Exodus from TJ to San Diego

Given the crime wave that has catapulted Baja California from a niche resort town and quick getaway from LA’s urban jungles to a desolate sprawl of fish taco stands, tiendas, and college bar hangouts. With the Mexican drug cartels gaining control of all aspects of Mexican society, the Baja today has been jeopordized with crime sprees that have implicated US citizens doubling as drug traffickers and innocent tourists who didn’t get the memo to stay away.

With this, the Baja region, long a site of economic disenfranchisement and identity crisis, has given way to a wasteland of crime dealings. The Mexican government has sent more than 3,000 troops into Tijuana in the last 1 1/2 years, and on several occasions soldiers have shot it out with drug cartel gunmen on residential streets. For many, this disruption will have severe implications on their future, as the poverty rate in the state is far below the national level. Moreover, the region’s economy is dependent on US tourism, as much of the tiendas, restaurants, and attractions cater specifically to them. With the high rate of criminal activity, the gringo tourists and college spring breakers have avoided TJ, Rosarito, and Ensenada at all costs, leaving merchants to board up their financial assets and take cover.

For the rich, the only way to mitigate their livelihood with their commitment to their homeland is to move several miles north, to San Diego. They have the luxury to switch spatial locations, however difficult the transition across the board is, it keeps them away from potential kidnappings and robberies. “San Diego is the only place you can forget the sense of insecurity and fear. There, you can breathe. Psychologically, crossing the border relieves the stress,” said Guillermo Alonso Meneses, a professor of cultural studies at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana.

The LA Times reports that real estate agents, business owners and victims groups estimate that more than 1,000 Tijuana families — including those of doctors, lawyers, law enforcement officials, Lucha Libre wrestlers and business owners — have made this move in recent years as the drug- fueled violence has worsened.

Real Talk: Sex Ed in LA

Andreina Cordova, a 15 year-old Central American Paramount resident is defying abstinence only sex ed to counsel peers about the realities of sex in today’s society. She’s been attending Planned Parenthood sex education events since the age of 13. She had just finished eighth grade when she became one of the youngest students ever hired to be a peer advocate in a program whose goal is to reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates.

She has memorized pages and pages of information on sex education and sexually transmitted diseases. She’s ready to pass out cards from Planned Parenthood, listing services and clinics. She is also armed with condoms.

This makes you wonder about the failure of contemporary sexual educatioin programs to proactively inform students of safe sex methods, emotional preparedness, and disease and infections that are attributed to intimacy. Instead of keeping it real, accurate, and poignant, the Bush administration and many a conservative politicians throughout this state have bypassed safe sex methodology in favor of abstinence only ploys. Where has that brought us?

More than 360,000 adolescents contract a sexually transmitted disease each year in Los Angeles County. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, 5,113 L.A. County girls younger than 18 gave birth — 3.4% of all births that year.

To circumscribe these rates, Audreina goes to the heart of the epidemic, South LA, with condoms and accurate information in hand. Now why can’t education officials and state politicans listen to what is at stake and pass proactive legislation like Mark Leno’s Assembly Bill 1511, instead of holding it in suspense?

Read more about Andreina’s one-person sex ed mission here.
 

Secure

June 3rd-Election Day!

With critical issues on this primary’s ballot, including races for Congress, State Assembly and Senate, as well as other local races and two statewide propositions, it is imperative eligible voters impact the future of public policy by voting on Today!

Polls are open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. To locate your polling place, click here.

A total of two propositions have qualified for the June 3^rd ballot. Below is a brief synopsis of each:

Proposition 98.  Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property — State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required)

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant.

Proposition 99 Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence — State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required)

Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Fiscal Impact: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments.

Additional resources to streamline the voting process:

Secretary of State: The official voter guide issued by the Secretary of State’s Office. Guides are also available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese.

Smart Voter: Find your personal ballot with your polling location and information about contests, candidates, and ballot measures, and election results.

Easy Voter Guide: Your quick guide to state elections, candidates, propositions, political parties and voting issues.  Check back for the updated, June 3rd Guide.

Election Day Resources: A guide to major election hotline numbers and other voter resources.

CALVOTER: An election overview with links to help understand California ’s political process and campaign finances.

Time off to Vote 

Immigration Reform Through the World History Lens

Dear Dorothy Carlson:
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog and commenting on my post about the legalization of Los Angeles. Nuestra Senora aims to provide transparency to a political regime that is often times exclusive and discriminatory. To this end, the Los Angeles that I live in is defined by cycles of immigration and forced migration due to financial, political, and social instability that is often initiated or supported by western hegemony.

I feel strongly that this country must amend its immigration policy to put a stop to the xenophobia and false information that have long defined the way this place stigmatizes immigrants of color. These views are evident in your comment and can be directly attributed to the racism and hostility that is ramped in this country, but also its isolationist perspective that focuses solely on domestic problems, like Britney Spears. 

You are entitled to your opinions and your history. However, my history has taught me that the immigration policies you refer to privileged white immigrants and polices such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of the late 19th century and the Bracero Program of the 1930’s discriminate against immigrants of color due to preconceived hostility on the part of white policy-makers. Allowing floods of immigrants from Western Europe will not solve today’s problems because the fact is, this world is more complex and the demographic makeup of today’s displaced people do not hail from the UK, but from the birthplace of humanity, Africa, the founding site of astronomy, Latin America, and the culturally diverse regions that compose Asia. I agree that immigration reform is needed, but first we must agree on what constitutes immigrants and respect individuals instead of lambasting them.

The U.S. is not a country of immigrants, as there were native people occupying this region long before the genocidal Christopher Columbus passed his syphilis onto entire civilizations. Many African Americans cannot trace their native countries of origin, not because of lack of interest, but because of a system of slavery that purposefully placed individuals from different regions, dialects, and religions together to force labor efficiency and stagnate the creation of a unitary community. Moreover, today’s immigrants are forced migrants, fleeing harsh conditions and in search of some form of prosperity and dignity. As they come to this country, they are incorporated into a caste system in which their previous histories are forgotten as are any medical or law degrees. They are the U.S. underground labor force, the backbone of our economy. To this end, until true immigration reform is passed, what you blatantly defined as ‘undocumented, baby popping, illegal immigrants’ will be diligent, strong minded, and heterogeneous individuals. 

The immigration laws that are in place do not take into account the historical trajectory that has riveted issues of immigration in the US and across Western Europe. It is now that we are witnessing the effects of imperialism, colonization, and domination, as third world countries are ill-equipped to adequately provide for all of its residents. Now, I maintain this is not inadequacy on the part of these countries and for that fact, three continents, but the disenfranchisement that lingers as the colonial powers that be raped the land of its natural resources and continue to do so with plans of privatization.

Now with this history, I ask you to respect the histories of others and acknowledge that your history is relative to an immigration policy that is delinquent because of its discriminatory and exploitative gaze. Can we agree that this country’s wealth was built on the backs of slave laborers, who were raped and pillaged from their native countries to work for free under oppressive conditions and in an unfamiliar climate? With that, please acknowledge that today’s economy is built on the invisible labor force, that is drawing new similarities to the Jim Crow south each day, as low-wages, horrid working conditions, and lack of representation leave individuals who fled disparaging conditions with no where to turn but predatory creditors.

I hope that you, as a third generation descendent of immigrants respect those who kill themselves to keep this country working. Those that lost their farms in their native countries because of free trade and neoliberalism, who are now canning your fruit and freezing your vegetables in factories across the U.S. Those that sew your clothes from Los Angeles to Saipan. Those whose bodies were crushed as the twin towers collapsed because they were working their usual morning shift cleaning the offices and preparing food for the white-collared workers many of whom escaped the tragedy as their work day began just in time for financial gain. Those that mow your lawn, gut your home, and tile your floor for money that is less than the total number of fingers on your right hand.

Legalization for all is something that is not only right, but humane. Millions will continue to come to the U.S., France, England, and Italy. Because billions of people in the third world have limited options and low rates of survival since their precious natural resources are on the stock exchange, their access to nearby bodies of water is limited by western corporations, and their political systems have yet to fully recover from a history of oppression and conflict. So let’s just work it out Dorothy Carlson by taking some time out of our privileged lives to learn a little bit about world history and humanity. Maybe then we can agree on a real history and recognize that the immigration policy that let your Irish ancestors into the U.S. ‘the right way’ is not applicable in today’s time. 

Sincerely,

Sonja Diaz

 

 

New Wave of Latino Electeds Shy Away from Tiendas

A recent article documenting the shift away from traditional tiendas in Latino heavy regions illustrates the changing priorities of elected offciails in the new century. The article’s catchy line, “It was as if the developers were talking about tacos, and the Latino politicians were talking about apple pie” sums up the cultural differences in this new age of corporate development. Some highlights from the article include:

Baldwin Park Mayor Manuel Lozano and other city officials listened as the developers said they had studied the demographics of the city and could bring in a retailer known for offering credit to undocumented immigrants and a shopping center with a “Latino feel.”

“We want what Middle America has as well,” said the second-generation Mexican American, recounting the meeting. “We like to go to nice places like Claim Jumpers, Chili’s and Applebee’s. . . . We don’t want the fly-by-night business, the ‘amigo store,’ which they use to attract Latinos like myself.”

 
Until relatively recently, cities like Baldwin Park, South Gate and Santa Ana had few options beyond “Latino” retailers. But this year, Baldwin Park — a city of 70,000 in the San Gabriel Valley — enacted a moratorium on new payday loan and check cashing stores. The city is now partners with Bisno Development Co. on an “urban village” of mixed-income housing, theaters and mainstream restaurants such as Claim Jumper, Applebee’s and Chili’s.

 
“I’m proud of my roots,” said Rosalva Alvarez, as she stood in her beauty store on Maine Avenue, which is in the redevelopment area. “I was born in Mexico and raised in this country. I agree we need some change. But what they want to bring here is totally unrealistic. Applebee is good, but a Kabuki? And also a Trader Joe’s? Come on, I don’t even go to Trader Joe’s.”

Hollywood to the Docks

In an earlier era, labor unions had only themselves to rely on when engaging in bitter and violent battles with management, the police and company goon squads. That period, from the 1880s to the 1930s, seems like ancient history in today’s high tech, cell phone and media driven labor movement. These days self-help solidarity is only evoked during national elections when Democrats call for total union commitment to the party.

Times are a-changing. The LA labor movement, led by the mercurial Maria Helena Durazo, the head of LA County Federation of Labor, recently reached far back into the legacy of labor organizing with a citywide solidarity action. Between April 15 and 17, labor did something extraordinary: the entire breadth of unions in LA County collectively and successfully conducted “The March from Hollywood to the Docks.”

Designed to anchor labor solidarity, the march was also a launch for two years of coming intense wage and workplace negotiations involving almost 50% of the regional union membership. It sent a signal to management, key business associations and conservative politicians that they haven’t seen anything yet in terms of what the Federation is formulating to defend workplace rights, achieve wage gains and defend workers across the entire county.

The actions along Century Boulevard at LAX, combined with marches in support of the screen writers guild earlier this year and other recent labor activities, not only represented a monumental upgrade in labor cooperation, strategy and tactics, it drew in major support elements of the community at large. That has not always been the case. Labor for large periods was a house divided, with differing factions battling each other over resources and unionization strategy.

Indeed, the new labor movement in LA has transitioned beyond its hard-won stature as the vanguard labor force in the nation, into simultaneously being a pragmatic and effective political and labor coalition. It is now in the process of consolidating union power and workplace protections throughout the region while at the same time still pushing to bring other workers into middle-class wages. Recent actions to organize “rent-a-cops,” those grossly underpaid office building security guards, and the battle to get the private sector to recognize home health care workers, are among the most recent union drives.

Fundamentally, labor in LA has restructured its strategy to link middle class wages with regional growth and to force management in general across the region to enter into a pragmatic acknowledgment that labor peace is part of doing business. The April march, a triumph for Durazo, represented a European-scale grasp of what it takes to be a central player in LA’s future economic development.

Once it was endorsed by the Federation, the April mobilization saw a number of unions often at odds with each other -or more bluntly, with their leader, Ms. Durazo - not wanting to be left on the sidelines. Any labor leader caught “watching the procession on the sidewalk” might have faced the wrath of the broader membership. The march through the heart of LA with tens of thousands of union members and people from community support networks, probably forced the LA County Business Federation, the LA Chamber of Commerce and the powerful Central City Association, to spend as much time monitoring the historic action as did the federation itself. Hotel interests, manufacturers, the building industry association and media corporations, having tangled with labor in the recent past, were likely also keen observers of the march.

Hollywood to the Docks solidarity came in a time of other potentially disruptive factors to the movement beyond the coming wage negotiations, which will alone stretch even a united movement thin. A key challenge for labor is whether a supportive Mark Ridley-Thomas will be elected to the powerful LA County Board of Supervisors in the June election. Another test is The City of LA, specifically opposition to Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposals to eliminate hundreds of jobs this year to pay for more cops. Finally, the national elections will signal whether labor gets a Democratic break in organizing drives and in larger public policy issues, including federal attitudes toward public employee union contract issues.

Whatever the future challenges, if the solidarity of Hollywood to the Docks holds, LA and its economy are heading into interesting times.

Written by: David Diaz

LA Contrarian

 

The current contest between State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas and LA City Council member Bernard Parks for the second district seat for the LA County Board of Supervisors is one of the most tightly contested political races in recent memory.

Both candidates have long-term connections throughout the district, have more than adequate campaign war chests to battle to the end, are endorsed by powerful patrons, and have represented the district in some capacity for 20 plus years. If
these realities make projecting a front runner almost impossible, overarching the contest is a bitter feud between supporters of Parks and Ridley-Thomas.

Essentially, the race is a great political donnybrook for the future mantle of leadership for the Black community for the next decade.

The race has everything political junkies love: controversy, animosity, contradictions, shifting alliances, blood feuds, all swirling around two candidates who appear to be equally matched in terms of voter perceptions.

In fact, the race is really about personalities and support networks, rather than key issues. Both candidates agreed on virtually everything: King-Drew Hospital, gang intervention, community revitalization, local empowerment. Their only major disagreement is over labor issues with the county, which is significant but not an issue that connects with voters.

The winner will be elated, the loser totally deflated. There is no middle ground between the candidates, and as importantly between their key supporters.
Anyone who called the winner of the June 3 vote a couple of months ago, should immediately apply for a position at the Federal Reserve Board to help the national economy avert a deep recession. Right now it is a toss up.

This tough electoral contest is being slogged out, day by day, block by block, constituent by constituent, retail politics in South Central as its best.

Parks and Ridley-Thomas are not only competing against one another, they are also fighting for the legacy of their political patrons. The winner will surely assume the mantle of the political leadership of the Black community in Los Angeles.

The most prominent political figure hovering over the contest is retiring Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke. Burke is the ‘Gold Standard’ for minority women political leaders in California. Her career reads like a first of firsts, with an impressive number of political positions of prominence.

Burke’s endorsement of Council member Parks is a monumental hurdle for Ridley-Thomas to overcome. She has a rock solid core of voters who have never wavered from her, and should be expected to turn out in substantial numbers for Parks.

His other patron is the powerful Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who has fought over affordable housing, gentrification and other issues with Ridley-Thomas for almost 15 years. Rep. Waters also has an extremely committed political base developed over more than 30 years. Her name recognition is only second to Burke’s – and she is basically “anti Mark anything” in terms of issues. Thus, in this race, she has rebuilt an alliance with Burke’s imposing political base.

Irony of ironies, two powerful Black women will have a major impact on this race.

Conversely, Mark Ridley-Thomas has the all powerful LA County Federation of Labor totally behind his candidacy. Normally, the County Feds endorsement translates into a slam dunk in this city. Not in this race.

The County Fed provides Ridley-Thomas with two key factors, an incredibly high percentage of county workers live in the Second District. These union members are motivated, are crack precinct operatives, vote in every election and are totally loyal to Maria Elena Durazo. In addition, the County Fed has opened its vaults to the tune of more than $2.5 million to elect Ridley-Thomas.

In essence, labor cannot afford to lose this race.

Both candidates have character flaws. Mark Ridley-Thomas, for all of his pioneering community building, became distant and aloof once he settled into the Sacramento routine. Bernard Parks in notorious for his cold, abrasive and glaring demeanor. He is an ice man in a universe where smiling and rubbing shoulders is the norm.

Another irony in the race is that neither candidate eludes warmth in their public personas, which is almost unheard of in Black politics. While this is a mark of maturity and diversity, if either was warm and fuzzy, he likely would be a clear favorite.

Burke, as a political trail blazer, and Park, who served as LAPD Chief of Police, both hold significant symbolic importance to the Black community. They are viewed as powerful leaders, achieving a status long sought by the Black community. Key voting blocs are still seething over Park’s abrupt dismissal by Mayor Hahn almost a decade ago and feel strong loyalties to his political career.

State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas has always endorsed a progressive political agenda. He is a liberal in every sense of the word. On environmental, poverty, labor, social welfare, education and other progressive issues, his voting record is impeccable. While serving on the City Council he engineered the South Central Empowerment Congress, a neighborhood movement that presaged neighborhood councils embedded in the new city charter. His staunch support for labor is the reason why Maria Elena Durazo is his most prominent ally.

Ridley-Thomas’ main problem is Sacramento. The state capitol is a ‘Black Hole’ for LA politicians; nobody knows your in the state capitol. There is no LA media coverage, which translates into a loss of name recognition. Park’s role on the City Council offers occasional media, elevating his name recognition during the past three years.

The race is down to the last week. Both candidates are knocking on every door, going to every prominent church, twice in a day if necessary, fighting off negative rumors, and trying desperately to break into each others support base.

This battle royal is on one level a referendum on the power and legacy of both Burke and Waters, and on whether their respective, if aging, voting blocs will respond one more time. Conversely, it is also a mega test for the LA County Fed because if Ridley-Thomas is elected, county labor unions will be the big winners.

This is just a good, old fashioned, hotly contested ethnic political battle. The voters in South Central have a lot to think about, and so does the entire County Board of Supervisors.

Written By: David Diaz, an environmental city planner and social policy analyst, is Director of Urban Studies at Cal State-LA.

Nooooooooo!

Magic Johnson endorses Parks in race for L.A. County supervisor

As of 5/20/2008

LA Times Your Vote: Legalization of Gay Marriage in California

Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?

73.6 % Yes

26.4 % No

40028 total responses