 |
ARCHIVES OF EDITORIALS
September 25, 2003 Selective irrelevance Media publicity on the tiff in the Boston City Council has caused more confusion than clarity. The facts are simple. Chuck Turner, Charles Yancey and Felix Arroyo proposed a resolution to have the council oppose the USA Patriot Act. Rather than allow the motion, Council President Michael Flaherty ruled it out of order pursuant to his authority under Rule 19. The president of the council has the right to block debate on any proposal which he believes to be irrelevant to the work of the city council. Yancy, Arroyo and Turner objected and accused Flaherty of abusing his power. They further argued that the manner in which Flaherty imposed Rule 19 to veto proposals from councilors of color smacked of institutional racism. The word “racism,” institutional or otherwise, is always grist for the media mills. Unfortunately, most reporters are unclear on the difference between being a “racist” and being guilty of “institutional racism.” In the language of the black community, a racist is one who is consciously hostile and demeaning to blacks and other ethnics because of their race. However, since American culture has marginalized and ignored the interests of blacks, almost anyone can inadvertently become guilty of institutional racism at some time. While there is considerable commonality between the concerns of blacks and whites, there are also substantial differences on some issues. For example, only about 8 percent of blacks voted for George Bush for president. Polls indicated that blacks were considerably more opposed than whites to the war on Iraq. Also, since blacks have suffered such official oppression in America, they are undoubtedly more concerned than most whites about the loss of rights set forth in the Patriot Act. Turner and his colleagues were merely representing the interests of their constituents. There has been a long tradition in the Boston City Council of passing resolutions on world affairs beyond the authority of the council to effect a change. For example, there were several resolutions in opposition to apartheid in South Africa. These resolutions have been important to focus public attention on broader issues than some of the mundane matters that must come before the council. If Flaherty permits debate on national issues proposed by white councilors, but exercises Rule 19 rulings to remove from the calendar similar matters proposed by black and Latino councilors, that is wrong. A wiser approach would be to limit debate on such matters and keep alive the tradition of a broader vision for the Boston City Council. A flawed proposal After many years of planning, two development teams have proposed plans to develop the remaining 65 acres of the Boston State Hospital in Mattapan. A community board must decide which plan to approve. While both plans are promising, the Stony Brook proposal has a serious flaw. The plan includes a supermarket by Tropical Foods. Perhaps a supermarket at that location could be successful, but if it fails it will soon be a blot on the project. The Tropical Foods store on Washington Street in Roxbury is by no means a first rate facility. The owner, Ron Gary, would probably assert that the store was not profitable enough to justify renovation. According to reports, the Stop & Shop in the new Mecca Mall in Grove Hall is not performing as expected. One must be concerned about what will result from the battle for patrons between the well financed Stop & Shop and the marginal Tropical Foods. The failure of that store would be a blot on the project.
|