MANSFIELD: Naysayers, Haters and a Lack of Visionaries

By Mansfield Frazier

The Internet allows for a high degree of interaction — albeit not all of it positive, at least not all the time. Individuals can pose legitimate questions (as my good friend Gloria Ferris, who puts her name on her queries, did in response to my column last week) or haters can use its anonymity to make smarmy comments, as do some curmudgeons who occasionally post on this site, secure in the coward’s knowledge that no one will ever know their real names.

This kind of critiquing from cover is called “throwing a rock and hiding your hand.” Indeed, there is a vast difference between an intelligent inquiry … and comments that clearly demonstrate the writer is not so much seeking clarification as they are rooting for failure.

But you can’t stop haters from hating, can you?

Last week I was writing about House Bill 656, which would authorize the U.S. Treasury to issue bonds that would enable communities to demolish blighted properties that drag down the value of surrounding homes. I was advocating for some of the funds to be used to help urban farming enterprises by saving some of the houses and turning them into BioCellars that could bring healthy food and jobs to these hard-hit communities.

While it’s certainly true most of the abandoned houses need to come down, a few can be saved and turned into urban farming “homesteads” where the land and basements adjacent to them are used to raise crops by the farmers who live in the rehabbed houses. As the world continues to move more and more in the direction of sustainability and locally sourced foods, this model becomes increasingly more economically viable. Of course all of this takes some foresight and vision … something we often seem to be in short supply of hereabouts.

In last week’s article I stated, “Will Allen, the urban farming guru of Growing Power in Minneapolis, is already mentoring a project in the Forgotten Triangle in Cleveland’s Kinsman neighborhood called Rid-All Green Partnership, which is proving to be very successful at growing healthy, nutritious food for locovores. Allen, a McArthur Genius Award grant recipient, has developed urban farming techniques that, properly managed, can generate in excess of $100,000 per acre of vacant urban land.”

While Ferris legitimately questioned if an acre of land can produce $100,000 in revenue, some posters have called such claims “fraud.” So, while I don’t care to ask the publisher of Cool Cleveland to censor such comments (even from haters), I do feel compelled to call out these clowns, one of whom wrote, “Show us a single instance in any city where an ‘urban farm’ has yielded enough revenue to pay for the demolition, farming expenses, et al. Until you can do so, I cry ‘Fraud.’”

What some naysaying haters are attempting to do is strangle this idea in the crib. He figures that if he slings enough of the mud of “fraud” at it, no one in an official capacity will dare support the idea for fear of being tainted. If cowards who hide behind screen names, who have the nerve to pretend they know something they actually don’t, are listened to and taken seriously … all new ideas will be in serious trouble.

My concern is that someone so self-assured in their own ignorance just might be able to have a negative impact on new urban farming projects if their words are not challenged. So, no matter how uninformed these cowards’ cries of “fraud” are, it’s nonetheless fighting words they threw in the direction of progress, and I’m damn sure going to fight back … I have no choice.

The fact is, the cowardly posters are really the fraud because they didn’t bother to do one bit of research before making such reckless charges. So it’s left up to me to explain some things to them … knowing full-well they really aren’t open-minded enough to listen since they simply are hoping and praying that any and all efforts by those on the economic margins of society to solve their problems via their own initiatives always fail, and fail abjectly.

That’s what haters do, pray for others to fail.

Additionally, there is a syndrome, a malaise, a disease if you will — which exists among some haters in some cultures that goes like this: “If I can’t figure out how to do a thing, if I can’t make it work, if I can’t be successful at it … then obviously nobody else can.”

Such outright arrogance is oftentimes race-based (rooted in the belief that blacks simply are not as capable as others – which demonstrates sheer, willful ignorance in regards to the centuries of contributions blacks have made to this country) and is literally astounding in this day and age. The thinking of some haters is “not only is it important to me that I win, but it’s also just as important to me that you lose … so that my negative view of you is confirmed.”

If the anonymous haters truly wanted to be enlightened before making allegations of potential fraud they would have at least gone to Will Allen’s website, Growing Power, and taken a look. Or if they really wanted to “see” for themselves (as they say), all they have to do is take a trip to Minneapolis. It’s all there and experiencing it, it’s easy to understand why Allen received the Genius Grant. They even give tours at $10 a head (although the line was very long when my wife and I visited two years ago) … a fee which I will gladly help pay for these doubters if they can get off of their collective lazy asses and make the trip … something I seriously doubt. It’s far, far too easy to sit at home at your computer and make spurious charges than to expose your mind to accurate information.

That’s what haters do.

The doubt and question from Ferris, which is a fair and rational one, had to do with Allen stating he can make an acre of land produce $100,000 in revenue. She wrote, “What crop would generate $100,000 an acre? I come from a family of farmers and I cannot imagine any crop bringing $100,000 an acre no matter how rich the soil. Sorry it seems too good to be true.”

And she’s right … at least as far as her thinking goes. The fact is, there is no way any farmer (planting corn, soybeans or any other such staple crops in traditional rows) can realize $100,000 per acre — anyone should know that’s totally impossible. But what Allen is doing in Minneapolis only resembles farming to the extent that he plants seeds, grows crops and harvests them … similar to all other farmers. The similarity, however, abruptly ends there. Maybe I should have explained his techniques last week … my bad.

In essence, Allen has radically altered farming, at least in an urban setting, and it’s very labor-intensive … which is great because that creates jobs. His three acres of greenhouses, outbuildings and animal pens, in addition to being a beehive of activity, are actually “vertical” farms: the first level is comprised of large tanks where fish (tilapia and yellow perch) are farmed; above the fish tanks lettuce is grown on racks, and above that grows specialty herbs that local chefs simply love because of their freshness. The process utilizes a piping and pumping system Allen and his experts devised that re-circulates the nutrient-rich water in a closed, natural system.

Above the lettuce and herbs, shitake mushrooms ($12.00 per pound) are grown on logs that hang suspended from the ceiling. His nearby worm beds create casings ($5.00 per pound) which, outside of bat shit (yes, bat shit, or more politely “guano”), is the richest soil amendments on earth. He even “makes” his own contaminant-free soil that he sells and uses in his raised beds. Every inch of space on his three acres is utilized to bring in huge yields, which, in turn produces maximum revenues. But truly, seeing is believing.

When Will Allen visited our vineyard last year (while he was in Cleveland conducting a seminar at Rid-All’s greenhouses), he smiled, nodded, and said something no other visitor had ever said; he called it “esthetically pleasing,” which is a big part of what our team was seeking to achieve: take a vacant lot and turn it into something beautiful and productive. We have some amazing photos of what we’ve been able to accomplish so far on our websites: http://ChateauHough.org and http://NeighborhoodSolutionsInc.com.  Allen then proceeded to give me some sound tips on maximizing yields and controlling pests that none of the grape experts I’ve consulted over the last few years bothered to mention to me … perhaps because they simply are not aware of his innovative — but proven —techniques. Knowledge, especially in urban agriculture, certainly is power.

He also, in conversation, mentioned that if he had the capacity to grow a million pounds of yellow perch he could easily sell it all … the market for it is there. The demand for the local food products his trained urban farmers grow (in forward-thinking locations all over the world now) is sky-high because — surprise! — there are some people who simply love what he is doing … and want to be part of the locovore movement. And they willingly put their dollars where their hearts are.

They know that Allen, in addition to growing food, is solving centuries-old social and economic problems by creating employment for disadvantaged populations … utilizing modern, innovative and sustainable urban farming techniques.

But of course it’s far easier to stay home and cry “fraud!” … especially if at heart you’re just a hater. What … is that the agonizing sound of full-fledged hating I hear emanating from the peanut gallery of Internet naysayers? Gee, imagine that.

                                     *   *   *

Another reader commented on the fact bonds used to fund the proposed demolition of houses have to be repaid … which is technically true. But the fact is, the money has already been allocated from the feds and the State of Ohio has only used about 20 percent of it; if the remainder of it, if it isn’t used in a set period of time, goes back to the federal government. Now even haters wouldn’t want that … would they?

Below is the legal underpinning of the bond program (for anyone wishing to wade through this kind of boring stuff). But my point is, people should take the time to educate themselves, and not determine what someone else is capable of doing based solely on their own marginal skills, lack of vision … and, most of all, sloth.

H.R. 656 is divided into two sections: 1) the qualified urban demolition bond (QUDB) program, and 2) the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) amendment

QUDB Program

”H.R. 656 creates the QUDB Program. Under the QUDB program, Ohio’s county land reutilization corporations (CLRCs) would be authorized to issue special, 30-year bonds. The interest payments on these bonds would not be paid by the CLRCs, but rather would be paid by U.S. Treasury. The CLRCs would be responsible for repayment of the principal balances after 30 years. So the QUDB Program essentially allows CLRCs to take out 30-year, 0 percent interest loans. If the state or county government or philanthropy places 40 percent of the bond issue into a sinking fund on the date of the bond issue, there would be no need for the CLRCs to repay principal at the end of the term. So, if Ohio places $90 million into a sinking fund, then the CLRC’s would be immediately given about $225 million for demolition with no repayment obligation incurred by any entity The QUDB Program therefore amplifies state and local money pledged for demolition by 250 percent.”

HHF Amendment

H.R. 656 authorizes OHFA to spend any amount or percentage of Ohio’s HHF allocation “to demolish blighted structures. H.R. 656, however, does not require OHFA to spend any money on demolition. H.R. 656 does not offer any limiting definitions or restrictions on the meaning of “to demolish blighted structures. The authorization is strikingly broad. HHF Amendment also includes a HHF allocation clawback: 25 percent of Ohio’s HHF funds which are unspent in mid-2015 are taken out of the state’s allocation.

Now I’m sure that clears everything right up … everyone now understands bonds, right? But the real question is, why I even am bothering to respond and attempting to educate some folks who — no matter the logic of the arguments or validity of the evidence presented — are going to stay stuck in their own negative past?

I guess the answer is that new ideas have to be protected and nurtured if they are to be allowed to grow and blossom … something that’s already difficult enough to do in the local barren soil of the willfully visionless, the dedicated haters, and the small-minded naysayers.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day … even if the urban farming enterprises didn’t create one cent of profit — if they simply broke even — but created jobs, reused land and provided healthy food for residents … that still would be considered a big win.

 

He Said What?

A news article regarding Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks in a drug case recently heard before the Court is highly illustrative of the inner-workings — and failings — of our federal criminal justice system. According to the article by David G. Savage, writing for the McClatchy Newspapers chain, Justice Sotomayor “filed a rare statement commenting on the court’s refusal to hear an appeal.”

The Obama appointee to the Court took a federal prosecutor to task for “citing the race of a defendant as grounds for convicting him of a drug deal.” She wrote that the prosecutor had attempted to “substitute racial stereotype for evidence and racial prejudice for reason.”

Those words were a strong rebuke from Justice Sotomayor, who is becoming more vocal in her comments from the bench, and in this case the harsh words certainly were warranted … and perhaps didn’t go far enough. Justice Stephen G. Breyer signed on to the statement, and added, “I hope I never see a case like this again.”

The facts are essentially this: Bongani Calhoun was indicted on a drug conspiracy and his defense was that while he did go on a road trip with some friends, he didn’t know they were planning to purchase cocaine … which, admittedly, would sound a little fishy to a jury. Two of his co-conspirators testified that Calhoun knew what was about to go down, and the $400,000 in cash they were carrying in a bag is what’s known in DEA detective work as a “clue.”

But what Sam Ponder, the assistant federal prosecutor in San Antonio, said in the courtroom when Calhoun took the witness stand was that “common sense” should inform the jurors as to why the men were in the hotel room, and he then went on to say, “You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say ‘This is a drug deal?’”

Was the jury to suppose — from the prosecutor’s statement — that had the men in the room been white, everything would have been hunky-dory … that whites normally conduct business in hotel rooms, with large sums of cash, and everything is on the up-and-up? Justice Sotomayor, who once was a prosecutor in New York, further wrote: “By suggesting that race should play a role in establishing a defendant’s guilt, the prosecutor here tapped a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our nation … it is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century.”

While Justice Sotomayor was right to be outraged at the prosecutor’s remarks (he later made the lame excuse his words were “taken out of context” … an excuse that doesn’t pass the straight-face test since he made the same comment during his closing argument), she should have been equally outraged at the defense attorney who sat in the courtroom and said absolutely nothing at the time.

Either Calhoun’s lawyer was totally inept for not realizing how prejudicial the comments were, and for failing to call them to court’s attention (he immediately should have jumped to his feet, objected, and call for a mistrial), or he was deathly afraid of the might of the federal government and elected to remain silent out of a form of timidity seen all too often among members of the defense bar.

This type of outrageous conduct by federal prosecutors is, in part, what spurred now-deceased Harvard Law Professor William J. Stuntz to write The Collapse of American Criminal Justice, who writes, “The rule of law has vanished in America’s criminal justice system. Prosecutors now decide whom to punish and how severely.” His call for a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system is being noted in the highest levels of the legal profession profession, but sadly, no organization is making too much noise; which raises the question: Why? Clearly something is amiss.

In America we’re not supposed to attempt to frame even those we highly suspect of being guilty … and the real question is, why hasn’t this prosecutor been fired?

Commonsense seemingly would dictate that the judge hearing the case would have taken note of such a racist remark and addressed it in the proper judicial manner, but, after all, the case was in Texas, so the judge also remained mute, when ever a first-year law student would have known how far out of line the comment was. The end result was that the defendant paid the price for the judicial malfeasance: he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.

Certainly the facts of the case are such that, even without such prejudicial comments, Calhoun was likely to be convicted since his co-conspirators turned on him; however, the fair administration of justice — again seemingly would dictate — that such racially inflammatory comments would be challenged at some point in the process, but they weren’t. And since the attorney failed to do his job in court (or in the initial appeal) the Supreme Court ruled that Calhoun was not entitled to get a new trial … in spite of the prejudicial comments made by the prosecution.

The ruling brings to mind the case of a prisoner condemned to death who, in the 1990’s, petitioned a Virginia Circuit Court to review new evidence on his behalf. Then Attorney General Mary Sue Terry argued against such a review by stating: “Evidence of innocence is irrelevant.”

Cases are often overturned citing “ineffective assistance of counsel” and this case is so egregious, so beyond the Pale, that it calls into question the “effectiveness” our entire system of justice at the federal level. To deny an appeal in a case that was so obviously flawed in the manner in which it was handled by the attorney of record — to keep someone in prison because the lawyer didn’t do his or her job — makes a mockery of justice and threatens the rights of all citizens.

The fact Justice Sotomayor later wrote a scathing condemnation of the prosecutor’s actions is all well and good, but in the end her screed amounted to little more than her throwing a judicial hissy fit … in the end, the man is still in prison, is being denied a new trial, and the law — once again — is being made into a complete ass.

 

From Cool Cleveland correspondent Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com. Frazier’s From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://www.neighborhoodsolutionsinc.com.

Post categories:

• News
• Mansfield Frazier
• Civic Affairs
• Commentary
• Green
• Politics
• Entrepreneurialism
• Technology
• Garden