•  HOME 
  •  ARCHIVES 
  •  BOOKS 
  •  PDF ARCHIVE 
  •  WWP 
  •  SUBSCRIBE 
  •  DONATE 
  •  MUNDOOBRERO.ORG
  • Loading


Follow workers.org on
Twitter Facebook iGoogle




Letters to WW

Published Jun 28, 2005 8:23 PM

‘A blow by liberal judges’

While liberals anticipate and gear up for the next Supreme Court nominee and how to defeat the reactionary Bush administration’s conservative choice, liberal judges in the court dealt another blow to workers and the poor. On June 23, the court handed down a decision to allow local governments to seize private property for private ends.

The 5-4 decision came after residents in New London, Conn., sued the state. The city of New London had seized residents´ property to pave way for private development. The city stated the development would create jobs and lead to an increase in municipal tax revenue.

The residents asserted in their suit that the seizure was a violation, and was not for “public use,’ referring to the eminent domain clause in the Fifth Amendment. The clause states in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The city claimed that increased tax revenues and job creation constituted “public use’ and therefore the seizure was within the confines of the eminent domain clause.

This Supreme Court ruling comes on the heels of another in which these judges decided that the federal government could prosecute sick patients who use marijuana in the 10 states that had previously allowed medical use of the drug. That ruling ignored soaring prescription drug costs and rising health care costs, and the fact that marijuana provides a cheap alternative respite from chronic pain and nausea.

The ruling on June 23 paves the way for wealthy developers to snatch the land and homes from the poor and pay the most meager price. The price is being determined after years of urban flight and neglect—undoubtedly far less than the average price of a home today, which is estimated to consume between 30-50 percent of the average household’s income. Many of the people in low-income areas who are willing to sell their homes do so out of desperation.

Advocates of private property, some of them dissenters in this ruling, say that the ruling circumvents the very foundation of this country—private property rights. The ruling, though, is nothing more than an affirmation of private property rights.

It is a ruling to benefit the rich and to give away property in the inner cities. This property has been devalued through years of poverty and desperation and neglect, due to the loss of well-paying jobs, the crumbling public school system and the lack of social services.

Workers and the poor are being blamed for a capitalist system that puts profit over need. Under capitalism, the poor have only a right to their poverty.

Now, the rich are moving in to reclaim the devalued land, develop and send the values of the land skyrocketing, pushing the surrounding poor out. This gentrification is nothing new and is happening around the country, from Harlem to communities in Los Angeles.

To the poor and workers, there is a sparse difference between liberal and conservative, and this ruling by the Supreme Court is an example of the little differences that separate liberal judges from conservative ones. In the end, both cater to the ruling class. Only when the workers and poor are mobilizing does the Supreme Court hand down different judgments, and then only to save the ruling class as a whole.

As the economic crisis in this country deepens, the ruling class cares less and less about the squeeze on workers and the poor and the capitalist state will use whatever measures necessary to perpetuate this system. The only thing stopping them is the determined opposition of workers and the poor, and therein the difference lies.

—Larry Hales
Denver

Citizens and immigrants protest racist Minutemen

A group of close to 100 U.S. citizens and immigrants gathered on June 25 to protest the racist anti-immigrant group known as the “Minutemen,” who were holding a conference at the Bridgewater Sports and Ice Arena here. The group included Black, white, Asian and Latino activists from different organizations and political affiliations. People were there from Workers World Party, Casa Freehold, the Progressive Labor Party, People’s Organization for Progress and the Central N.J. Coalition for Peace and Justice, to name a few.

The heat and humidity did not wilt the energy and spirit of the protesters, who chanted: “¡No somos ilegales! ¡Somos trabajadores!” (We’re not illegal! We’re workers!) and “¡Las luchas obreras no tienen fronteras!” (Workers’ struggles have no borders!).

There were about 20 police officers—10 of whom were in full SWAT gear—at this demonstration, which was energetic but peaceful. There was never any threat of violence. Yet, when the demonstration broke up and protesters walked up the hill to the parking lot of the arena where some of the protesters had parked their cars, the police lined up and one of the SWAT members pointed his machine gun at the protesters.

The participants from Casa Freehold handed out fliers announcing a July 4th demonstration for immigrants’ rights in Freehold. The demonstration is from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Anyone wishing for specific information on the demonstration on July 4 should call Casa Freehold Coordinator Rita Dentino at (732) 492-1852.

It should be noted that the Minutemen tried to hold a conference in Freehold at the VFW hall across from the muster zone about a couple of months ago. But Casa Freehold, a group comprised of immigrants and U.S. citizens advocating for the rights of immigrants, waged a successful telephone and email campaign to get the VFW to cancel it.

Freehold and Bridgewater are both fairly well-to-do suburbs. The biggest difference is that Freehold has a large immigrant population. Bridgewater itself does not, although surrounding and nearby municipalities of Bound Brook, Somerville, Plainfield and North Plainfield do. Many Latinos work in Bridgewater as they do in Freehold.
        
The Borough of Freehold has not backed off from any of its repressive measures against immigrants. It is necessary to show the borough that we shall not let the abuses continue. We are fighting back in solidarity with our immigrant sisters and brothers.

—Dave Schraeger
Bridgewater, N.J.