New Template
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Listen to this speech online at www.urbanhabitat.org/audio 2010 What We Are Doing Is Illegal A speech by Max Rameau e have been doing our Take Back The Land activities in Miami since the summer of 2006. Our work began in Wresponse to the gentrification of low-income housing. We recognized that we could no longer depend on the gov - ernment to solve the problems with extreme gentrification and extreme housing prices in our community because they were an integral part of the problem. So, we decided to start a new organization and focus our attention on the internal capacities of our community, rather than figure out what the government can do for us. Take Back The Land is a collective with a leader - You can’t build the movement or create social ship of about five—myself and four women. There’s a change that way. larger group of about 20 that we can call on at any time. Given the nature of what we’re doing, it’s very The Opportunity of Crisis difficult to build a mass organization because at its Today, because of the economic and political crisis, 54 core, what we are doing is illegal. We can’t have we are at a historic point where people are willing to public meetings to say that we’re going to break into rethink their relationship to the land, the economic this house on this date. There are just too many system, and the financial system in a way that they logistical and legal repercussions. Also, we did not were unwilling or unable to do before. If we had tried want to seek funding. We got one grant, which we to do land takeovers five or six years ago, we would transferred to a nonprofit partner. So, there’s no staff have been kicked out by our own neighbors. Now we and no budget to speak of. get great press and community support. In October 2006, we took over a vacant piece of Things that seemed crazy and not possible five land and built the Umoja Village shanty-town in years ago suddenly are relevant and mainstream. Miami, Fla. It stood for six months before falling to a Consequently, this opens up an opportunity for the suspicious fire. We felt that we had built a model but social justice movement to offer viable alternatives. it lacked long-term viability because we had no In broad terms, our goal is to fundamentally trans - public policy component to what we were doing. In form land relationships—the way people, govern - fact, we had explicitly taken an anti-public policy ments, and corporations relate to land and to one stance. So, when the Miami City Manager sent one another in relation to land. We believe that it’s possi - of his minions over to say, “How can we resolve ble in our lifetime. this?” I said, we’re going to give you our demands. If we engage in a protracted, vigorous, and broad When he took out his pen, we said, “We want you to political campaign, we can win vast public policy get off our property!” changes, possibly even amendments to state constitu - That was our only demand. We felt then—and tions, which would make housing a human right. A until recently—that we specifically did not want to second major goal we can pursue is to introduce new have any engagement with the government. But we political leadership—particularly people of color, did not have a public policy piece or alternative insti - low-income people of color, and specifically, black tutions in place. women. Race, Poverty & the Environment | Spring 2010 Scenes from Umoja Village before its destruction. cc 2007 Danny Hammontree Nationwide Strategy to Take Back the Land We are now trying to build a national Take Umoja Village Back The Land movement, bigger and differ - ent from the one in Miami where we were able The Umoja Village was founded on On April 23, 2007, Umoja Village cel - to take advantage of specific situations and October 23, 2006 in the Liberty City sec - ebrated its six-month milestone with benefit from them. We want to build some - tion of Miami, Florida in response to the following actions: the replacement 55 thing flexible enough for people to apply those gentrification and a lack of low-income of wood shanties with more durable principles in their own communities. housing. “Umoja” is Swahili for “unity.” structures; the building of a water well; The U.S. Human Rights Network is coordi - After months of planning, Take Back participation in local anti-gentrification nating the national effort. We have signed on The Land seized control of a lot that had and pro-housing campaigns; a demand 10 organizations in 10 cities focused on elevat - been vacant for about eight years after for legal rights to the land from the city; ing housing to the level of a human right, and low-income housing there was demol - and plans to acquire land and build low- at least in the initial stages, on the path of ished by the city. Take Back The Land income housing. direct action: housing defense and liberations. erected tents and wood-frame shanties On April 26, 2007—the day that the We think it extremely important to use to provide housing for homeless people first new structures were scheduled to direct action to challenge the prevailing para - in the area. be built—Umoja Village burned to the digm around land and land relationships. Con - Police were unable to evict the resi - ground in a mysterious fire. There were sequently, breaking the laws that support the dents or organizers because of a 1996 no casualties or injuries but Miami police paradigm is a critical part of our model. It’s a settlement with the ACLU that forbids took the opportunity to arrest 11 resi - tactic designed to reach something bigger, the arrest of homeless people on public dents and activists for attempting to re - which is to advance public policy initiatives land when there are no beds for them main on the land and the city erected a that elevate housing to the level of a human in city shelters. barbed wire fence around the property right. By December, Umoja Village housed that same day. Our position is that progressive public approximately 50 homeless people who To ward off more protests, the city policy in the United States is effectively dead ran the village democratically. The village initially offered the property to Take because we cannot move it. And the reason for enjoyed broad support in the community, Back The Land to build low-income that is that we have no real leverage; meaning, so was able to successfully repel nu - housing, but later reneged on its offer we have no money to giv e to public officials. merous attempts by government officials under pressure from local power What we do have is our labor and this sense to tear it down. brokers and lobbyists. n Race, Poverty & the Environment | Spring 2010 20th Anniversary Edition that we should be able to stay in the buildings, and in Direct Action to Affect Banks the homes. Since we have no viable leverage to To bring about this kind of social transformation, advance progressive public policy, we have to go on a we have to make it affect the economic self-interests 56 hard, direct action binge. of the financial sector and the government, which Ultimately, our objective is bigger social change also controls large amounts of properties. through public policy, but I don’t think we can get to We can start by focusing on one bank—Citibank that without the direct action. But first, we need a or Bank of America. Say they own $10 billion worth plan. What do we do after we win? In Miami, we were of toxic assets. First they spend money to do a fore - unprepared to cope with victory. In fact, that hap - closure, then they spend money to do an eviction, pened with the home of the Trody family, which was then they spend more money to board the house up, featured in the Michael Moore film, Capitalism: A and some more money on upkeep and blight abate - Love Story . ment. Then somebody moves into the vacant house The bank sent the Trodys a second eviction notice a and they have to spend on evicting them and board - few months ago, and of course, the next day we were ing up the place all over again. there, ready to take arrests, defending the family’s right If we can occupy 10,000 of these homes, the cost to stay. One of our leaders called the bank—U.S. Bank, of repossessing all of them will be prohibitive. At which got $6.6 billion in bailout funds from the federal some point the banks will recognize that it is in their government—and after a couple of negotiating sessions, financial interest to just hand the places over to non - the bank offered us the house for $1. But we had no way profits. By taking the $10 billion in tax write-offs to accept the house. Not only did we not have an organ - they will actually come out ahead, financially. n ization that could deal with victory, we weren’t even Our direct action has to make it so the banks have clear about what that organization or model should a clear financial interest in giving away the foreclosed look like.