Aaron Fairbanks at The Aggregate: "Reflecting on the Heyburn Nine Trial."

I'm delighted to see Aaron Fairbanks contributing to The Aggregate News.

Check out The Aggregate News! It's a well put together site that brings all of your local, state and national news to one place, and it's put together by some incredible young people in Southern Indiana. I'm excited to be taking part in this project, and I look forward to seeing where this thing goes. In an age where obtaining reliable information is difficult, this is a welcome addition to our local media options.

What better place for Aaron to begin than a primer on civil disobedience?

Reflecting on the Heyburn Nine Trial, by Aaron Fairbanks (The Aggregate News)

... Three of the nine protesters—Courtney Kearney, Sonja DeVries and Bob Eiden—proceeded to a public two-day trial beginning on May 16, 2019 to shine a light on the atrocities that they were fighting against that day, and they were found guilty of trespassing but were lucky enough to have a sympathetic jury exercise leniency with their sentence. Each of them left the trial on the second day with a $150 fine satisfied by previous fines paid in their Federal case. But civil disobedience isn’t always given the benefit of the doubt before the law by any means with the absence of statutory protections for those who act in civil disobedience.

The many cases of civil disobedience are cemented in our history. Susan B. Anthony was arrested in Rochester, New York in 1872 and later convicted for voting preceding the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Rosa Parks was arrested and convicted for violating a city ordinance segregating public buses as well as disorderly conduct. Then perhaps most applicable to the Heyburn Nine case was the conviction of the Friendship 9, a group of student protesters who were convicted for trespassing and disturbing the peace when they staged a sit in at a private whites-only establishment at a time when there were no statutory protections prohibiting discrimination by private entities on the basis of race ...

"Legislation aims to tame ‘Wild West’ nature of land contracts."

In co-authoring this single bill, Ed Clere (a Republican) accomplishes more to help just plain folks than Jeff Gahan (a nominal Democrat) has during his seven-plus years as mayor.

I asked Ed about this.

"Aaron (Fairbanks) brought up land contracts when we met for coffee last year. It was an issue," he replied. "I was already concerned about as a result of my real estate experience, and his story prompted me to research what other states were doing and craft a bill, which I asked Rep. Summers to introduce and Rep. Fleming to co-author along with me. I invited Aaron to testify, and he did."

Coming together across the aisle and working on a solution. It can be done.

Legislation aims to tame ‘Wild West’ nature of land contracts, by Marilyn Odendahl (The Indiana Lawyer)

Aaron Fairbanks estimated he lived in more than a dozen houses during his childhood as his family chased the dream of owning a home.

A number of the homes were bought on land contracts that treated the family like traditional homebuyers, requiring them to provide a down payment and monthly payments that often came with double digit interest rates. However, unlike traditional homebuyers, they could not get the title to the home until they had paid in full.

In the meantime, Fairbanks’ family was responsible for all improvements and refurbishments. The houses needed major repairs — new plumbing, electrical systems, furnaces, air conditioners, insulation and, in one instance, they added a new master bedroom. Fairbanks remembers wiggling into crawlspaces to install insulation and chopping wood to feed the fireplace because the central heating system did not work.
Always, the family lost the homes.

Sometimes the bills piled up, finances dwindled, and they could not keep up the payments. Other times, the local sheriff knocked on the door with an eviction notice because the seller, who still had the title to the house, had not maintained the mortgage payments and the home had fallen into foreclosure.
As a result, the family would pack their belongings and move without getting any compensation for the money and sweat equity they had spent making the dwellings habitable.

“We’re trying to find a home,” said Fairbanks’ mother, Lisa. “We had four kids, we wanted to raise our four kids in a home. We just wanted to have homeownership. I think that’s what everybody wants.”

A bill that passed through the Indiana House 82-14 and is headed to the Senate would protect families such as the Fairbankses from predatory “principal dwelling land contracts.” House Bill 1495 contains provisions that require the buyers be told the value of the property and how much they will ultimately pay for it if they complete the terms of the agreement. Also, after they pay 5 percent or more of the purchase price, buyers will be subject to foreclosure if they fall behind in payments, rather than being evicted.

“It’s an important issue. It’s something that’s received very little attention, and there is almost no consumer protection in current law for land contracts,” said Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, who co-authored the bill with Democratic Rep Rita Fleming of Jeffersonville and bill author Rep. Vanessa Summers, D-Indianapolis. “I’m glad we’ve been able to come together across the aisle and work on a solution” ...

Gahan's NAHA putsch: "I am a progressive Democrat fighting against a plan supported by a local Democratic administration."

Local activist Aaron Fairbanks states the case with uncommon eloquence. Next spring, the purported "cleanliness" of local Democratic campaign financing quite likely will be a central campaign issue when Jeff Gahan seeks a third term.

If he does. Maybe he'll cash out. After all, that's why he's here -- and the ever-accumulating cash is abundant.

As an advocate for public housing residents in New Albany, I have found that activism can be quite unrewarding stuff. While I continue to feel that I am standing up for what’s right, the people I care about and I’ve grown to respect are often on the opposite side of this issue. This has been extremely difficult for me in a way that I find hard to explain in words. I am a progressive Democrat fighting against a plan supported by a local Democratic administration. In general, I am sympathetic to the platforms of most of the Democratic candidates running campaigns in the area. For the most part, they run cleanly financed campaigns and run on platforms consistent with my own philosophy and values. There’s simply no equivalency that can be drawn between them and their opponents.

On the flip side, I’m disgusted that Democratic candidates that run cleanly financed campaigns and support platforms that are consistent with progressive and Democratic values find it taboo to call out Democrats who deviate from this path. I’m sick to my stomach at the thought that the party that once stood for “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family” cannot call out an attack on affordable housing within their own ranks. I literally have a hard time looking most of these people in the eyes anymore, and I get a lump in my throat just thinking about it.

And by the way, centrism is bunk -- whether you resisting Gahan or Donald Trump.

The Third Way Is a Death Trap, by John Patrick Leary (Jacobin)

Centrists look at a burning planet, a racist in the White House — and plead for moderation.

Is centrism dead? Or is it sexy?

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortéz’s congressional primary victory in New York and the rise of other democratic socialist candidates has scrambled the political landscape. Demands that just a couple years ago seemed unthinkable in mainstream US politics — Medicare for All, a universal jobs guarantee, free college — are now the centerpiece of viable political campaigns.

But the centrists aren’t giving up. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni rushed to moderation’s defense a few weeks back, pronouncing it “sexier than you think.” Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman followed up a column in March touting the win of a centrist Democrat in Illinois with a column last month pillorying Ocasio-Cortéz

The centrist think tank Third Way is still all in with a “Social Contract for the Digital Age,” released earlier this year. Its headlining measures: an “Innovation Trust Fund,” a “Boomer Corps,” and something called a “College Value Guarantee.”

Its supporters concede that these are dull ideas — but for American centrism, so proud of its pragmatism, dullness has become a mark of virtue. Moderation is as much emotional as it is political; never shouting is a test of statesmanship.

But with Donald Trump in the White House and the planet burning, just how pragmatic is centrism?

Gahan's public housing putsch: "We won't allow the City to revise history to their liking."

Thanks to the Gahan-engineered crisis at the New Albany Housing Authority, Aaron Fairbanks has emerged as a passionate and articulate local advocate of progressive politics, clear thinking and fine expository writing. I'm delighted to reprint Aaron's commentary here. This one's for sharing with friends. 

---

What is continuously lost in the dialogue on the City of New Albany's plan to raze roughly half of the public housing stock is the presence of two distinct visions.

On the one hand is the vision of Mayor Jeff Gahan and David Duggins, and on the other hand is the vision of the former executive director of the NAHA, Bob Lane, with nearly two decades of experience in housing under multiple administrations.

The City of New Albany's vision can be understood through the agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding, passed by the NAHA's board of commissioners in April of 2017. The shortcomings are blatantly clear, and public comments by a plethora of professionals with decades of experience in housing and homelessness have been levied against the Memorandum of Understanding passed by the NAHA. 

Among the concerns present with City's plan are:

• No details on the minimization of disruptions in the lives of residents displaced.
• No details ensuring that affordable housing stock will not be reduced in New Albany.
• No evidence that an adequate supply of Housing Choice Vouchers exists.
• No evidence that there is an adequate supply of market rental units that accept vouchers.
• Inadequacy of replacement low-income unit requirements.
• Failure to ensure that no resident will be forcibly displaced from New Albany.
• Demolition "without a data-informed plan for offsetting the loss of ... affordable housing units" risks exacerbating homelessness in and around New Albany.

See NAHA's Memorandum of Understanding (Duggins replacement board mix)

On the flip side, Bob Lane also had a vision. Lane stressed to the board of commissioners at the NAHA that, despite their appointment by to the board by Gahan, the NAHA "is an independent entity." He urged them to think independently, and they opted to rubber stamp the City's plan. The two most important features of Lane's vision expressed in his draft Memorandum of Understanding:

• Proposed preserving one-for-one "hard-unit replacement of low-income units in mixed-income settings to the extent feasible."
• Would've ensured that "current NAHA households [are] provided options that allow them to stay in New Albany if desired."

Bob Lane's draft Memorandum of Understanding

Lane's plan was a feasible and compassionate approach that didn't start at "we're going to reduce our affordable housing stock" and end with "we'll find out the details later." Ignoring the existence of his vision is disrespectful to the two decades of service that he's provided to current and former residents of the NAHA, and it's quite frankly historical revisionism.

Without the City's concerted effort to squash the NAHA's previously stated proposals -- until its eventual takeover and appointment of Gahan's right hand man, David Duggins (seriously, we've tracked dollars contributed to Gahan's 2015 re-election campaign to Duggins's address), as interim executive director of the NAHA--there would be 42 new units of supportive housing in what would have been the NAHA's Harbor House development. 

Without the hostile takeover of the NAHA, Lane may have been able to execute his vision of redesigning the street grid at Broadmeade and Parkview to match the City's existing street grid.

We won't allow the City to revise history to their liking. Affordable housing has never been a priority for Gahan and Co, and the recent lip service and PR stunts won't change that history of consistent opposition to the goals of affordable housing advocates.

Fairbanks: "It is crucial that candidates use their platforms and their voices to shine a light on this issue, because the people most impacted by this issue are often left invisible in the political decision-making process."

Aaron Fairbanks of the We Are New Albany campaign states the case beautifully. Without his persistence, it is doubtful that many candidates in the upcoming primary would have issued statements about Mayor Jeff Gahan's non-Democratic hostile takeover of public housing in New Albany (links here).

---

I cannot express in words how appreciative I am of any candidate that has taken it upon themselves to respond to requests for statements on the City of New Albany and New Albany Housing Authority’s plans to demolish approximately half of the City’s public housing stock in phases over 10 years. It is crucial that candidates use their platforms and their voices to shine a light on this issue, because the people most impacted by this issue are often left invisible in the political decision-making process. Unfortunately, this reality makes it politically viable to make decisions that disparately and negatively impact those with the quietest voices.

At the end of the day, We Are New Albany is a grassroots effort to provide a voice to those who have typically found it difficult or unproductive to exercise their voice in public discourse. I’ve canvassed public housing residents on several occasions and I’m often met with the same sentiments. I had one resident suggest to me that “gentrification is going to happen whether they do anything or not.” Another resident dismissed the issue all together stating, “This is just politics.” Before convincing another resident that his voice does matter—even if he only decides to register—he attempted to dismiss voting with the understandably pessimistic view that politicians “are all crooks.”

I can certainly empathize with this perception. Being bounced around over a dozen homes growing up, I always felt like the deck was stacked against my family and me. I’ve seen some of the worst traits in people, while being directly exposed to the consequences of wage theft, employment misclassification, predatory real estate practices, etc. I know what it’s like to rely on public housing assistance for a roof over my head. I understand the realities of needing food banks and SNAP to put food on the table. I’ve been fortunate enough to have benefited from Medicaid growing up, and have multiple surgical operations covered that would have crippled my family financially otherwise. I’ve grown up with the realities of poverty following my family and me wherever we went, and I hated everything about living in poverty and the stigma that came with it. But it wasn’t until after high school that I knew that my passion was to shine a light on these issues, so that maybe someone would consider reconciling them.

With that said, I preach that empathy is an incredibly important trait for any person seeking public office. I’ve heard the axiom that “no question is a stupid question” too many times to count, but I’ve always wondered how that works when you don’t know the right questions to ask. Quite frankly, that’s why resident input is invaluable for a proposition that seeks to significantly change the outlook for and availability of affordable housing in New Albany. It’s also invaluable for candidates who will be tasked with making many decisions that directly impact those residents.

The statements from the candidates made it clear to me that I needed to re-approach many of them to relay some of those concerns, which I looked to do with my time at the political social. What I understood from reading some of those candidates’ statements is that they missed the mark on the concerns levied by our group, which I felt might have been attributable to lacking the right questions.

The focus of candidates has largely been aimed solely on whether any “current resident” will be made homeless during relocation as a direct result of demolition, not whether demolition will reduce the long-term housing security of current residents. It has been largely void of a discussion of the disruptions this could cause current residents in their livelihoods, their access to the social service infrastructure put in place under former Executive Director, Bob Lane, and their continued residence in New Albany.

While legitimate concerns have been levied about tenant-based voucher as a stable, long-term alternative to public housing, under Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, public housing agencies are required to provide for “comparable housing… which may include… tenant-based assistance, except that the requirement under this clause regarding offering of comparable housing shall be fulfilled by use of tenant-based assistance only upon the relocation of such family into such housing.” Nothing under Section 18, however, requires that housing be made available in the community from which a resident is displaced, and the lack of one-for-one replacement unit requirements for low-income dwellings and a guaranteed right to return necessarily means that current residents will be forcibly displaced from New Albany in the process.

Furthermore, it is understood by the academic community involved in housing around southern Indiana and the Louisville Metropolitan Surrounding area that such housing is not available in New Albany. Last May, experts who have spent decades collectively in advocating and researching housing, public policy and homelessness put out a letter to the editor of the News and Tribune addressing the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of New Albany and the New Albany Housing Authority. In their letter, they point to the City’s 3.4 percent rental vacancy rate across all price ranges. This rate was calculated prior to the loss of 100 rental units in the Breakwater fire, which presumably reduced the number of vacancies even more so.

The City’s commitment to a minimum 8% affordable housing requirement in residential developments using City money falls far short of what is necessary to make up for the number of affordable housing units slated for demolition pending HUD’s approval of the New Albany Housing Authority’s Inventory Removal Application following the ongoing physical needs assessment. Cathy Hinko of the Metropolitan Housing Coalition is quoted by the Courier Journal as asserting that the City is “basically saying they’re going to double the size of New Albany or redo half the rental units in New Albany to get that 8 percent.” It is unrealistic to suggest that the current plan’s 8 percent requirement will make up for the increased gap between the demand for affordable housing in New Albany and the limited supply of affordable housing.

This, of course, brings me to the stark realities of homelessness in southern Indiana. Upon visiting Haven House, an emergency homeless shelter in Jeffersonville, I was made aware of just how bad this issue is in and around our communities. Reducing the City’s public housing stock would come at a time when homelessness is an ever-present issue impacting New Albany and surrounding communities. Individuals sit on waiting lists for public housing and vouchers that fall far below the existing need. Unlike anti-poverty programs like Medicaid and SNAP, it is not enough to be eligible for housing assistance to get a roof over your head. Housing assistance must be made available, which is why nationally just 1 in 4 of those who are eligible for housing assistance actually obtain housing assistance. Our chairperson and many current residents have been homeless before receiving public housing. I cannot imagine any resident supporting any plan that would make it more difficult for those who are homeless to receive public housing assistance.

We have to be cognizant of all of the concerns that exist with the current plan. We will continue to work diligently to provide a platform by which those who follow our group can better understand those concerns. We appreciate everyone’s support and all of those who have taken it upon themselves to engage in this discussion with us. Thank you all!

Grooms, Murray join Clere in addressing public housing concerns during NAHA candidate forum.

We Are New Albany was well represented at last evening's candidate forum at the New Albany Housing Authority's gym. The advocacy organization's Aaron Fairbanks has given permission for us to reprint his report.

---

This is why our political voice matters:

"I oppose any plan that vacates anyone from public housing that they are now living in. We will at the state level make that not happen. You will not be evacuated unless we have another plan that puts you in a position where you want to be."
-- 46th District State Senator Ron Grooms (R)

(This comes after Candi and myself blasted Grooms at a town hall in New Albany).

"I'd like to start tonight by addressing an issue that is critically important, which is affordable housing... I don't want to see any families put on the street making it even harder for them to get back on their feet. So it's important that we make sure we have an adequate supply of affordable housing that meets at least minimal standards."
-- 46th District State Senate candidate Anna Murray (D)

Anna had been in contact to notify me of her preliminary comments before she releases a pending statement on the local housing issue. She's also agreed to follow up by getting some questions answered regarding the city's plan:

• to ensure that demolition doesn't forcibly displace NAHA residents from New Albany or leave them at risk of homelessness.
• to ensure that demolition does not reduce NAHA's ability to meet future housing needs for those on waiting lists and housing assistance applicants.
• to ensure that the City and NAHA work to meet the dire need for rental housing and affordable housing options, while knowingly facing an affordable housing shortage.

"We are at the New Albany Housing Authority, so I'm going to briefly mention housing issues. First of all, I'm grateful to be endorsed by We Are New Albany. I'm honored to have their endorsement ... It's been a privilege ... learning more about the situation here at the [New Albany] Housing Authority, which unfortunately hangs as a dark cloud over many of the folks in this room. And I will continue to oppose any plan for the [New Albany] Housing Authority that could displace current residents without stable, long-term alternatives."
-- 72nd District State Representative candidate Ed Clere (R)

Thank you, Ed Clere, for standing with this group since day one. The use of your platform to stand by NAHA residents and We Are New Albany has absolutely helped to give public housing residents a voice when no one would listen and no one would speak on such an important discussion as affordable housing.

Unfortunately, our work is not done yet. I will not rest until the "dark cloud" is gone, and no one is in fear of being forced from their homes and their community. It's most unfortunate that candidates that I have met and have respected avoided talking about housing at the New Albany Housing Authority (You have got to be kidding me?).

I'm appalled by the silence of people who should be representing you and me.

I can tell you now that many of them are calling our "bluff." They have calculated that the NAHA residents affected by this plan won't vote, and they have decided that even so much as entertaining a conversation with us is unnecessary because of this lack of participation. So many other candidates attended the forum tonight (with requests for public statements I might add), yet they avoided our concerns that we have been making public for several months.

We absolutely need help to leverage these conversations, and there's no better way to do that than to get involved and vote!