, to my knowledge, a list for you that includes every contract the city is entered in."

Yikes!

UPDATE: You can see some of what I'm talking about in clips from this WWL report.

--

P.S.

Cerasoli should have a report or two ready for the public soon, too.

And he says hello to 'the bloggers'. Another coffee talk might be forthcoming.

Respectfully, Jackie Clarkson. No Charge for Extra Deference

Jackie Clarkson responds to Nagin's email.

From WDSU:

Dear Mayor Nagin:

I am writing to acknowledge receiving your letter concerning the recent appearance of Sanitation Head Veronica White before the City Council Wednesday afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to address me directly about this issue.

You wrote in your letter that we should focus on recovery and not “allow mean-spirited accusations to destroy the integrity of hard-working public servants now or ever.” And I agree. I agree there should have been more professionalism exhibited in the Chambers Wednesday. But I respectfully disagree with your assessment of who was out of line.

Councilmembers, Mr. Mayor, are elected by the people to ask tough questions. Department heads are appointed to give accurate answers.

Although there ought to have been more civility displayed on both sides Wednesday, I strongly believe no department head should behave toward an elected representative of the people as Ms. White behaved toward Councilmember Head. Before sending you this letter, I reviewed the tapes several times, in addition to being present at the meeting myself. And it was Ms. White who made a professional conversation personal, accusing Councilmember Head of being motivated by a desire to malign the Sanitation Department and implying Councilmember Head was a crook and thief. Moreover, never once did I hear Councilmember Head pronounce any “race-baiting remark.”

I’d like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my professional respect for you and the city’s department heads and make clear my determination to lead the council in acting in a civil manner toward the executive branch of government. I believe this best serves the people to whom my greatest loyalty belongs – the residents of New Orleans, who elected me to lead their council, and who expect and deserve representatives that will diligently weed through the budget.

I believe that you and I ought to discuss this incident, face-to-face, and move on for the sake of our residents and continued recovery.

Respectfully,

Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson

President

New Orleans City Council

For Councilwoman Clarkson, this is pretty much throwing down the gauntlet.

The Facts on Trash

Councilwoman Head has written a primer on Council's inquiry into our city's sanitation contracts.

I have reproduced it with a couple of readability/formatting edits.
Enjoy.

I. We bought a Rolls Royce when we could only afford a Camry

In late 2006, during hearings for the 2007 Budget, Cm. Midura and I questioned the judgment of entering into a solid waste contract that was double the cost of the previous contract and more expensive than sanitation services in similar metropolitan areas. We lost that debate. The administration, through its Sanitation Director, Veronica White, defended the choice to embark on a very expensive solid waste removal program for a variety of reasons. One reason was that this new program would provide superior service because of the “automation” required under the contracts. Specifically, Ms. White testified that the automated trucks, which were “high tech,” would reduce physical stress on the sanitation workers by mechanically lifting the cans into the trucks and would also reduce trash escaping from cans during pick-up. In addition, these contracts called for removal of “unlimited bulky waste.”


II. The obligations under the contract are not being met

As stated above, the city opted to engage in a very expensive solid waste removal program that required automated truck pick-up. The problem is that the automation component is not being used. The sanitation workers almost uniformly physically pick up the cans, just as they did under the prior and less expensive sanitation system. A fundamental reason for the high cost was this high-tech component. Regardless of whether the ultimate result of the collection is good, the reason for the high cost has been retroactively deleted from the contracts.


III. Retroactive revisions of the contracts are unfair to other potential bidders

Mandating automated collection in the public bid for solid waste collection services arguably discouraged companies from bidding on the work when the bids were published in 2006. And now, to retroactively relieve the winning contractors of this obligation is fundamentally unfair. This retroactive revision of the contracts is not limited to the automation issue. In addition, after the contracts were executed, the administration proposed an ordinance to prohibit New Orleans residents from placing bulky waste items out for collection. This was in direct conflict with terms of the contracts, which require that the contractors provide “unlimited bulky waste” removal. This onerous bulky waste requirement did, in fact, discourage several vendors from bidding (for example, SWDI and Waste Management). For the administration to retroactively remove that obligation reeks of foul play. Ultimately, after much wrangling, the laws were changed back to allow citizens to put out for collection unlimited bulky waste. But this scenario illustrates how the entire sanitation contract bidding and management process has been flawed since 2006.


IV. There has been no basis for payments of roughly $60,000,000 over two years

For two years, the city has paid roughly $30,000,000 per year for garbage collection and another $9,000,000 for dumping. The sanitation contracts clearly call for monthly garbage collection payments based on the actual number of “approved service locations” from which garbage was collected. Per the contracts, the lists of serviced locations were to be contained on a monthly report, in spreadsheet form, delivered to the sanitation department by the 10th of each month. Contractor payment was to be calculated by multiplying the contract fee (depending on the contractor, between $18.15 and $34.00 per month) by the “approved service locations” from which garbage was collected that month.

Instead, the city has been paying based on a set number of 106,500 households every month since the inception of the contracts in January 2007. This number, 106,500, was an arbitrary number provided in the bid documents for bid comparison only. The payments defy logic. How can a city with a fluctuating and growing population have the exact same number of garbage collections every month since January 2007? When I learned that the basis for the payments was not based on the actual house count, I began requesting the rational from Ms. White for the payments. My requests included any monthly invoices, house counts, monthly reports, serviced locations or the like. In response, the administration provided the following justifications for payments:

1) Three notebooks full of listings of cart delivery addresses; and

2) Billing records from the Sewerage and Water Board (customers receiving solid waste collection services should pay $12-24 per month on their S&WB bill).

The first basis, the cart delivery lists, was fraught with problems. For example, those lists contained only 72,132 cart delivery addresses (not 106,500). In addition, an audit of those lists showed that there were many errors and duplications (at a rate of almost 30%). And the Sewerage and Water Board records for 2007 total payments of only $9,493,669, which indicates that the actual number of households paying for services was substantially lower than 106,500.


V. A $250,000 audit will not solve the problems

Now, the administration has engaged a firm at a cost of $250,000 to conduct an actual house count audit. This audit ostensibly will allow the city to determine what current payments should be made, and will allow corrections in prior over or under payments. To use this audit in any meaningful way to correct prior over or underpayments will be difficult at best. How will the city use data from winter 2008 to establish what appropriate payments would have been in the spring of 2007? Moreover, the obligation to provide a monthly accurate house count was with the contractors. And their failure to do so, under the contract, is cause for termination. The sanitation department should have been receiving these monthly house count reports for two years, auditing them for accuracy all along, and requiring improvement from the contractors where needed.

Guess what? It really does sound a lot like NOAH, from the disclosure of 'wrong' lists right down to the illegitimate in-house audit.

C. Ray Nagin Throws the Red Challenge Flag

And like Andy Reid, he'll lose a timeout.

The Mayor has an opinion about what happened at City Council. He sent an email to every member of City Council. WDSU kindly reprinted the whole thing:

It is my understanding that a council member verbally abused the City sanitation department head, used profanity, and boldly proclaimed very crude race-baiting remarks during a public meeting.

What? At what point did Stacy Head use profanity? Did she race-bait?

Let's review an actual tape of the confrontation. Go ahead and invest the two minutes and twenty six seconds it takes to ascertain what actually happened.

Seems to me that Stacy Head caught Veronica White in a lie and then expressed her displeasure with Ms. White's repeated stonewalling of information requests. Then Stacy Head moved on to ask another question, which Ms. White refused to answer. Then Councilwoman Head said that Ms. White was not being truthful. Then Ms. White got belligerent and stormed out of the room.

For the sake of comparison, watch that video of the confrontation between Stacy Head and Veronica White and then watch this one. Even Bush administration officials are more graceful in stonewalling inquiries from Congress, many of which are far more strident than what occurred here.

So did Ray Nagin even see what happened?

The answer is no.

From the transcript:

I have not reviewed the full tape yet, but it has been reported that the employee was publicly chastised, threatened, belittled, and carelessly accused of being a liar in spite of any clear facts being presented. I am formally requesting a copy of the videotape from this meeting and a formal investigation to include obtaining statements from all witnesses immediately.

And thank God he's formally requesting a tape. He could just watch it on TV or online like everybody else. But it's clearly better to go through an administrative process that will take as much time as possible. He shouldn't actually just look at the video, he should wait as long as possible so that Jackie Clarkson backs down and the issue goes away.

And while we're at it, why don't you encourage Veronica White's response to questioning from all of your department heads:

This type of behavior must stop immediately as I am instructing all department heads that if they are verbally assaulted or personally insulted at a council meeting that they should immediately leave. Tough questioning is generally appropriate. Personal attacks are just not acceptable. I also believe that professional rules for council members should be updated and enforced at all times.

When the questions get tough, it's much better to 'immediately leave' than to incriminate yourself by providing answers.

So what is Mayor Nagin's play here? He writes an email accusing Stacy Head of race-baiting and expects that this will put her on the defensive and totally obscure the waste he seems to encourage from his department heads. Is that it? Is it that easy?

Or is he just hoping that Council President Jackie Clarkson forgets what she saw?

Either way, I think Nagin is overplaying his hand. First of all, everyone in this city and around the country knows that Ray Nagin is a sell-out of elephantine proportions. His recovery ideology prioritizes the fantasies of the business community. He won't raise the minimum wage because of his ridiculous delusion that po-boy shop workers are making $60k a year. He's a national laughingstock and Democratic party leaders do somersaults to avoid being pictured near him.

Meanwhile, if there's one thing Jackie Clarkson values, and I don't say many nice things about Jackie Clarkson, but if there's one thing she cares about, it's 'playing nice.' She might cave on issues but she certainly knows when someone owes and apology to someone else. She was there when all this went down and she was decisive in diagnosing Veronica White's behavior as wildly inappropriate. I don't think Ray Nagin's instant replay can convince her otherwise.

Apparently, Veronica White is filing a complaint with the EEOC.

Best of luck to her.


UPDATE

Councilwoman Head calls Nagin's accusations reckless and groundless.

She does well to draw parallels between her attempts to question Veronica White about the city's sanitation contracts to some of the Nagin administrations other reactionary responses to basic due diligence inquiry:

"Regularly, the Mayor becomes incensed when the Council exercises its charter oversight authority," Head wrote, adding that the mayor got similarly bent out of shape when his administration's oversight of the NOAH home-gutting program was questioned.

"This is no different than his defensive posture during the NOAH investigation," Head wrote. "Instead of looking into credible information that the NOAH program was fraught with problems, he challenged the Council and the media that we were off base."

Fire in the Hole!

City Council is fighting itself.

Just try and wrap your mind around what happened at yesterday's budget meeting.

It's on video.

It's in the T-P.

So here's what happened. Councilwoman Stacy Head caught Sanitation Department Director Veronica White in a direct lie. Let me construct a chronology for you.

1. Stacy Head spends over a year trying to get Veronica White to provide a list of addresses from which the city collects garbage. From the T-P:

Council President Jackie Clarkson backed up that White had previously testified that the information wasn't available, as did minutes from a previous council meeting. But at Tuesday's hearing, White told the council that she receives monthly updates of how many addresses are served according to the terms of the collection contracts. White said the number is currently 106,500.

So clearly, Veronica White had been improperly withholding this information and was lying about the availability of the numbers, which would go a long way toward determining whether or not we're getting overcharged by our trash contractors.

2. Stacy Head calls Veronica White out. From the T-P:

Head was furious, saying that was the precise information the council had been asking White to provide for months.

"I have asked you for this no less than five times ..." Head said.

"You never asked me for this," White broke in.

Never? What about the times Ms. White testified that the information wasn't available? What about the times confirmed by Council minutes and even by the usually forgetful Jackie Clarkson?

3. Veronica White yells at Stacy Head and belligerently storms out of the room:

"You are not telling the truth, Ms. White," Head said.

"You have a selective understanding and your motive is to paint a picture that everyone in this department is thieves and crooks when you are the one," White said.

As White stormed out, Council President Jackie Clarkson told Chief Administrative Officer Brenda Hatfield "this department head is out of order," to which White shouted from the doorway, "The council member's out of order."

So then what happened?

You would think that Stacy Head's colleagues on Council would berate Dr. Brenda Hatfield for allowing such insubordination from her executive employees or demand Dr. Hatfield instruct the Sanitation Dept. to get their books in order. Something to that effect, right?

Nah...

4. Councilmembers admonish Stacy Head for her questions. From the T-P:

Willard-Lewis said it was a "sad day," saying Head instigated the conflict with "interrogation-style" questioning and should apologize to White. That prompted Head to say: "I'd like you every now and then to look at the facts and back up your colleagues when they're lied to."

When Hedge-Morrell interrupted Head, Head fired back.

"I understand you see it as an obligation to defend these contracts," Head said to Hedge-Morrell, who later said she was only trying, as the chairwoman, to diffuse the situation.

During a short break, Hedge-Morrell directed White to stay away from council chambers but asked Hatfield to return. When she did, Hatfield gave a tepid apology along with a request for more respect from Head.

With respect, Councilwoman Hedge-Morrell seems like she was indeed just trying to instigate calm but Councilwoman Willard-Lewis' assertion that it was Head who owed an apology to White. . . that Councilwoman Willard-Lewis would side with the demonstrably lying sanitation chief. . . it's indefensible.

It is known city-wide that these sanitation contracts are dirty and that the Dept. of Sanitation has been playing games with us. Everyone knows. Why then, is it so inappropriate for Stacy Head to put Veronica White through the paces a little bit?

Unbelievable.

Oh wait. It is believable. This is Cynthia Willard-Lewis.

Now I remember where Cynthia Willard-Lewis' loyalties lie.

She counts contractors Richard's Disposal and Metro Disposal as amongst her top campaign contributors.

--

This is our City Council:

They can all agree that the Nagin administration is doing a horrible job and that something must be done about it.

But when it comes time to actually get answers from the Nagin administration about something as obviously unsatisfactory and improper as our sanitation contracts, there's paralysis.

Why would you do this?

DSB's initial thoughts on Councilwoman Head's threat to cut funding to a summer camp are dead on.

It is hard for me to fathom how Stacy Head could come to the conclusion that it is "blatantly racist" to suggest that an incident occurring at an majority white summer camp would have been handled differently than it actually was at majority black summer camp. If anything was blatantly racist about the incident in discussion, it was the totally over the top response of the officers that were justly suspended from the force. The Treme has had to deal with a spate of poorly-justified police activity this year. I don't see Councilwoman Head's angle on this. Not only is she wrong but she is adding an unnecessary controversy to a situation that is somehow being responsibly investigated by the NOPD. She is taking attention away from her good work on NOAH. I don't get it. Bad move. Very insensitive and unnecessarily provocative.

So this actually happening

It is at these moments that I feel most feeble in my attempts to bring about positive change in my community.

The city is moving forward with their self-imposed FEMA trailer move-out deadline.

Of all the initiatives and policies and "undevelopment" schemes hatched by our municipal government, this one frustrates me the most.

In my mind, the unintended negative impacts of this policy are so obvious that they come off as very much intended.

I have, again and again, pointed out the problematic consequences of this policy.

Of course, we would like to get rid of all FEMA trailers. They are an unsightly reminder of tragedy and many have come to be rented illegally. They are not fit to withstand hurricane winds.

Most importantly, they are an immediate public health risk to all that inhabit them. They are contaminated with dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

So of course, it is important that we work to get people into permanent housing. Remaining in the trailers is not a truly viable option.

Yet look at the policy created to do that:

Trailer occupants should first contact FEMA to get the trailer removed. Then they need to file an affidavit with the city, included with the flier posted by FEMA, that certifies they asked the federal agency to remove the trailer. This affidavit also grants the city of New Orleans permission to contact the agency to request trailer removal. Filing the affidavit protects the resident if the trailer has not been taken away by July 1.

While FEMA notified trailer occupants about the return to the old city ordinance, the regulations also will apply to people who bought their own trailers after the storm, said James Ross, a Nagin spokesman.

If residents are not done rebuilding their flooded homes, they can ask the city Department of Safety & Permits for permission to continue living in the trailer. However, residents will have to show that they meet specific criteria to obtain an extension and provide the city with records that show they intend to rebuild a flooded house, according to the application. The request for an extension must be filed by July 1.

These criteria include documentation that there is ongoing litigation between a resident and insurance company or documentation that the resident applied for Road Home grants but has not received the money. Other records that may be required include loan papers or data that show repairs are ongoing and telling the city the anticipated completion date.

That's an awful lot of bureaucracy in 30 days just to keep from being kicked out of your trailer. That's an awful lot of bureaucracy for a city incapable of meeting its own notification laws for the demolition of private homes. That's too much bureaucracy for a city known to "mistakingly" tear down people's homes.

Just 30 days notification...

That's a lot to ask of the people struggling the most to rebuild. It puts all of the responsibility onto the shoulders of the victims of formaldehyde poisoning.

City policy does nothing to address the affordable housing crisis that forces many to illegally rent poisonous FEMA trailers because reasonably priced apartments are not available or forces many more to remain in their own poisonous FEMA trailers while home repairs hit bureaucratic walls of resistance.

Thus:

The 30-day notice to vacate their trailers has left a lot of people wondering what to do, said Davida Finger, an attorney handling housing cases for the Loyola Law Clinic.

"It has left people shellshocked," Finger said, noting that most of the people receiving the notices are those who have struggled the most to rebuild their damaged properties. The 30-day timeframe is simply too short, she said.

Many of the dozens of people who have called the Loyola clinic since the weekend are still wrangling with the Road Home program to receive grants to rebuild and aren't prepared to find new places to live, she said.

Finger said the city needs to give homeowners more specific information about the the extension process, such as when they can expect to hear back from the city and who will be deciding whether to grant the extensions.

Shell-shocked may be an understatement. One poor soul reached a tipping point.

I would argue that the city needs to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to address the affordable housing crisis.

Instead the affordable housing crisis only exists when it is the federal government's policies that are negatively impacting poor New Orleanians. When it is our own policy, there is no affordable housing crisis.

Why is that?

Here is, briefly, a sketch of the We Could Be Famous policy toward FEMA trailers:

At the end of last summer, I would have realized that FEMA was not competent enough to develop a coherent trailer policy and had long abandoned their ethical obligations to address the formaldehyde allegations.

It is at this time that I would have empowered inspectors to go around and evaluate the validity of trailer occupancy, giving deadline removal notices to trailers no longer needed and calculating the affordable housing needs of those in a bad spot with their insurance company or the Road Home program.

In February, when FEMA finally admitted formaldehyde contamination, I would have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the city of New Orleans in the hopes of negotiating the procurement of federal funding for the award of tax incentives for the construction and rental of affordable units or for a two year rental subsidy program.

By March, caseworkers would be working to move trailer residents into permanent affordable housing alternatives and removing empty trailers from city streets.

By the end of May, there would be no more trailers because everyone would have gotten the necessary assistance to find permanent housing on their own.

Easier said than done, I know. But my policy was written in five minutes off the top of my head. The city's policy was a "well-studied and thoughtful discussion" that took place over the course of months and was then hastily unveiled with an immediately impending deadline and a malicious disregard for the negative consequences.

Stacy Head:

"And especially with the beginning of hurricane season, it's good to remind people that FEMA trailers are dangerous places - trailers in general are dangerous places to live - and more permanent housing is a much better long-term solution."

I'm sorry Councilwoman, but you have been one of the most hostile municipal officials toward solutions designed to alleviate the affordable housing crisis.

Stacy Losing Pledged Delegates in Race for Prom Queen

Link.

Link.

Link.

A sad story. Maybe true, maybe untrue. Oyster (link 3) is right, it shouldn't strike anyone as uncharacteristic.

But, BSJD had some harsh criticism in the comments section there that struck a chord on some levels but not on others.

Stacy Head has been a problem for District B and for New Orleans because of her policies. The degree of derision that's expressed over her hot-headedness seems comparatively petty. I'd like to see more outrage over her ideas.

Her instances of disrespectful public anger provide only anecdotal evidence of unfortunate biases that are better exposed through her policy stands as a Councilwoman, though she'd like us not to challenge them.

I disagree that with BSJD's sentiment that we should somehow be okay with Stacy Head because she is better than Rene Gill-Pratt. Going from F- to D+ is not change, it is not reform. It just trades one racket for another. The city can't afford to keep playing those games anymore. We need to try again in District B and I'm not willing to give Ms. Head a pass just because she stands up for Mayoral accountability from time to time. Marshall Truehill would have done that too. It's called "progressive and innovative leadership" and we should not accept anything less.

Extenuating Circumstances

Today's report detailing our enlightened city leadership's plan to evict FEMA trailer residents is so rife with contradictions I almost don't know where to begin.

Recovery director Ed Blakely is now defending an August 15th final deadline for the removal of FEMA trailers from Orleans Parish. extensions to be granted to allow neighbors to remain after that date will be permitted in instances of "really extenuating circumstances."

-

There are many good reasons to remove the trailers as soon as possible.

They are unsightly. They crowd streets and driveways. Illegal rentals underneath the system are becoming public nuisance problems.

Most importantly, they are slowly killing the people living in them.

So the city would like to remove the trailers. But if only they knew how. If only it were so simple.

Though the formaldehyde risks were known two and a half years ago, FEMA didn't get around to admitting them until February. It was then that FEMA began a hastily-arranged emergency relocation plan for the estimated 25,000 New Orleanians living in toxic trailers. FEMA sought out cheap motels and apartments to house the thousands needing a safer place to live.

Even our own C. Ray Nagin quickly recognized how problematic FEMA's plan was, how potentially damaging it was. He wrote a letter to the President describing the issues. Here's a brief synopsis:

- There is a terrible shortage of affordable housing in New Orleans.
- This means that thousands of New Orleans FEMA trailer evacuees will have to be relocated outside of New Orleans because there are not available cheap motel and apartment units.
- That means that there would a second great displacement of working poor New Orleanians.
- This would hurt the city's economy because there is already a shortage of cheap labor and the service economy on which this city so heavily relies cannot afford to lose workers.
- It total, another major displacement of thousands of New Orleanians would represent a huge economic burden to the city and also it would be immoral and unfair to the evacuees.

Today's article wistfully recalls that letter to the President, "Blakely said Wednesday, that as far as he knows, Bush did not respond to Nagin's letter."

Nagin had called on Bush and FEMA to, instead of displacing thousands of our neighbors, provide free medical care to victims of formaldehyde exposure and rehabilitate affordable housing units to provide shelter for people right here in New Orleans.

A nice gesture by the Mayor, for sure, but not one he or anyone else expected to generate a positive response from the Bush administration. No chance in hell they'd agree to rehabilitate our affordable housing stock and provide free medical care.

So essentially, having rebuffed FEMA's disgraceful offer to displace 25,000 of our neighbors and offering an alternative plan from fantasy land that expected a do-little federal government to wave a magic wand, the city was left pretty much to its own devices.

What generally happens when the municipal government of New Orleans is responsible for something?

Nothing happens.

Thus we waited. And waited. And waited.

We waited for their strategy to provide affordable housing for those living in FEMA trailers but unable to procure Road Home money. We waited for their strategy to provide affordable housing to people scratching and clawing at minimum wage jobs to save enough money to make their own homes habitable again. We waited for the city to provide a viable strategy to get people out of these toxic trailers by summer time, when the heat increases the risks from formaldehyde.

Finally, at the end of March, Stacy Head and Ed Blakley suggested an idea: impose a deadline.

June 1st was floated as a possible date to require people to move out of their trailers. That would be plenty of time for people to either earn an exemption by proving that they were still waiting for Road Home money or to find another affordable housing option, right?

Well, no.

Stacy Head didn't even cite formaldehyde exposure as a main factor for needing to get rid of the FEMA trailers in haste. Instead, she indicated that the trailers had become eyesores, were being rented illegally, and were being inhabited as a "lifestyle choice."

There within lies the big hypocrisy of the whole recovery effort.

Not only is our city's affordable housing crisis so severe that there were not enough local options for FEMA to relocate victims of formaldehyde exposure within reasonable proximity to their jobs, but affordable housing is in such short supply that our neighbors have been reduced to actively seeking to illegally rent poisonous FEMA trailers because decent apartments are so expensive and difficult to obtain.

While city businesses yearn for a stable workforce, city government refuses to listen to calls for a reevaluation of Alphonso Jackson's plans to demolish public housing. While there are many elements to that debate, if the city was searching for emergency shelter for the estimated 20,000 people looking for relocation from FEMA trailers (or the estimated 12,000 homeless) they need look no further than Lafitte, which has just been leveled by city bulldozers.

City officials like to mention the affordable housing crisis when it is convenient for them. When FEMA's toxic trailer evacuation plan might result in a loss of workforce, we have an affordable housing crisis that makes it untenable. When the Census Bureau underestimates our population costing the city millions in federal funds, we have an affordable housing crisis that causes families to double or triple up in single units.

Other times, it is an inconvenience to city officials, something to be brushed aside as an exaggeration, as the misguided posturing of some bleeding heart. (Like when they're demolishing public housing, planning to demolish public housing, or claiming that the economic crisis does not threaten the replacement mixed income communities or other affordable housing developments waiting to be built throughout the city.)

-

So now August 15th is to be a hard deadline for people to find a place to live and get out of their trailers. (Let's just forget the public heath crisis that demanded we rush to move people out before the heat of summer.) Do YOU think we'll have enough affordable housing by then? I'm skeptical. Just how will the city enforce a deadline? Will people be put out on the streets?

Today's article only raises more questions.

FEMA will be responsible for contacting trailer residents and informing them of the upcoming deadlines and working with them to find new homes. And we all have 100 percent confidence in FEMA's ability to do this)

As for the City:

Blakely said the city does not have the resources to do "individual case management," and no city money will be spent to move people out of trailers or provide new housing for them.

No case management. No new housing provided. Little affordable housing being built. Thousands of people needing to be moved out of poisonous FEMA trailers. Only so much room under the overpass at Claiborne and Canal.

-

Perhaps most damning, is the comparison made in today's article detailing how the always compassionate Jefferson Parish dealt with the same problem.

In Jeff, there were 17,000 trailers in 2006 and Parish officials have been involved in expediting the removal of trailers ever since. They set a deadline for March of this year for all units no longer required by homeowners and have sent teams of inspectors to check.

The contrast is stark. Whatever the motivation of Jefferson Parish officials, they instituted a game plan over a year ago and have stuck to it, working slowly and methodically. Now there are only 600 illegal trailers remaining. In Orleans Parish, our officials sat on their hands and sat on their hands some more. Then all of a sudden, they hastily arrange short-term deadlines, provide absolutely no insight into the procedures, stand still on affordable housing issues, and claim that this has been "a well-studied and thoughtful policy discussion." No, it hasn't been. It has been a pathetic indicator of City Hall's larger inability to govern compassionately or even effectively.

You wonder if we're close to reaching a tipping point as a community. This isn't even a one-party city, it's a no-party system. Alan asks if the Democrats can save New Orleans, but I want this city to save itself. We're governed by cannibals.

-

I believe I've covered the FEMA trailer deadline/formaldehyde issues diligently. For background information on this situation, please click on the 'FEMA Trailers' tag below to see a rundown of all I've written on the subject. See also 'affordable housing' and 'public housing.'

Well-Studied and Thoughtful

I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to Councilwoman Stacy Head's statements attempting to clarify her comments related to personal choice and the continued use of FEMA trailers.

On March 27th, there was a report in the Times-Picayune that described a new city plan to set a deadline for people to move out of their FEMA trailers.

Stacy Head, cited as an architect of the policy, described the need for the plan like this:

"At what point are we going to say that in New Orleans it's not OK to live in a trailer as a lifestyle choice?" she asked. "There are many, many trailers in the non-flooded areas (where) people just would rather live there than deal with a house that they didn't put any money into for a long time before that."

I first wrote about the quote the day that I read them on the 27th of March. I did so again on March 31st.

I found the quote to be extremely offensive and out of touch. I still do. It angered me that she could insinuate that those still stuck in formaldehyde-contaminated FEMA trailers are merely being lazy given high rents, Road Home holdups, the recent imperilment of new affordable housing developments, and the other seemingly endless challenges that this city struggles to address.

But I tried not to base my criticisms of Councilwoman Head's words on a platform of political correctness.

Instead, I urge everyone to look at the actions and policies that inform Councilwoman Stacy Head's language and sentiment.

Councilwoman Head now has an established track record of hostility when it comes to the recovery issues facing working people.

Stacy Head's offensive and patronizing language in discussing this particular issue merely underscores a consistent combativeness toward New Orleanians affected by the affordable housing crisis.

There was that incident at City Hall where she blew kisses to antagonize public housing protesters.

But more importantly, how about her inexplicable opposition to the compromise bill that Senator Landrieu tried to pass in Congress?

The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act required one-for-one replacement of all public housing units lost in demolition. It was an attempt to ensure that the new mixed income communities would still provide the same stock of public units for poor families in New Orleans.

Given the affordable housing crisis in New Orleans, the GCHRA seemed like a political no-brainer. Not only would it allow the redevelopment plans to go forward with lessened opposition from housing advocates, but it would do something to address the affordable housing crisis in the medium term by guaranteeing thousands of new units.

And for most, the bill was a no-brainer.

The bill was supported by the Mayor, all but one from City Council, Governor Blanco, Senator Landrieu, and the entire Louisiana congressional delegation, save for Senator Vitter.

“If we don’t get the federal government to commit to help develop work force housing, we’ll be a city that stays at 250,000 people because we won’t get enough workers to come back to the city and help it grow,” Landrieu said.

Another LESS conservative version of the bill actually passed the House of Representatives WITH the support of current Governor Bobby Jindal and conservative Rep. Richard Baker of Baton Rouge.

The Senate version never made it to the floor because of the opposition of Vitter.

However, he was not the only official hostile to the bill. There was one more person.

Councilwoman Stacy Head of District B.

“No matter how many times I’ve tried to explain to Stacy no one is interested in rebuilding the old-time, dilapidated public housing,” Landrieu said. “Everyone except for her and Sen. Vitter seems to understand we need places for our policemen and teachers to live. I’m talking about law-abiding citizens that can’t afford $1,500 in rent.”

Councilwoman Head stood strong with David Vitter against common sense compromise legislation addressing the affordable housing crisis.

-
Thus, Stacy Head's response to Alan Gutierrez's email requesting clarification should not surprise anybody.

The quote was accurate. There are people who should have moved out of trailers by now who have not. There are trailers being RENTED on Freret Street as we speak. Frankly, I find that disgusting. What kind of a cretin takes a FREE FEMA trailer and RENTS IT to someone. If you have a friend or relative that needs housing, let them use it for FREE! Attack that kind of behavior rather than challenge well-studied and thoughtful policy discussion! As was made very clear (if anyone listened), the council wants to assure that people who are in trailers because of Road Home delays, insurance issues, construction nightmares and the like have time to resolve their issues. We also made it clear that we are urging FEMA and churches and non-profits to help those people resolve their issues.

Stacy Head
Councilmember, District B

-

She asks us not to "challenge well-studied and thoughtful policy discussion." Instead, she asks us to attack those renting out their FEMA trailers.

My first immediate linguistic reaction is that I think it is almost hilarious that we now have a politician begging us to stop having substantive and intelligent policy discussions in favor of emotional attacks against vague law-breakers. In my experience following politics, normally, officials have publicly encouraged an intellectual discourse amongst their constituents while underhandedly playing to people's emotional fears. This time, we actually have the politician directly telling us to stop questioning the policy and telling us to behave more like conservative talk radio. Maybe that happens more commonly in majority Republican areas, maybe Stacy Head thinks she mostly represents Republicans. I don't know. I have a bemused look on my face right now.

More substantively, Stacy Head, in the original Times-Picayune article, and again in her response at Think, discusses the illegal renting of FEMA trailers. She estimates that 30 percent of the trailers in the city are being rented. I did the math quickly in my brain to try to estimate what they would mean, if her number is accurate. That same article says there is around 7,200 trailers in Orleans Parish. That means approximately 2,300 are being rented. If you then imagine there are three people living in each trailer (a conservative estimate), then there are about 7,000 people living in illegally rented trailers.

I'm sorry, Councilwoman Head. I do not believe that the 7,000 people forced to rent poisonous FEMA trailers because affordable apartments are not available are cretins. I don't consider them to be criminals.

Nor do I consider the people renting the trailers out to be cretins. They're engaging in the free market recovery. They're providing affordable housing options in a city with few. They're meeting a market demand that our municipal government seems content to ignore.

Now perhaps rented FEMA trailers are causing a problem. Things relegated to an underground economy do tend to lead to other social challenges. Councilwoman Head does seem to blame, at least in her email to Alan, the trailer landlord more than the renter. She is disgusted that people would try to profit from the situation and suggests that desperate families in need of places to live should be allowed to stay in the trailers for free.

Well I'm wondering now whether or not Stacy Head would commit to waivers in any locally-based legislation implementing a deadline to vacate FEMA trailers. Perhaps, for instance, she would grant amnesty and extensions to all of those living illegally in FEMA trailers that are doing so for free. Perhaps she would work to legalize the lease of FEMA trailers so that the cretins renting them out could be brought under the same regulations and taxes facing the above-ground housing market. Maybe she'd be willing to pass legislation that would fine profiteers and earmark that money directly toward vouchers that might help families secure viable long-term housing.

For whatever reason, I imagine Stacy Head would be against entertaining those policy ideas. Instead, I believe she'll continue to ignore the realities of the affordable housing crisis.

Quote in Context

If you read the AP's report on the ridiculous FEMA trailer deadline being floated, you get to see a little bit more context for Stacy Head's disgusting assertion that trailer residents are making a lifestyle choice:

"At what point are we going to say that in New Orleans it's not OK to live in a trailer as a lifestyle choice?" she asked. "There are many, many trailers in the non-flooded areas (where) people just would rather live there than deal with a house that they didn't put any money into for a long time before that."

Are there many, many trailers in non-flooded areas where people would just rather live than deal with a house?

Does she really think people are finding the formaldehyde exposure risks in a flimsy one-room to be preferable to a proper home?

Is she implying that poor people in her district are sitting pretty in FEMA trailers? Is she implying that her high ground constituents in FEMA trailers got a housing upgrade as a result of the storm?

Extremely out of touch, mean-spirited, ugly.

Thus, any clarification where she attempts to argue that she was only referring to "the lifestyle choices" of those renting trailers illegally would be inaccurate.

She really needs to address her comments.

Lifestyles of the Poor and the Poisoned

This one is real ugly.

Some New Orleans officials are floating June 1st as a potential deadline for people to vacate all FEMA trailers in Orleans Parish.

The article uses an estimate of 7,200 trailers in New Orleans. That's got to be 15 to 25 thousand people.

Certainly, people need to move out of FEMA trailers. They're contaminated by dangerous formaldehyde exposure and are not safe.

FEMA, after a few years of refusing to conduct tests, has finally admitted that there are significant health risks in the trailers and is moving ever so slowly to get people into safer housing.

Any trailer resident relocation plan is extremely complicated, as Mayor Nagin of all people has expressed. His accurate argument, though he doesn't have the credibility to make it, is that FEMA's relocation plans will result in another massive displacement of Gulf Coast residents because there is not enough affordable housing here in the city to accommodate another several thousand apartment hunters.

(Now of course Mayor Nagin is a hypocrite on the issue because he has ignored the existence of the affordable housing crisis during relevant debates that have occurred here municipally. see: public housing demolitions, homelessness. Try as valiantly as possible to ignore that inconvenient truth and focus instead on the fact that we do indeed have an affordable housing crisis in this city)

In other extremely related news, city officials again cited the affordable housing crisis as a major contributing factor behind the low census estimates that could cost the city millions in federal funding:

City Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell said she suspects that the Census Bureau also failed to take into account what she called "double-up" and "triple-up" households where two and three families have been forced to live under the same roof while storm repairs drag on.

Please keep the above context in mind as you read the following passage that I will now paste from today's related article on the potential city-imposed trailer closeout deadline:

With FEMA working toward a goal of relocating all those residents by summer, the city deadline would target people who simply don't want to leave or are living in trailers illegally, [Councilwoman Stacy] Head said. She estimated that as much as 30 percent of the city's trailer stock currently is being rented, a violation of federal law, or occupied by squatters.

"At what point are we going to say New Orleans is not a place where you can live in a trailer as a lifestyle choice?" she said.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A LIFESTYLE CHOICE?

I want to explode.

Let's say that your estimate that 30% of Orleans Parish trailers are being illegally rented is accurate. That is about 2,500 trailers. For maybe 5,000-10,000 people.

You think that's a lifestyle choice?

You think people are happily getting fat in one room cancer boxes that they share with family?

A lifestyle choice?

It's cool to live in a FEMA trailer?

It's a status symbol?

Councilwoman Head, this is the most vile, out of touch statement you've ever made.

People are living in FEMA trailers because they have to. They're renting FEMA trailers or living in their own because WE HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IN THIS CITY.

Rents are still extremely high. Road Home money still flows at a trickle. Funding for new affordable housing units are in peril.

Thousands upon thousands of our neighbors still live in FEMA trailers, I doubt they're loving it.

Councilwoman Head, why don't you come up with an actual plan to help find affordable housing for the thousands of families forced to illegally rent poisonous one-room trailers?

Recover Director Ed Blakely, the other callous official from this story also comes off looking like an absolute fool just from an unedited Times-Picayune passage:

Most people still living in trailers are older than 50 and are caught in financial limbo: even with Road Home and insurance payments, they can't afford to rebuild their homes, he said.

Blakely said the city has been "putting together some lending programs to assist people with that gap."

But those programs will not be available before June.

Unbelievable. You're floating a June 1st deadline so that we don't become known as "trailer city" but you admit that most residents are economically incapable of finding new housing or rebuilding their own home enough so that it is livable by summer. Your plan to help them with lending programs will not be available by the of the deadline you're setting.

Those seniors in financial limbo that FEMA formaldehyde trailers are slowly poisoning sure are making a lifestyle choice...
--

I've never been a huge fan of Councilwoman Head. I certainly have criticized her stance on public housing, which I find to be rife with conflicts of interest. But I never before thought she was a bad person. I've been appreciative of some of her efforts leading the charge to secure former DA Eddie Jordan's resignation an in other matters of ethics reform, etc. By all accounts I've heard, she's been way more responsive to the inquires of her district's residents than her predecessors.

This however, is unacceptable. Her assertion that the thousands of our neighbors stuck in FEMA trailers are making a "lifestyle choice" is not only ludicrous, it is mean-spirited and divisive.

I'd like to see a contrite apology and then I'd like to see your plan to increase the availability of affordable housing or your plan to reduce rent rates.

That's how you might start to get rid of the trailers.

As for Blakely... What is it that ya do here?