interviews
Where Will We Go From Here?
by Lauren Schandevel
April 6, 2020
This interview with Lauren Schandevel, the Macomb County Organizer for We the People - Michigan, a non- profit started in 2017 with the mission to build multiracial working class alliances across the state through community organizing, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Lauren | I came on last year in June. [Organizing] is an interesting thing to try to grapple with and understand and explain to people. So I think it's taken me some time to figure out what exactly my role is in my community. It is also due to the fact that I went back to the community, I grew up in.
frank | What does your community look like?
Macomb County is an area just North of Detroit.
It's pretty blue collar. It's sort of famous for being an Obama to Trump district. It is where the term Reagan Democrats was coined. It’s very reliant on the auto industry.
I grew up in Warren, which is the biggest city in Macomb county. Warren is in the Southern part of Macomb County, it tends to be a little poorer and a little more diverse than the rest of the County. I try to focus most of my work on that part of the County, because that is where the most people are and also where people are poorer and it's easier to organize people with their material interests in mind.
How would you explain the work of an organizer, and the outcomes you’re after?
The goals vary by region [for We The People - Michigan]. We have organizers in different parts of the state. Our West Michigan organizer is focused on a campaign to allow undocumented immigrants to have driver's licenses. While our Northern Michigan organizers are working on a lot of energy, environmental, and indigenous rights work up there.
The direction I'm moving in is to build a more cohesive sense of community here in Macomb County. It's a suburb, and it has all of the trappings of a suburb, which includes isolation – people are not trusting or talking to their neighbors. But there's that added layer of people also being poor and needing help.
I am focused on community building and political education to create a stronger sense of community and belonging. From there people can advocate for their own needs.
Mechanically that looks like having one on one meetings, determining what people are working on, connecting them to people who are doing similar work, and supporting community groups as they arise. [Also] looking for opportunities to work around issues in the community.
For example, there was a spill a few months back that was like a cocktail of hexavalent chromium, cyanide, and PFAS, it spilled onto one of our nearby highways and ended up in some of the waterways. Identifying opportunities like that to pull people in to advocacy work or organizing.
Right. It's one thing in normal circumstances, but what does it look like now? How do you organize in isolation?
Yeah, I mean that's the question.
Have you figured it out in the last 10 days or what?!
[Laughing] Yeah, I've been at it for a couple of weeks. We started working remotely a little over two weeks ago.
In Macomb County specifically, I've been pulling together contacts that I already have here. We have a call every week with someone in our Congressman’s office, one person from the county health department, and a bunch of community members. People talk about projects they're thinking about launching. There are a couple of folks who want to do a seedlings project where they're planting seeds, growing them, and giving them out to people in the community when the supply chain is disrupted, if people don't have food or can’t afford food. People will talk about what they're thinking about, what they’re working on, and solicit advice. People who are interested in doing that work with them can be connected to them.
In addition to that, We The People - Michigan, is a part of a coalition of organizations called MI COVID Community. They are making policy demands to elected officials and thinking through what advocacy looks like during this. How do we get these demands met? Those are the big things for now. I like to think about the work as separate buckets: an advocacy bucket and a mutual aid bucket.
Can you talk about those two buckets?
Mutual aid is a term that's been thrown around a lot the last couple of weeks, but I think it originated in anarchist circles. It basically is the idea of communities taking care of each other and leveraging resources within the community to help each other – but it started explicitly as an alternative to capitalism. The way that people are using it right now is neighbors helping each other, which is fine and also builds power and alternative structures. If it's something that becomes a little bit more mainstream, I think that's a good thing. But I'm not an anarchist so I wouldn't know.
For me, doing mutual aid here has been figuring out what the needs are, identifying gaps in services, and then figuring out ways to meet those needs. It's really hard to develop a volunteer network where people are going out and doing things, when people can't go out and do things.
For now, that has looked like emulating some of the things that are happening in other parts of the state. For example, people are putting out newsletters to community members, talking about what resources are available in the community, what volunteer opportunities exist, figuring out ways to build community through that first correspondence.
Other communities have set up Google Voice Numbers for people to call if they need help. And so I think more creative digital strategies will emerge and people will start really getting the hang of doing this work remotely. But it's very beginning stages.
I'm working right now to pull together a newsletter with a couple of County residents just to keep everyone informed and aware of what resources are available and volunteer opportunities. That's the mutual aid bucket, which is focused on meeting people's immediate needs.
Then there's the advocacy bucket. Focusing on how this moment is, in a way, a window of opportunity to advocate for some of the things that we've wanted for a really long time, including paid sick leave and Medicare For All. Being strategic in how we do that advocacy and tie it to this current moment is really important.
I know there's a group in Michigan called Mothering Justice, which had paid sick leave on the ballot in the last election we had, it passed, and then it was repealed during our lame duck session in the legislature. They're looking to mount that campaign again and bring that back.
Apart from the actual advocating for issues – it’s, what does this political moment mean? I think at any point in history where you have massive economic devastation, there's always a choice made between two visions of the future. Either you're going to choose potential fascism, or a more progressive left-wing vision for what our country could look like.
I think when America emerges from the pandemic, and people are in really dire economic conditions, there's going to be a lot of competing rhetoric. We are going to hear a lot of scapegoating of China and of immigrants and of Asian Americans and of whoever else. People are going to be susceptible to that. Which is why it's so important on the left, to build a proactive counter argument to that, and make the case for inclusive economic justice that points the finger at the real enemies, which are corporations and rich people and shitty politicians.
There will be a rhetorical battle when this is over, which will really determine what direction the nation swings.
It's important to be proactive about what narratives we're putting out. Because if we don't put anything out, people are going to subscribe to the thing that they hear repeatedly, which is this right wing narrative, present before COVID, that says your economic conditions are so dire because of the immigrants taking your job and the people of color who are on welfare and the countries like China who are like stealing our jobs. That sort of stuff. We are going to see a lot more scapegoating, and we have to be really mindful of that and be really aggressive and combative.
Have your goals as an organizer shifted in terms of national electoral politics?
My job has never been organizing around electoral campaigns, so my work really hasn't changed in that way. The approach I like is thinking globally and acting locally.
I do organizing here and try to build community here and build trust and build power for people to fight for the things that they need and want with the knowledge that this strategy can be applied more broadly.
It's really a case study in human behavior doing this sort of work. As I learn more and more about how, particularly working class people, who I grew up with and consider myself a part of, how we think and how we respond to certain strategies organizers use, how we respond to political education and community building activities, is important and applicable for building a larger working class movement that cuts across race and ethnicity and geographic location, and can actually build meaningful power in this country.
How can people get involved?
There's that mutual aid route people have been taking. You're seeing networks arise all over the place. Even in places where mutual aid networks didn't exist before. A lot of these groups are pretty public on social media. There have been Facebook groups that have emerged in Michigan that are specific to a region. And a lot of it is just like resource exchange. If people are thinking through more robust volunteer opportunities, like delivering food and supplies to people and figuring out how to grow food for folks you could also probably find those people through those social media platforms.
Then there's the advocacy side of things. There are a lot of campaigns mounting from this, including campaigns for rent strike, and campaigns that have doubled down on the need for universal healthcare. Because we're all working remotely, those have been pretty accessible. And a lot of folks have switched over to virtual meetings.
I know groups like Sunrise have had a series of webinars that folks can sign up for. Every night they have training online you can attend to get a better sense of how climate activism and COVID fit into each other. I know there are lots of national and local groups that have done similar things where they've been hosting public meetings and webinars and trainings for people virtually.
What is the most urgent advocacy work? Specifically in an area like yours.
The rent strike, in the way that I've heard it used, is basically advocating for a rent freeze. A lot of folks can't afford their rent anymore. I think that's probably necessary work that needs to happen here. In Macomb County, especially because the Southern part has a lot of rental properties, and a lot of evictions, and a lot of foreclosures. A lot of that could be mitigated, hopefully through a rent strike if we're very thoughtful about it, although that's not something that I'm really planning for right now.
In Macomb County in particular, we have an older population. A lot of them live alone. A lot of them aren't on social media. One thing we've been thinking through that's pretty specific to this community is how we get the word out to those people and disseminate information to them, if we can't do it virtually, and we also can’t interact with them in person. Thinking through what flyering could look like, or what safe door to door delivery could look like, and it’s something we're still grappling with. Some of the most vulnerable folks are people who aren't very well connected as it is to their neighbors.
Have any of the tactics you've been deploying right now worked better than others?
I put together a Facebook page called Metro Detroit COVID 19 Support which has probably been the most useful and popular tactic I've tried. It’s basically a place for people in Metro Detroit to offer and ask for resources. Leveraging existing relationships, and pulling people into virtual meetings together so they can cross pollinate ideas has also been really useful. The last couple of weeks have been the strategizing phase of things. And I've just now started to try things with people in my community who are also starting to try things. I don't think we'll know what is really effective for a few more weeks, until after we actually try it and evaluate it.
What’s underreported right now?
It's really important, if we're talking about what work looks like in Michigan, to also connect with some of the organizers in Detroit, which was hit really, really hard by Coronavirus, because of all of the health issues and environmental issues that existed before the virus. There are a lot of people who have been doing work around those issues for a really long time who can speak to that. Particularly folks who are doing advocacy around the water shutoffs.
In 2014, 2015 Detroit started shutting off the water of people who couldn't pay their water bills.
That was also happening in Macomb County, but nationally it was talked about in terms of it happening in Detroit because that was where it was most prevalent. At the beginning of the crisis, in early March, our governor announced a moratorium on water shutoff which was great, but it also meant that people who had had their water turned off already still needed to get it back on.
There was quite a backlog because the city had three plumbers on staff who were turning people's water back on and they just weren't moving fast enough. So folks in Detroit, like Monica Lewis Patrick from We The People of Detroit (which is different from my organization and I know it’s confusing), folks from The People's Water Board, Nayyirah Shariff from Flint Rising were basically tirelessly both pestering the governor to mandate that water be turned back on and do a statewide moratorium, and also delivering water to residents who didn't have water through their taps. That is one snapshot of myriad issues that Detroit has faced and has contributed to the influx of COVID cases there. A lot of those are environmental and public health related. I think if I were to point you in a direction of where to get a better sense of what's going on, it would be with some of those organizers and activists.
Have you found yourself asking any new questions – questions you weren’t asking 6 weeks ago?
I also have all of the very nit-pinky questions about the virus itself and how scared I should be of it and how I protect myself. I totally get that.
From the standpoint of an organizer, a couple of questions I've had and haven't really had answered because there is no answer right now is, what does this mean for my community and the nation and the world? How do we use this moment to turn things around and fight for more equitable and just policies and to fight for a better world, a world that's more prepared to deal with something like this, but also can deal with it more equitably? How do we develop a robust social safety net for our most vulnerable? How do we see the humanity in people who are poor or incarcerated or undocumented and instill that in people so that this doesn't happen? Those are all questions that are emerging for me.
Where are we going and how do we ensure it’s better than this?
It's a huge moment for compassion and empathy. But it’s also a blatant example of systemic and institutional failures. Will those two overlap politically?
Oh my God, that's a great and important question. And I hope I can do it justice in my answer. I think that people are starting to make the connection in more subtle ways, right? I am also checking Twitter and seeing people say, “we are housing folks who are homeless now, we could have done that this entire time.” Or you know, “we're providing free public transportation. We could have done that this whole time.” Realizing that a lot of these problems existed because people didn't have the political will to make solutions happen. I do think, though, that we need to be really adamant and proactive and strategic about how we're making those connections for people.
That's why I say that this is an opportunity to really start fighting for the things that we've always wanted and needed because there's clearly a story here about how our institutions failed everyone because they're stacked against poor folks and in favor of wealthy folks. But if we're not telling that story, someone else will tell a different story. Being really intentional about crafting a narrative about what went wrong during this crisis, why it went wrong, who is responsible and then applying it to some of our other fights like universal healthcare and paid sick leave. But I think especially this ties in well to something like climate change where it does impact everyone, but it impacts them unequally. Because people have access to resources that mitigate some of the effects of it.
I read something the other day saying this will be the death of celebrities. Detachment from the real world has never been so apparent.
Yes – most obvious to people is the testing disparities. People are seeing celebrities with no symptoms getting tested and then they're seeing their loved ones dying and not being able to get tests or treatments. That is a very staunch example of what that inequality looks like. And it's really affirming for me, because I was already railing against these things before this happened. And now it feels like more people are sort of flocking to my corner and I welcome it.
That's nice. It's nice to feel welcome. There is sometimes a fear of when something clicks and you're like, shit, somebody has been telling me about this for 10 years and I haven't really realized until now.
It feels less good to be right than you would think, doesn’t it?
It reminds me a lot of the 2016 election when folks were like, Oh my God, this is so fucked up. We need to do something. I think a lot of people think that Trump is like the worst thing to ever happen to America, when there were all of these issues that existed before, and precipitated the rise of Trump – he wasn't just an anomaly. I think about this moment like that. Like there are things that people have been talking about for a really long time, like the importance of a universal healthcare system, and how unequally resources are allocated in this country. And this is a very stark example of that. And it's a very dramatic, awful thing that had to happen for people to see that. It's very similar to how I think a lot of people thought about Trump's election.
interviews
Vishaan Chakrabarti, Part 1
by Vishaan Chakrabarti
May 10, 2018
This interview with Vishaan Chakrabarti, the founder of PAU, was conducted and condensed by frank news. This is part one of an ongoing conversation between frank and PAU.
Okay, let’s begin. Would you introduce yourself?
I’m Vishaan Chakrabarti. I’m an architect and city planner, trained in both. I founded my practice, Practice for Architecture and Urbanism, or PAU for short. I also teach at Columbia.
Then there's this third nebulous thing I do out in the clouds, which is lecture, write, or talk about issues I think are pressing to our field, that don't necessarily neatly fit into either practice or teaching. I wrote a book a few years ago called Country of Cities, I’m thinking about a second book right now. That’s always a third line of activity beyond practice and teaching.
What does planning as a profession look like?
It’s evolved. City planning dates back to ancient China and ancient Greece. It goes back millennia. It’s always had poetic and pragmatic aspects to it. A lot of Roman cities had different ways in which they felt humanity related to the cosmos, and would lay out cities according to that. Similarly with China, in which cities laid out in Cardinal directions, were related to the way in which people interpreted their relationship to deities. City planning has a very, very long tradition.
If you go to a city like Rome, you'll see layers and layers of planning that happened under Pope Sixtus VI, and in more modern times, axis that have been cut through the cities, and that ended up influencing post-enlightenment city planning. Haussmann and ultimately Robert Moses. There is a lineage. And all of that lineage was largely top-down. City planning was always thought to be a somewhat authoritarian enterprise until Jane Jacobs came along. She was really the person who revolutionized this idea of cities being planned by the communities that live in them, and not having top-down structures that would tell them where highways would go.
There are both good sides and bad sides to that story. Unfortunately, too often in city planning education, and even among lay people, there is this sense that the story is all good. The reason that it is not all good is that it has put us in a certain kind of paralysis, particularly in the United States.
Jacobs also never answered questions about how there are a lot of communities that don’t want people of color living in them. Are you supposed to listen to the community in that instance? Where that really plays out is the affordable housing battle, and through federal housing guidelines. Communities are supposed to take their share of affordable housing, and most cities actually fight that.
Look at what's happening in California today. Jerry Brown tried to pass this thing that said, if a certain neighborhood is within proximity to a mass transit line, we need to build density there, and we need to build a certain amount of affordable housing there. And it got defeated largely by a progressive state legislature because of this idea that communities would lose control.
To me, it's not necessary to come down on one side of that argument or the other,
Where that really comes to the tip of the spear is climate change. Climate change is completely changing the way we think about, not just city planning, but landscape planning, regional planning, how we are stewards of the planet. A lot of that stewardship requires an adult way of discussing what is rational, in terms of using that land, and often flies in the face of direct community control.
For instance, building density around transit stops, that's an easy one. When Katrina happened, people said, why should we rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward? It’s an area in harm's way. Yet no one seems to ask that question about suburban subdivisions in California that are in harm's way of wildfires or landslides. Or Fire Island. I've seen entire houses washed away in the Hamptons. If you go to a lot of those California hillside communities, in the wealthy parts of Berkeley, or Oakland, what it costs to provide water or fire up there, are not rational land use patterns.
How does one balance this idea? That it should not be all top-down authoritarian, yet we're not going to get at a lot of the problems associated with climate change unless we have a more rational way of using land. That is particularly true in a world that's urbanizing very rapidly.
You have some 200,000 people a day moving to cities, mainly in the Global South. If all of those folks choose to live the way a few hundred million rich people choose to live in the West, the world is screwed. The numbers are really quite clear on this. So, I think this is part of why I do what I do.
I think a lot of people in the affiliated fields, like architecture, planning, landscape architecture, environmentalism, are driven to go to work every day by this set of concerns. Again, going back to the ancients, how humans design habitation has an enormous impact on the planet, and on every ecosystem. We are at this inflection point, and it’s interesting that Jacobs didn’t really have a good answer to this.
It’s interesting because Jane Jacobs was a contemporary of Rachel Carson. You wish the two of them had gotten together. You can’t protect nature without a sustainable way for 7 billion people to occupy the planet. That 7 billion is going to be 10 billion by 2100. Those two things have to sit in balance. We have to find a way to balance the natural world and the physical world. That is at the heart of what good city planning is about.
Do you think there’s been enough progress since Jacobs’ book came out?
I think things have progressed. Certainly because technology has allowed a lot more communication within the community, and communities are much more interconnected than they used to be, and can organize around ideas in very important ways. People don't really believe it, but Friends of The Highline really did start as a grassroots organization. The notion that people can get together, volunteer their time, be concerned about their physical environment, and get things done, is very valid.
The larger issues since Jacobs wrote, is not so much at the community level, where I think people have been doing what communities do, which is organize around things that they’re passionate about.
They don't know what they’re about anymore. That's changing slowly, but it was a field that really went into doldrums in the 70’s and 80’s because all the stuff that Jacobs fought against. Robert Moses, urban renewal, all of that was seen as politically incorrect. People couldn't be city planners as you would traditionally think of them, physical planners: blocks are here or there, highways, transit systems.
When I went to school, I studied planning before I studied architecture, and I was interested in physical planning, and that is part of why I went into architecture because I had to keep pushing the idea of understanding the physical environment, it was really not PC. I went to MIT for City Planning, and I can’t remember how many people were in our class, but I would say maybe 15-20% were studying physical planning because it was considered verboten.
Is the profession coming out of that now?
Yes and no. Our firm just won a big master planning project for the city of New York,
You have to approach some of these questions a differently in terms of how you professionally get city planning done.
Do you think academia is still stuck? Do people think it is not PC to be a planner?
Again, it is changing. For example at Columbia, there is a built environment portion in the program now. I think things are changing.
What I mean by that is, in architecture and landscape architecture, it is still very common that you’re given a site and asked, what would you do? You are asked to speculate. But planning students are taught to ask, what does the community think, what does the data show you? Those are all incredibly valid questions, in fact that has permeated architecture and landscape architecture as well.
Think about bike lanes in New York City. When the bike lanes and Citi Bike were first introduced, people thought Janette Sadik-Khan was crazy. I don’t know what the numbers are right now, but the modal share is pretty high.
Look at places like Brooklyn Navy Yard. It has 7,000 jobs and it's 25 minutes away from the nearest subway station. I think Citi Bike has created a whole new modality of how people move around a place like New York City. That to me is speculation, it’s saying, what if...
I’m not interested in autonomous vehicles for the technology as much as thinking, how can we design the streets differently? If AV’s did learn how not to hit people, could you design a street completely different? In terms of the curbs, parking, how the curb cuts for wheelchairs. Think about New York City two days after a snowstorm, it’s just a nasty mess. That has a lot to do with the way our streets are designed. Keeping pedestrians safe from vehicles operated by people. Those forms of speculation are incredibly important because we have to design better cities, because we have to attract people to live in denser circumstances around mass transit, because we clearly have the data that shows those people have a much lower carbon footprint than their suburban counterparts. We have to create a much higher quality of life in our cities than we have today. That's going to require a lot of intervention.
There's a lot of data telling us that Uber and Lyft are actually increasing the amount of traffic we're seeing in our cities. I’m a huge mass transit advocate. People ask, why do you need mass transit if you have Uber? Do you know what Uber is doing? Both in terms of traffic, and in terms of air pollution?
We have to continue investment in mass transit. It's just fundamentally inefficient to use a 12- foot lane for vehicles with one or two people in them. When we can carry hundreds of people in that same lane.
We have to be careful with technology. Technologists are interesting. They think because they've invented something super cool that it’s a panacea. And oftentimes it can make things a hundred times worse. We redesigned the world around the internal combustion engine in the 20th century, largely to very poor effect. Our cities were much more interesting, wonderful places to be, pre-internal-combustion-engine world. There's a reason gobs of tourists go to Rome every year and not to Houston.