Show Me the Money: the Success of the New School Occupation

For 13 hours, from 11 a.m. until midnight, I reported from within The New School occupation and outside until its conclusion in the early hours of the morning. In retrospect, many have deemed the December occupation of 65 Fifth Avenue a failure. But the problem with the critics’ arguments is that they are using the wrong criteria to evaluate the protest. 

If one judges the protest on whether or not President Bob Kerrey and Executive Vice President Jim Murtha were ousted, then sure, it was a failure since they are still here. If, however, one judges it on whether or not the financial behavior of The New School has been reformed then the occupation is only successful.

The media coverage has misled many to believe that the full fury of the protests was directed at President Kerrey. In a December 18 article titled “Protest at the New School Seeks Kerrey’s Ouster” the New York Times reported that the occupation was “to protest the leadership of the institution’s embattled president, Bob Kerrey.” In another City Room blog post, the Times’ Colin Moyniham and Trymaine Lee share a harrowing account of the protesters chasing President Kerrey down Fifth Avenue. While true to a certain extent, the *Times* only tells part of the story and leads readers to the conclusion that the protesters only wanted to oust the top administrators. Yes, protesters did object to President Kerrey’s leadership and yes, they did chase him (much to the embarrassment of many others in The New School community) but when the negotiations began, the protesters barely pushed for the resignation of President Kerrey and Murtha.

As the protesters formulated the final list of demands to the administration, many regarded the resignations as “best case scenario,” but probably impossible. The resignations were kept on the list largely for symbolic reasons in order to demonstrate that they still disagreed with the management policies of the administration. 

Many of the same actors who participated in the occupation were also a part of the demonstration on December 10, protesting the Board of Trustees' lack of investment transparency. The goals there (despite what the Times reports) were the resignation of Robert Millard, Treasurer of The New School Board of Trustees, and the establishment of a socially responsible investment committee—goals more consistent with the results of the occupation than the demands at the outset.

While the occupiers did disagree with the policies of President Kerrey, he was not their primary target. The consistency between the first protest and the conclusion of the second demonstrates that the efforts of the protesters were actually directed toward creating accountability for New School financing. With that criteria the protest is a success (despite how embarrassing it became) and has created a space for students in the administration of their university. Whether or not the occupation could have been even more effective, whether it was right, justified, or even worth our time in the first place, are different debates entirely, but do deserve to be discussed at length. 

Fighting For New York's Future

Judith Perez has a round face, a skinny smile, and black hair that falls just above her eyes. A Mexican immigrant, she now works the 7 a.m. shift as a waitress at the New York Luncheonette on East 50th Street. The morning of November 7, 2007 gave her an empty restaurant, except for two men sitting by the window. She slid them eggs over easy. The gaunt black man rested his head on his chin pressing his finger to his temple and listening to the man across him speak over the clap of shutters outside the window. Aides would later say the two men discussed the economy, education, and national security and while then this seemed like a VP offer, this meeting between then-Senator Barack Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg demonstrates a relationship. With the election of Barack Obama and the potential third term for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, it is likely that these two men will shape the future of New York City. At this point, it is uncertain what that will look like since the two have such differing approaches to urban policy.

A long-time haven for auto-repair shops, Willets Point has recently been approved for a massive redevelopment project by the New York City Council. Referring to Willets Points' wide potholes and collage of discarded car parts smattering the streets, Mayor Bloomberg called it "a euphemism for urban blight." In 2007, he and his administration announced a plan which would include "exciting new retail and entertainment amenities...a new, high-quality hotel...[and] New York City’s first non-Manhattan convention center," among other upscale facilities. The controversy, however, arises from the intended use of eminent domain which would evict businesses from their property and replace it with facilities which have no immediate relevance to their lives. Some have agreed to sell their land to the city while others resist. Either way, the city's plan gives them only the daunting prospect of restarting businesses in this turbulent economic environment.

Mayor Bloomberg approaches urban problems from the free market perspective. Since the 1970s, federal involvement at the municipal level has gradually decreased. Funding and programs that once aided cities during the New Deal and the Great Society have slowly diminished, forcing cities to come up with creative ways to stay viable. Governmental aid in municipal budgets fell from 26 percent to roughly seven percent. Cities developed a free market approach that teamed public capital with private investment, meaning private enterprise would attract business to feed revenue back into the city. Both Mayor Bloomberg's Willets Point project and previous Columbia University expansion in Harlem transfer land from urban poor to wealthier private investors for redevelopment. Although such projects often claim to benefit everyone, they end up displacing poorer populations with wealthier groups, thereby benefiting the latter at the expense of the former. Willets Point's new retail amenities will serve those corporate employees visiting for an expo at the convention center, leaving the roughly 1,700 people who once depended on the land to find a new locale. 

While Mayor Bloomberg's approach attempts to cover up the problem, President-Elect Obama plans to renew the federal government's commitment to cities, a move which could make free market approaches irrelevant in the coming decade. On the official transition period website, change.gov, Obama outlines a comprehensive urban policy that uses federal power to provide a leg up to cities and their residents. The first and second points on the list are, "Create a White House Office on Urban Policy" and "Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)." Previous administrations tried to aid cities and non-cities using the same policies, but it has become painfully obvious that solutions for suburbs aren't necessarily solutions for cities. President Obama will be able to help cities and non-cities with policies tailored to their specific needs. The CDBG, as the website points out, "is an important program that provides housing and creates jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income people and places." 

The meeting on November 7 between Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Obama indicates no alliance. There will be, however,  a new commitment from the Obama administration to American cities. His policies differ from Mayor Bloomberg's, offering government assistance rather than relying solely on private enterprise. Since Pres. Obama will give money and Mayor Bloomberg is willing to take it, it is far more likely that the former's urban agenda will prevail, ushering an era of federal commitment to the welfare of New York City.