‘The Lottery’: New Documentary Dares to Question ACORN/Labor Union Infestation of Public Schools

by Liberty Chick |  on BigHollywood

A new hard-hitting documentary entitled, “The Lottery,” from director Madeleine Sackler premieres tomorrow, for one night only, in theaters across the country.  The focus of the film is the battle for the future of our nation’s children over education.

“In a country where 58% of African-American 4th graders are functionally illiterate, The Lottery uncovers the failures of the traditional public school system and reveals that hundreds of thousands of parents attempt to flee the system every year. The Lottery follows four of these families from Harlem and the Bronx who have entered their children in a charter school lottery. Out of thousands of hopefuls, only a small minority will win the chance of a better future.”

And at the core of that battle is a network of special interests; a coalition of community groups, labor unions, and politicians, all working together to hold onto power and control, while losing sight of the children; the future of our country.

The inner workings of such a web are little known or understood to most, even to some of those close to the system.  To understand how powerful this network is, first you need to be extremely observant.  And then, you need to go right to the source.  Within no time, many of the issues that stand in the way of reforming our public education system become as clear as the most perfect of ocean waters on a sunny day.

(more…)

SEIU Doesn’t Care About Health Care. SEIU Cares About SEIU.

I wrote a long 4-part post a few weeks back about SEIU and its REAL interest in health care.  While most of that interest may be obvious – I mean, SEIU does have a division of its union dedicated entirely to Health Care workers, some of the history that has built up to their level of interest today may not be quite as obvious.  That’s why I published some of SEIU’s own presentations from years ago, where they discuss their strategy to “create” an issue that could become their political platform in order to embed themselves into government policy.  They needed an issue that would enable them to demonize anyone who would oppose their perspective.  An issue that would create political capital for SEIU and make them an attractive partner to potential political allies and, as they put in their words, “new strange bedfellows”.  An issue that would “create demand for SEIU-provided services.”

And that issue?  Universal Health Care.  So I asked, did SEIU manufacture this health care “crisis”?

Now, as I always say, don’t get me wrong.  I agree that some level of reform is needed in health care.  And I do want others who cannot afford it to be able to have access to affordable health care.  As someone with Lupus and a permanent spinal injury (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills from spine surgeries and kidney treatment), I have had several periods in time when I was unable to work and therefore lost my health insurance.  So I know what it’s like to be without it, or to have medical debt, or to have a pre-existing condition.

I also know what government health care is like. And it is NOT the answer.

Don’t let the SEIU thugs fool anyone.  Show your opponents what this organization REALLY cares about.  They say it in their own words in their own presentations.

Click to view full size

And when they try to demonize you, show them SEIU’s tactics to paint opponents as not sympathetic to “working Americans”:

Click to view full size

Here’s a montage of snippets from just one presentation:

Are you interested yet?  Read the entire post.  It’s lengthy, but it is necessary to read the whole background to understand what the REAL plans behind this health care strategy are.  And how did they get here? How did our politicians get so involved? And how much have they spent? How much do they have to lose?

Please, educate yourselves.  Look beyond ACORN.  Look into the White House.  You’ll see a lot of purple behind those windows at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Here’s the whole presentation. But again, read the whole post to understand the full background.  If you cannot read all four parts, at least start with “Creating Crisis Using the Issue of Health Care”.

SEIU & the White House: Did SEIU Manufacture the Health Care Crisis for its Own Gain?

Click to Download Presentation (.ppt)

In light of today’s ever growing tension in the heated health care debate, one would be remiss not to take notice of the prominent presence of SEIU and its affiliated partnerships in the fray.  The powerful labor union not only has lots of boots on the ground in workplaces and in public social settings all across the nation, but it holds a hefty seat directly at the President’s table, with Obama’s appointment of Change to Win Chair and SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burger to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, as well as several other SEIU leaders who occupy spots all throughout his administration…and several NOT directly in his administration who visit the White House regularly.  An additional look at their history in creating the SEIU Health Care division, as well as some of the SEIU’s own presentations, may lead you to ask:

So, why is SEIU playing such a central role in this health care discussion? There’s a long history and very targeted strategy behind the answers to that question.

The History & Launch of SEIU Health Care

Regulating & Organizing Home Health Care and Child Care Workers

Creating Crisis Using the Issue of Health Care

SEIU Inside the White House

On the surface, it might seem logical that SEIU would endorse the president’s agenda for universal health care.  SEIU is short for Service Employees International Union.  The labor union represents 2.1 million service employees, with 1 million of those alone in their Health Care division – among them lab technicians, hospital workers, dieticians, radiology assistants, nursing home workers, home care workers and others.  Perhaps those in favor of a government-run option lend credibility to SEIU because of its membership demographics and its implicit expertise in health care.  But does the SEIU truly have the necessary expertise in health care issues to contribute productive feedback to the debate, or are there other factors at work here?

Surely, SEIU would stand to gain tremendously if  every American were required to have health insurance.  Even more, their membership rosters would explode if the health care workers doles were increased, especially if most or all of the health care system were to be consolidated into a single bloated government option.  After all, SEIU is THE union of not only the health care and child care workers, but also that of state government/public service employees.

I decided to thoroughly analyze this situation and make some observations about SEIU’s positioning in the agenda of the current White House administration.  If you’re patient enough to follow me here as I acquaint you with all the details first, then you’ll be able to step back to see the big picture for yourself at the end of this article.

Let’s start by looking at some of SEIU’s own strategic planning documents.

These are plans and presentations that the union and its leadership designed in their efforts to grow and retain their membership for the long term in the face of declining union membership numbers, as various employment anti-discrimination laws, worker protection rules and workplace safety regulations have progressively diminished the need for unions in the US.  A good deal of content in some of the presentations immediately led me to question which came first – the health care reform initiative and then the SEIU membership growth strategy? Or did the SEIU’s aggressive strategy for growth actually manufacture today’s rallying cry for health care reform?

Don’t get me wrong – I’ve been without health insurance before, and as someone with Lupus and with a permanent spinal injury, I know health care inside and out and I know we need reform. But has SEIU forced this issue to another level altogether?

Take a look first at some of the highlights gleaned from an SEIU presentation from November of 2007, where SEIU strategizes, with others, on how to create a political opportunity that will in turn create demand for their services and create new membership opportunities for their union. The most important priority for achieving such opportunities, they decided, would be the issue of Health Care.

Click for larger view

 

For instance, one of the key highlights of the presentation emphasizes that the issue of universal health care coverage should become a number one lobbying priority in the SEIU strategy because success in doing so “creates demand for SEIU-provided services”.  Further slides go on to describe that SEIU must make this topic a “Sympathetic Americans issue” and “put opposition on the defense”.  Again, this presentation was made in November of 2007, long before the 2008 presidential election.  But something else about the timeline struck me.  It followed only months after SEIU announced its creation of a new division of its union – SEIU Health Care.

Organizing Health Care Workers:
The Launch of SEIU Health Care

SEIU first created their health care division, SEIU Health Care, in June of 2007, after years of separate, regionally focused local organizing efforts for the classification of health care workers across the country collaborated to successfully unite more than one million of them under a single, large international union.

As early as the 1990’s, SEIU had recognized that health care service workers already organized under their public service workers division could be heavily leveraged as a separate division to attract the 9 million non-unionized health care workers in the US and Puerto Rico. By the early 2000’s, they began trying to build credibility in the health care sector by aggressively organizing new worker classifications under their membership, adding nurses and LPNs, aides in hospitals and nursing homes, dieticians, therapists, imaging and lab personnel, and even home child care providers.  In some cases, these were even hostile takeovers, such as in the cases of the California Nurses Association (CAN) the United Healthcare Workers (UHW) unions, which had wanted to remain their own unions.

For those who are relatively new to the history of SEIU, their organizing methods have long been considered thug-like, and have often involved questionable tactics at best in building their prospect lists and in partnering with other groups to expand their membership.  With their roots having been in Arkansas under the same leadership and umbrella as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), they share a rich history of the same Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” methods and tools of the trade.  In fact, the labor union’s current and former leaders take great pride in employing such tactics to have built up their strong membership bases, particularly in areas like Chicago (see Keith Kelleher’s analysis of one of the strongest SEIU locals in organizing history, below).

Click to enlarge

“Dumpster Diving” became a time-honored tool for [new member prospect] list building. – Keith Kelleher, Head Organizer, SEIU Local 880 (Chicago), from “Growth of a Modern Union Local: A People’s History of SEIU Local 880 ” (pdf)

And so, armed with standard tactics, by the mid 2000’s, SEIU leadership began creating a new long-term growth strategy to address declining nationwide union membership trends, a strategy that not only included health care, but would put it front and center as the driving force to keep the SEIU union lifeblood alive. Focusing on local and regional issues, they partnered with various entities to pass legislation at the state and federal government levels that, while serving honorable intentions, would without doubt also increase SEIU membership in the long run, such as H.R 1222 (the Nurse Staffing Standards for Patient Safety and Quality Care Act of 2005, reintroduced by Jan Schakowsky in 2009), S. 2061 (the Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and was denied) and H.R. 3001 (the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act).

In parallel, SEIU was expanding its benefits programs for Health Care workers specifically, in an effort to more aggressively recruit and attract new members, offering health care, pensions, training and more all at no cost to these union members.  One example is the SEIU Family of Funds, which serves SEIU United Health Care Workers East. Of course, this would create financial challenges for the union as they grew their membership of health care workers; the cost of providing such benefits would simply become unsustainable.  SEIU subsequently began fighting their health care providers (which in many cases were also the employers), demanding that they reduce health premiums so that they could pass on the savings in premiums to the members in the way of wage increases, as was done with Kaiser and SEIU Local 721. SEIU would soon be seeking additional means of paying for these health care and retirement benefits.

Regulating & Organizing Home Health Care and Child Care Workers

Once SEIU gained success in regulating and unionizing home health care workers, the union decided to recycle the same model in other sectors.  For instance, SEIU quickly realized that they could also increase their membership through child care –  first by organizing regulated family child care (FCC) providers, and then by organizing home-based child care providers. But first they had to force states to regulate home-based child care if they were to organize these members.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , in 2006, child care workers held about 1.4 million jobs in 2006, and the number is projected to increase by 18 percent between 2006 and 2016. About 35% of all child care workers are self-employed, the overwhelming majority of them women who operate a home-based child care service in their own home or the homes of family, friends and neighbors (FFN providers), or even simply women who babysit their neighbors’ kids.

Many home-based care providers also receive payment from the state, in part through welfare program subsidies made to parents of children under their care.  More state providers meant more guaranteed money and more opportunities to organize members.  This prompted SEIU to begin bargaining with states, under the pretense that the state is considered an “employer of record” to those home-based care providers.  And in states where there was no record or regulation of the FFN providers, SEIU lobbied for state regulation under the guise that there were “safety concerns” with neighbors caring for children in the community.  Of course, once states regulated such activity, it then created what essentially equates to a prospect mailing list of fresh new blood that was now eligible for union solicitation.  And together with the help of groups like ACORN and UFT and other teachers’ unions, SEIU began unionizing home child care providers.

And, not only would these child care providers represent potential new members for SEIU, but the success of requiring them to be regulated, and thus certified and credentialed by the state, created thousands more jobs for SEIU.  Because who else do you think that SEIU pitched to be the authority in educating and certifying all of these new found members?  Why, SEIU of course.  The union not only lobbied lawmakers in state to force babysitters to become certified, and thus unionized, but they also lobbied to be  the certification providers.  The SEIU Kids First program now exists in at least 10 states where the union has been successful in requiring regulation of home child care. This amounts to not only new union members for SEIU, but also new demand for early education services and certification programs provided exclusively by SEIU, as well as millions of dollars in public state and federal funding to SEIU to deliver the services.  And more importantly, it further entrenches SEIU into the system and into the educational influence over what kids are taught even in their earliest years. Even your babysitters now are given taxpayer dollars to help indoctrinate your children.

Following suit would then be partnering unions AFSCME, Communication Workers of America (CWA), United Auto Workers (UAW), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), all of which officially adapted SEIU’s strategy and organizing model to unionize regulated family child care providers AND home-based child care providers and/or to require coverage of it in their health care benefits bargaining agreements.

Their latest wins include winning state contracts across the country, most of which now require that the state provide mandatory health care to each of those child care workers. (What a coincidence – those mandatory health care services for those SEIU child care workers are also performed by SEIU unions members!)

“By forming a union, we can win a contract with the state that guarantees the economic gains we’ve won can’t be taken away.” — SEIU, referring to the SEIU Kids First union

SEIU subsequently instituted a strategy to promote healthy well-being and child nutrition programs, both inside health care facilities and at home.  Nationwide education then programs took hold, made their way into collective bargaining agreements, and were quickly rolled right into proposed health care reform legislation.  Typical SEIU nutrition crisis campaigns today include “Getting Healthy Food Into School Cafeterias”, “Stop Obesity”, “Obesity – the epidemic of the century”, and of course the “Campaign for Quality Services”, in which the SEIU uses the phrase “Serving Justice, and Serving Lunch” to equate its cafeteria workers to “Superheroes”, crediting them with providing the nutritious meals that save the impoverished school-children of America.  As you might imagine, there’s quite a demand out there now for jobs for registered dieticians and nutrition counselors who are covered under SEIU agreements.

Such strategies have since become yet another key component of the overall health care reform legislation, making way for SEIU to benefit not only from new health care jobs like nutritionists and dieticians, but to secure its membership of food service and other similar service workers that are part of their public services workers division that serves public school and state facility service workers.

And again, SEIU does so by creating crisis.  Just view their “Crisis in Child Care” campaign.

UPDATE 9/29/2009:

Did you see the news story about the Michigan babysitting neighbor who was contacted by the state and told that she was breaking the law by babysitting her neighbors’ 3 children every day for 15 to 40 minutes before their school bus arrived?  This is precisely the action that SEIU wants to be taken and why they lobbied for the law in the first place. If they can keep babysitting a regulated activity, it equals more union members and more union provided training services. This has nothing to do with safety and concern for kids, and everything to do with feeding the unions. (I’d be curious to know if any of babysitting mom Lisa Snyder’s neighbors belong to or work for SEIU, AFT, AFSCME or ACORN).

Creating Crisis:
SEIU Builds an Empire on the Issue of Health Care Reform

By 2006, SEIU realized they’d need to align all the activities of their local organizations if they were to leverage their efforts on a national level to increase membership. And to increase membership, they’d need to create opportunities.  So, how does an organization seeking to affect political outcomes that will determine its fate secure success?  Identify a cause that creates jobs for your union; make it a national public issue, and then get out in front of it as the perceived champion of that cause.

And by 2007, SEIU recognized that the issue of Health Care could resurface as that national policy issue – if they championed the cause.  In November of 2007, during a joint discussion on “high road” restructuring (i.e., advancing both competitiveness and the quality of jobs) in the health care industry in the presentation titled “Rx for a Successful SEIU Strategy for Health Care”, given by Chris Jennings of Jennings Policy Strategies, Inc. and a health policy veteran of the White House, SEIU leaders secured their national strategy to put the health care debate back on the political map.

Download the full presentation.

Declaring the health care strategy as its number one priority, SEIU strategized that:

Click to view full size

• Requiring health care coverage for all Americans will in turn create demand for SEIU-provided services
• Requiring health care coverage for all Americans will help with organizing and securing affordable care for its own members, and would also reduce pressure on compensation negotiations with SEIU
• Containing its own internal costs (through a universal health care plan) will help SEIU to “inoculate itself from being perceived solely as a spender”
• Associating itself with “politically-viable modernization initiatives that can achieve savings” will earn SEIU the credibility to oppose cost-shifting policies and to instead lead a campaign for complete reform

Also part of their strategy, SEIU would strictly steer the messaging in such a way to influence public opinion and create divisions that could work to their benefit:

• “Strong messaging about consequences of inaction needs to be developed and implemented
• Candidates must be put on defense about flawed policy; champions (SEIU) must not always be defending
• Messaging about why this is a sympathetic working Americans issue must effectively be delivered”

Additional presentations made by SEIU since 2007 to the present help illustrate just how aggressively they pursued making universal health care a political issue for the next election – and one that would stop at that election.  SEIU’s strategy has admittedly been all along to get universal health care into the political debate before 2008 by

Click to view full size

1. Exaggerating estimates of the uninsured and incessantly highlighting the cost of health care, and getting it into everyday mainstream discussion
2. Vilifying health insurance providers and manipulating profit figures to create a divide between consumers and providers
3. Lobbying local and state government, as well as Congress for various health reforms
4. Demonizing those who oppose a government option (but do support reform), portraying them as selfish proponents of the status-quo.

In addition, in its quest to create more jobs classified as health care workers, thus creating more union members, SEIU lobbied Congress members and health care facilities for other seemingly unrelated actions.

Download the full presentation.

For instance, SEIU:

• Has commissioned and published numerous reports warning about the obesity epidemic in the US, lobbying state and federal government officials for programs to educate on nutrition and obesity and legislation to require insurance companies to cover obesity as a “chronic illness”.  As government programs have increased, so has SEIU’s membership pool of Registered Dieticians and Nutrition Education Specialists, as well as “specially trained” school food service workers. What a coincidence.
• Has pushed the climate & clean energy agenda, not only for green jobs, but for their health care strategy, frequently citing that SEIU members are low-wage workers who “suffer disproportionately from the effects of pollution” on their health.  As a result, an entirely new classification of “environmental justice” lawsuits has taken hold, with labor unions leading the way in advising their workers to sue corporations that locate their factories in low-income neighborhoods, staking claims on damage awards for their health care costs.  Maybe this has a little something to do with the pushback on tort reform?
• Has forced the issue of long term care into the public debate and lobbied the government to implement long term care and end of life counseling policies into federal health care programs, including in the currently proposed health care bills in Congress.  Funny, SEIU has spent a great deal of time, energy and money creating new segments of their health care division specifically for Long-Term Care workers.
• Even seized the H1N1 virus as an opportunity in their health care strategy, indicating in multiple presentations that if the government provides universal health care coverage, then their union members can be the ones to provide the services nationwide to respond to a pandemic.

SEIU Inside the White House, a Partnership in Empire Building

While SEIU has been developing their outside strategy of using health care as a platform for expanding their union membership, they’ve also been busy in the White House, ensuring their efforts are working the system from the inside.

When Andy Stern, Service Employees International Union president, told the Las Vegas Sun newspaper in May of 2009 that “we [the SEIU] spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.,” many raised some eyebrows.  Only months prior, Obama appointed several SEIU leaders in positions throughout his administration, and continues to today.  In fact, it’s quite interesting when you look at each name and notice most have some relatively strong involvement in health care for SEIU:

• As mentioned previously, Change to Win Chair and SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burger was appointed to the President’s to his Economic Recovery Board of Advisors.  Burger has been one of the chief strategists alongside Andy Stern and Dennis Rivera on SEIU Health Care for years, and leads much of today’s public debate on health care reform, among other policy issues.
• Patrick Gaspard, former vice president of politics and legislation for Local 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, was appointed as the White House political director after serving as the national political director for Obama’s general election campaign. Gaspard also led lobbying efforts on behalf of SEIU on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 2007.  He’s also been very actively involved in the past with America Coming Together and Project Vote, but that’s another post entirely for another day…
• John Sullivan, SEIU associate counsel, was named to the Federal Election Commission, a panel consisting of only six members and tasked with reforming campaign finance and elections administration.  Sullivan’s prior career has also included staunch support for Teamsters union bosses as their Election Officer Counsel, and legal counsel to SEIU and other labor unions on everything from election campaigning rules, strikes, and union benefits agreements, among many other interesting positions. This appointment seems ludicrous to those who follow campaign spending, as the FEC levied one of its largest fines in history of $775,000 against “America Coming Together”, an SEIU & ACORN joint 527s organization founded by George Soros and Andy Stern, while it was under Sullivan’s legal watch.
• Craig Becker, associate general counsel of SEIU, was nominated by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board in July.  Becker was instrumental in developing SEIU’s legal strategies for organizing informal workers, primarily home health care workers and similar health care industry workers, even testifying on Capitol Hill as early as 2007 in support of unionizing such workers.  There has also been separate concern over this appointment, relating to the Employee Free Choice Act and questions about the potential for Becker, whose public writings have stated that he believes “employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of union representatives”, to implement labor policies that would achieve the same outcome as the EFCA should that bill stall or fail in Congress.
• And of course, SEIU President Andy Stern and SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera who, while not appointed to any specific positions in the administration, have earned themselves a place directly in Obama’s inner circle of strategy on Health Care.  They’ve been included in numerous strategy meetings on the health care legislation, inside and outside the White House.

Click to open full PDF

And now, SEIU has charged itself with “Building a New American Health Care System”.

As though the majority of America has recruited the SEIU to handle all of our health care needs.  Last I checked, less than 10% of the entire US workforce is unionized…and only a small portion of that 10% represents SEIU.

So, why would a union like the SEIU, which represents such a tiny portion of the American population, position itself with such brevity and give itself so much self-appointed authority?  Does their fight against Capitalism have anything to do with this, too?  Think about this:  for years this union has been fighting to get Americans’ health care out of the hands of employers and into the hands of the government instead.  One pathway to help them get there is to ensure that as many non-union citizens as possible no longer have an employer.

I think most Americans agree that the health insurance industry can use some reform.  I know. I have a chronic illness and I’ve been uninsured, and I’ve also been on government insurance.  But changing some regulations and lifting others is one of the simplest ways to reforming it.  So why won’t Democrats and the unions even consider such proposals?  We have to ask ourselves some tough questions.  Is the current health reform proposal what’s truly in the nation’s best interest?  Or is SEIU simply trying to “take advantage of moments of change and crisis” as they said in their own presentation in November of 2007?

Home care crisis.  Elderly care crisis.  End of life care crisis.  Child care crisis.  Nutrition crisis.  Obesity crisis.  Environmental health crisis.  Economic crisis.  Health care crisis.

You tell me, is this a manufactured crisis?

If not, it’s quite a coincidence that each of these crises creates more laws, then more jobs, then more union members, then more taxes (not necessarily in that order).

Only an organization that has somehow secured its place at the nation’s top table would so brazenly build its own empire right under the noses of the rest of the American people.  And SEIU has so very obviously been encouraged to do so.  The next question is, what will each of us do to further educate ourselves and then do something about it?

Related SEIU presentations & documents, and SEIU jobs:

Download “Rx for Successful SEIU Strategy for Health Care”  (.ppt)

SEIU Statement for the Record at Senate Finance Committee Round-table on Health Care Coverage (.pdf)

SEIU: Justice for All initiative

Devices and Desires: The Consequences of National Health Care Reform on the National Union of Health Care Workers

Unionizing Home-Based Child Care Providers: An Update

Investing in Our Future: Working Together to Improve the Skills and Wages of Child Care Workers

Looking to the Future:  Options for Addressing the Crisis in American Labor Relations

Search for SEIU nutrition jobs

Search for SEIU health care jobs

Search all SEIU related jobs

Labor Imperialism, Corporate Unionism & The SEIU Convention (video of hostile SEIU takeover in Puerto Rico that resulted in union workers protesting against Barack Obama, Andy Stern, Dennis Rivera and Anna Burger)

ACORN Part III: From Rathke in New Orleans to Ratner in New York

UPDATE as of 11/25/2009:  Appeals Court Rules in favor of Bruce Ratner

Download this full post in print-friendly PDF

A Quick Tour of the Atlantic Yards Project

Once United, Now Divided

Do Scare Tactics Play a Role?

The Tables Are Turned

Let’s Examine the Evidence

Commentary

References, Records, Legal Docs

Amidst the coverage of ACORN for allegations of voter registration fraud, the Rathke embezzlement scandal, the ACORN-8 civil lawsuit and Justice Department complaint, controversy over Project Vote and alleged misuse of the Obama donors list, and most recently ACORN’s role in the upcoming Census in 2010, there lies a lesser told tale of controversy, conflict and allegation. Correction: it’s a feverishly told tale, at least in New York, but one largely ignored, perhaps because the very checks and balances that are supposed to be in place to expose allegations of impropriety apparently fall by the wayside when the media itself becomes part of the story (allegedly…).

This is a long, complex story that has many twists and turns, and many angles (angles that, quite frankly, I’d consider more important than the one I’m going to cover here). This is a compartmentalized version of a broader story, and will focus primarily on its relevance to ACORN.

On December 10, 2003, one of the most ambitious real estate development projects in the history of Brooklyn was announced, a project that would later unfold into layers of conflict and speculated corruption, and be considered by many to be “the most controversial project ever in New York.”

The Atlantic Yards project, an endeavor of high-profile real estate developer Bruce Ratner and his Forest City Ratner companies, is a 22-acre mixed-use commercial and residential development project that cuts through the neighborhoods of Prospect Heights and Park Slope in Brooklyn, NY.

A Quick Tour of the Atlantic Yards Project

The project’s footprint is massive in nature, especially given the size and makeup of the area in which it will be located, which covers an area of a few

Click to enlarge

blocks. To be built above the Vanderbilt Rail Yards and pervading the residential blocks of Pacific and Dean Streets where they intersect with Flatbush and Vanderbilt Avenues, 17 buildings, some as high as 600 feet, will consume the neighborhood. Atlantic Yards will consist of:

• Barclay’s Center, an 850,000 square foot sports and entertainment arena to house the Brooklyn Nets and other performance venues
• 336,000 square feet of office space
• a 180-room boutique hotel
• 247,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space for local businesses
• more than 6,400 units of residential condominiums, 50% of which will be designated as affordable housing pursuant a Community Benefits Agreement that was negotiated between Ratner and ACORN et al

While some of the area slated for development consists of unused rail yards and some abandoned historic buildings, such as the Ward Bread Bakery building and the Long Island Railroad Stables building, a portion of the area also consists of private residences, many of them historic brownstones and low-rise buildings that have been renovated or restored by their owners over the years to turn the area into a thriving, diversified community. Many have longed for the rail yards to be developed, including residents; however, they’ve long expected any development would remain in keeping with the general feel of the community.

The tricky thing here is that the development site straddles an area that intersects between a lower-income neighborhood that is made up of predominantly minority residents, and a moderate income neighborhood that is predominantly white (some younger, more recent transplants, some from generations of Italian, Jewish, and German immigrants). Over the years, as transplants have settled in the Prospect Heights neighborhood and begun renovating and restoring many of the brownstone and low-rise properties and opening up small businesses, residents of the adjacent neighborhood of Park Slope have complained that the gentrification of Prospect Heights has increased both the median income and the housing prices for the area, making housing less affordable to the lower income residents of Park Slope and other nearby communities. Further, those concerned about accessible housing for low-income residents have feared the situation would worsen as a result of the Atlantic Yards project, given the addition of so much luxury housing and commercial development to the area. Minority community organizations had speculated that thousands of minority and immigrant populations will be displaced.

Once United, Now Divided

Sufficed to say, the Atlantic Yards project has been met with opposition from many groups since its announcement, each of them making some of the following arguments.

• Residents will suffer the obvious impact to their own homes – their surroundings will be overwhelmed by enormous towers and huge increases in traffic, people, noise and pollution; many will even lose their homes altogether to demolition. Those who do remain are concerned about having open public spaces and open streets ideal for proper community building.
• Local businesses (and residents) want to preserve small, local retail and fear the new retail space will far exceed their level of affordability and will cater instead to corporate and chain businesses.
• Environmentalists want the plan to reuse some existing buildings and work them into the overall aesthetic of the existing neighborhood; they also want the design substantially reduced to better manage gridlock and pollution, as well as make use of sustainability models.
• Historic Preservation groups want to keep the existing brownstones in tact, and want to preserve the historic buildings in the area and the nature of the surrounding architecture and landscape.
• Transportation agencies are concerned about the lack of planning to divert congestion, and manage parking issues and mass transit inefficiencies.
• Community Advocates insist that the project will cause the neighborhood to undergo an accelerated gentrification process and make the area unaffordable to the average Brooklyn resident.
• The public in general, at least those familiar with the area, have opposed the lack of public input in planning and decision making, which has largely been made behind closed doors and without any non-partisan entity to represent the interests of the public.

As opposition groups formed, controversy began to grow over the media coverage of the Atlantic Yards project. As a joint partner of Forest City Ratner, there had already been rampant criticism of the New York Times in 2001 for its business relationship with Forest City Ratner and their use of eminent domain to build the new New York Times headquarters building in Times Square, which opened in 2007. Charges of impropriety and conflict of interest eventually ran through various city agencies, the Empire State Development Corporation, Forest City Ratner as well as the New York Times itself, given that all had a vested interest in good media coverage and quelling opposition. An obvious concern therefore with the Atlantic Yards project, both of Brooklyn residents and other media outlets, was whether the New York Times, once considered to be *the* authoritative source of area coverage, could possibly report objectively this time around. With the media desperately needed to serve its role as one of the necessary checks and balances in this case, residents especially became skeptical and eventually fearful of the Times coverage. They recognized early on that building and maintaining support for the Atlantic Yards project would be key for Ratner and for the New York Times. And, here we were, just off the heels of the New York Times-Ratner Times Square building project, repeating the same scenario again.

As controversy grew, the nature of the New York Times’ coverage – or lack thereof – was frequently called to task. Any coverage that the paper did provide on the Atlantic Yards project was viewed as overwhelmingly supportive, and often seemed even to lean toward supporters of the project. Local papers in the heart of those communities, such as The Brooklyn Paper, covered the story with a view from the inside, often times exposing woeful inadequacies of the Times coverage. The IFC Media Project, even featured a segment alleging that one of that paper’s reporters, Deborah Kolben, was even fired by her prior employer, The Daily News, at the request of Bruce Ratner himself, apparently because Ratner found her coverage to be less than complimentary.

There were additional reports that the New York Times was not presenting a balanced view of the story; some even suggested that the publication was working with Ratner to purposely pit the communities against each other, making race and socio-economic status the characteristics that determined the project’s supporters versus the opposers.  When affordable housing was added to the project’s plans through the efforts of ACORN, the gamefield shifted – opposers were portrayed as “greedy white people” who didn’t care about the housing and jobs that the project would bring to the community, a mantra echoed from all the way up to Mayor Bloomberg, Governors Spitzer and Paterson, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the state’s Congressional representatives.

In addition, there were claims that the Times coverage was notably absent about several key issues that included allegations against ACORN and BUILD, groups that participated in the controversial Community Benefits Agreement, which includes stipulations that are questionable to say the least (more on that later).  What had started out as a willing effort amongst the affected communities to work together to present an alternative proposal that would preserve the personality and diversity of their communities, while protecting existing homes, and creating new affordable housing and jobs, had evidently been manipulated into a race war and a class war of sorts.

Do Scare Tactics Play a Role?

In retrospect, one of the earliest opposers of Bruce Ratner was actually Bertha Lewis, of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). Years earlier, when Forest City Ratner had opened its Atlantic Center in Brooklyn, only blocks from the current Atlantic Yards project, Lewis staunchly opposed Ratner by organizing picketers, even storming his office. She demanded that the businesses located in the retail space of Ratner’s building pay their workers better wages, a fight she eventually won. And as new development has progressed in Brooklyn neighborhoods over the years, Lewis and ACORN have consistently muscled the developers into meeting ACORN’s demands for affordable housing and other benefits for their communities, seemingly as payback for the developers’ driving up the median income and housing prices. And as a close working partner of unions such as SEIU, IBEW and AFL-CIO, ACORN frequently guns for all new development projects to create union jobs during construction and to maintain union workers once the projects are completed.  They are known for using signature tactics against even the most reasonable of opposition, tactics that focus on manufacturing racial and socio-economic undertones when none initially exist; sometimes a few unknowingly take the bait and fall prey to the trap, more frequently, the aggression that accompanies their rhetoric simply intimidates the others into abandoning their cause altogether.

ACORN's stance before receiving Ratner cash

And, as the Atlantic Yards project progressed, this was precisely the case again with ACORN. When local residents living in the homes that are in the direct path of Atlantic Yards demolition banded together to create groups like “Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn” to try and oppose the massive development project and avoid an eminent domain land grab case, Bertha Lewis was initially helpful, according to reports, offering advice on how to “gum them up”, referring to slowing down the project by way of obstructing the process. Initally, ACORN opposed the Atlantic Yards project. However, as talks between ACORN and Ratner occurred in parallel, behind closed doors, it apparently did not take long for ACORN to seemingly change their tune and to start attacking opposers with divisive, confrontational rhetoric.

“It is because of race and class that whenever you have a small group of white liberals running and screaming about something, people think it’s important. They don’t have to worry about affordable housing. They don’t give a damn about people of color. All they care about is preserving their little Prospect Heights community,” Bertha Lewis said in statements to The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 06/09/05

Despite the fact that the members of “Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn” (DDDB) were supportive of developing the community, simply on a much more understated scale, and that they fully embraced the notion of creating jobs and ensuring that designated affordable housing would be available to low and moderate income families, ACORN continued to drive a wedge between themselves and any opposers.

The Tables Are Turned

As weeks and months passed, the confrontations and the rhetoric seemed to keep heating up. More and more groups like ACORN and BUILD began to band together in fierce support for Ratner and the Atlantic Yards project. Meanwhile members of opposition groups like DDDB grew increasingly uncomfortable, and speculated that Ratner and other supporters, including some media, were intentionally creating a racially charged situation in order to intimidate project opponents into defeat. Words got really ugly on both sides, but even a prominent city council member (and former Black Panther) who was in favor of moving the project to his own district admittedly noted that there was manipulation going on and people abusing and hiding behind “the race card” in order to advance their own selfish agenda for their organization rather than work as a group of communities together.

By about May of 2005, when a Memorandum of Understanding was drawn and signed between Bruce Ratner and Bertha Lewis, the rhetoric between ACORN and DDDB and other Atlantic Yards opposition was reaching new heights. The entire focus of all development negotiations with any of the “public” groups had been quickly shifted to the benefits of affordable housing and “thousands of jobs” the project would bring to a community supposedly suffering economically. The project itself had grown significantly in scope and in budget. This was in stark contrast to what the residents of Prospect Heights and members of DDDB had been discussing with ACORN and other project advocates. To even the most unfamiliar outsider to the story, it seemed clear that public negotiations had been all but hijacked. With the focus of the Atlantic Yards project now placed squarely upon offering affordable housing, creating union jobs, paying a living wage to project workers and building tenant employees, and generating stimulus for a socio-economic depressed area and disadvantaged class of citizens, this changed the politics of the project from one of a private investor to one in which the state had a legal public interest in seeing completed. After hearing Bertha Lewis present her version of the plan and quoting some overly positive – and questionable – statistics, members of the other parties grew even more concerned and began challenging Lewis.

“In order to get the affordable housing, we’ve lost our sense of community and ability to have input into the public process,” said Candace Carponter, of DDDB at a joint panel discussion between the parties titled Affordable Housing and the Atlantic Yards Development. Carponter went on to explain that with the current plan as Lewis presented it, it would cost at least three times as much to build this as other organizations could do it, it would use eminent domain, and at least $1.5 to $2 billion to build the project. “This is a low-rise neighborhood.” Carponter said. “Most of the buildings are five or six stories. It’s Brownstone Brooklyn at its organic best.”

“The affordable housing, the promise of jobs are being used as a Trojan horse for a massive land grab,” Carponter continued. “It is not necessary to build an arena to build affordable housing.”

(Source: Atlantic Yards Report)

Throughout the discussion, the records indicate that words became quite heated, and there was a lot of back and forth challenging occurring between Bertha Lewis/ACORN and the other parties, who were supposed to be there to try and determine compromises and potential alternatives together. As more people challenged Lewis about the fact that she’d already independently signed a MOU with Ratner, which legally binds ACORN to publicly support the project, it became evident that the project would be moving forward, with its larger scale and revised focus firmly rooted without the rest of the public’s input.

One of the panelists, a non-partisan law professor, tried to bring the discussion back to the heart of the matter. “I’m going to put to one side the obvious questions that this raises, which is: ‘Why isn’t the government speaking for the community?’ What’s wrong with our processes?”

As members of DDDB responded with their concerns over the now evident issue of an abusive land-grab planned under the pretense of eminent domain, the discussion turned again to the ACORN agenda, as Bertha Lewis insisted that the real issue is “about black and brown people in Central Brooklyn.”

ACORN's stance today

Only one month later, the Community Benefits Agreement surfaced. This is a legally binding agreement between Ratner and several organizations, supposedly representing the interests of the public and making negotiated concessions amongst those parties.

Download the CBA

Those parties represented in the CBA?

• All Faith Council of Brooklyn
• ACORN
• Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD)
• Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance (DBNA)
• Downtown Brooklyn Educational Consortium (DBEC)
• First Atlantic Terminal Housing Committee (FATHC)
• NY State Association of Minority Contractors (NYSAMC)
• Public Housing Communities (PHC)

You’ll notice that a key party is conspicuously missing from the CBA – DDDB, the very group from which many members actually live in homes that are in the direct path of the Atlantic Yards project.  Several of the other parties listed in the CBA, most notably BUILD and ACORN, are alleged to have been recruited by the developer, given funds to operate in their designated roles for the AY project, and in some cases even given a salary by the developer (as is noted in the written contracts and agreements published by FCR). It would appear that there was hardly anything public about the input collected and the agreement drafted.  Once the project turned into a “public housing, union jobs” project, it was turned into a land grab case under eminent domain, also making it eligible for state and federal funds.

While other community members tried to understand the latest turn of events and an apparent shutout from the public decision making process, some interesting documents turned up that brought some light to the issue, and helped solidify the beliefs of many that these were actually “paid supporters” against whom they were fighting.

Let’s Examine the Evidence

Click to enlarge

First was a document between Bruce Ratner’s Sr. Vice President, David Berliner, and Bertha Lewis/ACORN, signed on August 19, 2008. It is a written agreement for Forest City Ratner to provide a loan plus a grant to ACORN, totaling $1.5 Million.

So, the first question is:

What happened around August of 2008 that prompted the need for some cash for ACORN, that was negotiated so quietly? Other monetary negotiations for ACORN’s Atlantic Yards related activities were documented elsewhere, and made public. But not this. Why? I cannot answer that, so I’ll simply list some current events at that time – you can connect the dots:

• June 9, 2008: Strom’s NY Times story breaks, publicizing the Rathke $1 Million embezzlement scandal (which had been under wraps since it occurred in 2000). Further stories collaborated with Anita MonCrief follow from Strom. Until of course the stories get too close to ACORN and to the Ratner deal.
• August 2008: Marcel Reid, Karen Inman and the rest of the ACORN-8 (current and former ACORN members) file suit against ACORN to demand full financial disclosure
• August 22, 2008: “U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.”
  Pittsburgh Tribune
• October 8, 2008: Miller and Grant vs. ACORN and Project Vote/Voting for America, Voter Registration Fraud lawsuit filed with Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Secondly, why did Bertha Lewis quietly negotiate her own Memo of Understanding with Ratner in such an underhanded manner? More importantly, why would Lewis commit herself to the strong language in the agreement, which states the following:

Download the full PDF

While the community groups that were supposed to be publicly negotiating together, in the interest of the neighborhood as a whole, were still conducting meetings and discussions, Bertha Lewis cuts a side deal with Bruce Ratner to ensure the ACORN housing proposal flies, no matter what the end solution is. She wants 50% of the residential units to be affordable housing. At a community planning meeting with the groups she’s supposed to be having open discussions with, she deflects challenges regarding this clause. Many residents speculate the agreement may be nothing more than a payoff.

Lewis ends the session, ““We don’t know what the state is going to allow Bruce Ratner to do,” she said. “Whatever the state allows him [Ratner] to do, the deal is 50/50…You guys are so fucking disrespectful. You would not ask Extell [an alternate proposal for consideration] this. Don’t talk to me, talk to the state.”

Lastly, there’s the publicly glorified “Community Benefits Agreement”, hailed as a great example of diplomacy and compromise in the community. Like the MOU that Bertha Lewis negotiated with Ratner on ACORN’s behalf, the CBA focused more on removing any obstacles to the AY project, by accommodating the specific needs of a select few organizations with an agenda. And it contained the same clause as noted above in the MOU – this time for all 8 of the participating organizations. If the allegations are true, that’s sure a lot of “rent-a-mob” employees.

Download the Community Benefits Agreement

Probably most controversial throughout the later history of the project however, has been the use (or abuse) of eminent domain (and this is part of the bigger story I’d encourage readers to explore). In order to achieve the full scope of the project, Ratner and the city invoked the use of eminent domain to seize 68 privately held properties from residents wishing to remain in their homes. To many, this appeared to be a clear abuse of the law. After filing suit against Ratner, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki, residents and a local business owner alleged “the Project itself was conceived by Ratner, and is being driven by his needs, motives, and vision, not those of the public at large,” challenging the constitutional use of eminent domain in this case. Plaintiffs also claimed that Bloomberg and Pataki have backed the proposal and guarded it from review by community boards or the City Council, keeping the public from providing input or offering alternatives. At state senate hearings, the Ratner camp was spotted handing out hard hats, vests and whistles to “union members” who then marched outside and into the building in support of the project. It’s been a frequent sight, and one blogger called it “manufactured chaos”.  Funny thing, it is such a well known tactic seen regularly at rallies where ACORN and SEIU are the hired rent-a-mobs.

As ACORN supported Democratic candidates in local, state and federal elected positions, both financially and by way of sheer people support at events, some under its ACORN name, some under the “Working Families Party” name (also see Lewis, Co-Chair), and others through any of the many ACORN affiliates (i.e. CCI), support from government officials for the Atlantic Yards project grew stronger and stronger.

Meanwhile, IRS filings for Ratner’s other big (hired) support group BUILD indicated that its entire $5 Million budget from 2005 and 2006 was solely funded by Ratner (see “IRS documents show BUILD relies on Ratner–but the Times ignores the Daily News’s scoop” under References below). When residents alerted the NY Times, once again, the paper simply made no mention of it.

And in the End…

Long story short, after back and forth lawsuits, the project may finally be moving ahead, sort of. A panel of four New York appellate judges ruled May 16^th, 2009 that Forest City Ratner’s use of eminent domain to take private property to build a new home for the Nets does not violate the state Constitution.

Read a Daily News article on this decision

So, six years later, while once thriving businesses and family residences now lie in ruins, demolished in anticipation of the new development, the Atlantic Yards project is expected to resume once again, legal battles supposedly having  been cleared away…for now.  Meanwhile, ACORN has continued its undying, unconditional support of Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project even though there is barely any talk of affordable housing any more, let alone actual construction of any.

Download the full PDF

But that hasn’t stopped Ratner or ACORN from lobbying for federal stimulus funds to subsidize the Atlantic Yards monstrosity.  And guess what? They’ve been getting them, at least by way of qualifying for breaks on bonds – and they’re still trying, with some help from folks like Chuck Schumer and Al D’Amato and his Park Strategies outfit.

And the New York Times? They remain conspicuously subdued – even absent – in their coverage, unless it’s positive news, of course.  And forget any reporting on the ACORN front. As a joint partner with 48% shared ownership of several Forest City Ratner projects including their own building, they wouldn’t risk losing the largest supporter, most powerful muscle machine, most successful fundraiser and most influential federal-grant-funneling partner they’ve got in ACORN.

Commentary

I’ll conclude by offering my own commentary, and by posing a few questions for the reader to consider.

Let me preface this by stating that I fully support the principle of a non-profit organization that solicits funding for programs to aid disadvantaged citizens in any way, so long as it is private funding. My own upbringing was that of a disadvantaged citizen, the child of a single mother, living barely above the federal poverty level in a declining railroad community. But our founding fathers were very clear about their beliefs that private citizens and private businesses are the best resources to aid the general public, not the government. And I have found this to be true. The funds and resources allocated by the private sector for such purposes are far more efficiently managed, and the potential for corruption is significantly reduced, especially since the element of political campaign contributions and the exchanging of favors is removed. My community and empathetic citizens and private organizations aided me and my family far better than the government could.

Given this background, I fundamentally disagree with the approach that organizations like ACORN take in trying to better the lives of minorities and the disadvantaged. The model of government regulation and entitlement programs has long been proven to hold back such groups, and often contributes to the financial stagnation of impoverished neighborhoods and decay in job growth. If my tax-payer dollars are going to be allocated somewhere, I would prefer the money goes to reputable, private organizations with a proven model of success behind which I can proudly stand.

Secondly, the standard tactics consistently employed by ACORN specifically are something that I just find to be reprehensible. I would never support anyone or any organization that employs bullying, confrontational or intentionally divisive tactics to selfishly further its own causes. That is the ACORN that I’ve seen in action at events I’ve attended and communities in which I’ve lived. And since I would never financially support such behavior willingly, it infuriates me that I am forced to support this behavior unwillingly, as a tax-payer. What is most unfortunate is that this image is what discredits any of the good intentions that ACORN may have had, or the honorable activities they may have conducted at any time. And I know that there are still some good people in ACORN, and some good people who’d left, who somehow still believe the ACORN name can be repaired.

The reality is that this is an organization that has already admitted to embezzling $1 million, admitted to never having notified the authorities or their donors (a whistleblower had to do it for them), and has several current lawsuits against it (and despite their claims, the lawsuits do name ACORN, the group, as a defendant). Yet, this is an organization that receives millions of dollars in federal funding every year – money that comes from American taxpayers, many of whom I would venture to guess strongly and fundamentally disagree with their principles and their methods. This is an organization with the power to organize millions of union members to support any cause it desires, the power to influence the decisions of our nation’s lawmakers, the power to force private businesses to change their practices, even the power to force our nation onto government health care. This is an organization that has publicly denounced capitalism and free markets, the very principles upon which our nation and its Constitution are founded.

I vehemently disagree with every one of the principles by which this organization operates. And yet, my government forces me to compromise my own values and to subsidize the very behavior that I despise, with my hard-earned tax dollars. Still worse, I watch my tax dollars go right back into the pockets of the very politicians I just voted against. Donated to them by ACORN.

Have we no more honest lawmakers anymore that are strong enough to stand up to this? Where is our representation, where are our voices? At a time when Americans are struggling to hold onto every dollar they make, why are our tax dollars being permitted to go to politicians by way of ACORN? And with an admitted embezzlement and a variety of lawsuits and allegations against them, why do they qualify for any federal funding? They receive plenty of private funding from groups like the Tides Foundation

I end by posing a few rhetorical questions:

If an organization receives tax-payer funding of any kind, should that organization be allowed to donate to political campaigns or political causes?

Should a non-profit organization that receives federal funding be permitted to enter into a legally binding agreement that requires that organization to publicly support a project – a project that has significant political implications? Should they be permitted to accept any sort of funds (donation, loan, salary, etc.) from that business?

The media has a duty to serve the public with honesty and integrity in their crucial role in a system of checks and balances that were established by our founding fathers to keep politics and power in check. Where is the line drawn for the media when it comes to its business investments, partnerships, and associations? Can the public trust that a news outlet will remain objective if it has a vested interest in other business matters?

References, Records, Legal Docs

Financial Records & Legal Docs:

• ACORN Political Contributions & Ballot Measures
• Forest City Ratner Contributions & Ballot Measures
• Service Employees International Union Contributions & Ballot Measures
• Memo of Understanding between Bertha Lewis/ACORN and Forest City Ratner
• $1.5 Million Loan Agreement Between Ratner and Bertha Lewis/ACORN
• Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement,
  Forest City Ratner and ACORN, BUILD, et al
• Al D’Amato/Park Strategies Lobbying Reports
  Lobbying on behalf of Forest City Ratner for Atlantic Yards
  (sampling, not inclusive of every filing)
• ACORN vs. Rathke (civil suit)
• Justice Department complaint against ACORN
• IRS documents show BUILD relies on Ratner–but the Times ignores the Daily News’s scoop
• National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund’s FOIA request for Department of Labor records for use in investigating complaints of intimidation by ACORN and by several unions, including SEIU, and for conflict of interest regarding Deborah Greenfield (Obama transition team)
• <ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE POSTED, IN PROGRESS>

References/Links:

• Atlantic Yards Report
  Norman Oder’s blog. (THE source for all things AY, Ratner and ACORN). Journalist for more than 20 years–as a daily reporter, and later as a freelancer for publications from The American Lawyer to Columbia Journalism Review to the Village Voice. Also Master of Studies in Law from Yale on fellowship.
• In March, Congressman Bill Pascrell of NJ wrote a letter to Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Rep. Barney Franks, requesting that the Treasury intervene in allowing Barclay’s to spend $400 Million on naming rights over the Atlantic Yards arena, citing Barclay’s receipt of federal bailout money.  Read the Letter
• Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn
• ACORN
• Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD)
  NOTE: Most of the content on this site has not been updated since 2004.
• Empire State Development Corporation
• Working Families Party
• Amicus Brief from BUILD
• Group Letter to the state assembly and senate asking for Forest City Ratner’s proposal to go through the City’s democratic development review process known as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).
• The Complete Guide to ACORN Voter Fraud (Pajamas Media)
• Judicial Watch: ACORN/Census Bureau Documents
• Atlantic Yards website
• The Paper of Wreckage (Village Voice on the NY Times)
• Bailout! Feds save Ratner millions with new ruling
• The Brooklyn Paper: Ratner hosts rally to support…himself!
• Time to stop bullying at Atlantic Yards
• A local resident and photographer has created a collection of photos from the area, including before and after shots of buildings as they are demolished. It is an excellent view into what’s really going on for those who’ve lived in the community during all of this conflict.
• View a recreation of the story on video
  Brooklyn at Eye Level, a Project of the Civilians. This renowned company develops original projects inspired from investigations into real life, using artistic and documentary methods. Excellent videos of their production  put together the whole Atlantic Yards story, from the perspectives of different community leaders and residents.

ACORN makes much of its political donations through other 527s organizations, such as America Votes, in addition to joining forces with labor unions and other organizations that can make political donations under less restrictions than theirs (labor unions are supposed to be very rigid in campaign finance limitations; however, given the billions spent by unions annually in politics, it would appear that most have found ways to donate quite freely).

Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations, 527s. Click to Enlarge.

America Votes members, including ACORN & SEIU. Click to Enlarge.

Legalish Disclaimer

With the exception of news or research content from third party sources, which is identified and specifically noted accordingly, the content on this blog is the opinion and original creation of the blogger, not intended to “malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual,” or anyone or thing…in other words, I make every attempt to verify research and to be accurate and to give proper credit to sources; I also add opinion and commentary to such research, and I try to distinguish these as best I can to the reader.  I always encourage readers to consult additional sources independently and not to rely solely upon any single source in forming their own opinions.