UK Anti-War Movement Protests Against US/UK/Israeli War Threats Against People In Iran

Oakland Police Use Tear Gas Against Occupy Oakland Street Protest

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 5

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 5 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

In 1927 a second congress of the repressed Persian Communist Party [PCP] was held and PCP activists decided to work underground for the following aims in Iran:

1. elimination of Iranian monarchy and rejection of an Iranian “bourgeois” parliamentary republic;
2. national rights for all nationalities within Iran;
3. a new army of workers and peasants for Iran;
4. confiscation of all installations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in Iran;
5. abolition of foreign concessions in Iran;
6. establishment of agricultural lending banks;
7. surrender of all Iranian religious endowments and Iranian big estates to Iranian peasants;
8. confiscate the property of the Shah of Iran, the Iranian aristocracy and Iranian tribal chieftains; and
9. abolish all debts owned by the Iranian peasants.

The following specific political demands were also made by the Second Congress of the PCP in 1927:

1. full freedom for Iranian labor unions and Iranian political organizations;
2. Iranian government recognition of labor unions;
3. free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to strike be established in Iran;
4. collective bargaining and contract rights for labor unions in Iran;
5. establishment of a minimum wage in Iran; and
6. housing be provided for Iranian workers in the oil and fishing industries.

Two years after this 1927 PCP Congress, oil industry workers in the Khuzistan area of Iran went on strike. But by 1931, Reza Shah Pahlavi’s regime had formally outlawed even more extensively the PCP and the PCP’s front groups under the June 1931 Anti-Communist Act. So by the end of 1931, around 150 Iranian communist activists were being held in the Reza Shah Pahlavi regime’s prisons. Yet between 1933 and 1937 a discussion group of left intellectuals in Iran, led by Dr. Taghi Erani, was still able to start and publish abroad, in Europe, a theoretical journal, titled Donya (‘Universe”), to promote the democratization of Iranian society. (end of part 5)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 4

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 4 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

On July 31, 1920 a National Committee for the Liberation of Persia was set up by the non-communist Jangali leaders and their Persian Communist Party allies, and in mid-August 1920 the revolutionary army of the National Committee for the Liberation of Persia marched on Tehran. The UK imperialist-backed Iranian central government’s army, however, was able to defeat this revolutionary army.

On February 26, 1921, the Soviet government then signed a friendship treaty with the pro-British Iranian central government to withdraw all Soviet troops from northeast Iran by September 21, 1921. Once the Soviet troops were gone, Reza Khan Pahlavi’s Iranian central government then was able to more easily decrease the Persian Communist Party’s political influence in Iran by the end of 1921.

At the end of 1921, however, there were still 10 labor unions or guilds in Iran, with 10,000 members, that represented bakers, printers, telegraph workers, tailors, street cleaners or government employees. The newspaper that expressed the political goals of these Iranian unions, Haqiqat (‘Truth’) promoted the following four demands during the early 1920s:

1. lift martial law in Iran;
2. amnesty for all Iranian political prisoners;
3. confiscate and distribute the lands of those who had abused Iranian peasants’ rights; and
4. distribute Iranian state land among Iranian peasants.

By 1922, worker membership in Iranian trade unions had increased to 15,000, with 12,000 of the unionized Iranian workers living in Tehran. Around 1,000 Iranians were also still members of the Persian Communist Party in 1922. But by 1924 the number of Persian Communist Party members had dropped to 600.

And after Reza Khan--backed by the Iranian landlords, the Iranian Army and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which ruled southern Iran—became the Iranian monarch in 1925, he then both suppressed the Iranian trade unions and began to outlaw the Persian Communist Party. (end of part 4)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 3

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 3 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

Between 1941 and 1978, the Tudeh Party was generally the most mass-based Iranian left-wing party to oppose the Shah of Iran’s U.S.-supported dictatorial regime. Yet prior to the Tudeh Party’s founding in 1941, there had been previous attempts by people in Iran to politically and economically democratize Iranian society.

During the Iranian Revolution of 1905 to 1911, for example,, equal rights under the Constitution of 1906 had been obtained by Iranians of Jewish background. In April 1918, a group of Iranians, the Adalat Group, had also been founded to politically oppose the Iranian monarchy, the Iranian clergy and the privileged Iranian landholding aristocracy.

During the Russian Civil War that followed the October 1917 Revolution in Russia, Soviet military and naval detachments that were pursuing the anti-revolutionary White Russian troops temporarily entered Northeast Iran on May 18, 1920. Aided by these Soviet troops, a non-communist Jangali movement, led by Kuchek Khan, then sought to liberate Iran from its oppression by UK imperialism, its anti-democratic Iranian clerics and its anti-democratic Iranian feudal landholders. And the Jangali movement proclaimed the establishment of the Gilan Republic in Northeast Iran on June 4, 1920.

Influenced by pro-communist and left sectarian Iranian activists, however, the Gilan Republic then began to distribute anti-religious propaganda in the small area of Iran it controlled and closed 19 mosques. It also prohibited religious instruction in its schools and decreed that Iranian women should be forcibly unveiled. Predictably, the Islamic clergy opposed such measures and the still religious Iranian peasants were alienated by the Gilan Republic’s anti-religious policies-- despite the fact that the Gilan Republic’s land reform decrees would have benefited these same peasants economically.

On June 23, 1920, 37 members of the Persian Communist Party (which had been created by members of the Adalat Group) then held their first congress and proposed the following political and economic democratization reforms for Iranian society:

1. overthrow of British imperialist domination in Iran;
2. confiscation of all foreign enterprises in Iran;
3. recognition of the right of self-determination of all nationalities within a unified Iran;
4. confiscation of all the land of big Iranian landowners and its redistribution to Iranian peasants and to the soldiers of an Iranian revolutionary army.

(end of part 3)

Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 2

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 2 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

During World War I, an increased number of Czarist Russian army troops occupied Iran in the north, while an increased number of UK troops occupied Iran in the south. Following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, Russian troops were soon withdrawn from Iran. But in 1918, British imperialist troops occupied all of Iran, created a puppet Vosugh al-Dauleh government on August 6, 1918 and forced the puppet government to sign an even more exploitative Anglo-Iranian Treaty than the ones that previous feudalist Iranian governments had signed.

In reaction to these moves by UK imperialism in Iran, Iranian tribes in rural Iran, predictably, began an uprising between 1918 and 1922 in which they attacked British occupying troops. By early 1919 the anti-imperialist Iranian mass uprising had forced the Iranian puppet regime to revoke its Anglo-Iranian Treaty; and by 1920 some Iranians had even formed the country’s first communist party.

After the now-deceased Shah of Iran’s father, Reza Khan, pulled a coup in February 1921 that overthrew the previous puppet government of UK imperialism in Iran, the anti-imperialist revolt in Iran began to wind down. A constituent assembly in Iran was then established and, by December 12, 1925, Iran’s constituent assembly had stripped the Qajar royal dynasty members of their royal family privileges. Reza Khan was, instead, then proclaimed “Shah of Iran” and renamed “Reza Shah Pahlavi.”

Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran between 1925 and 1941. During his reign, workers and peasant movements were persecuted and, in the 1930s, strikes of Iranian workers at the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s refineries were suppressed by his regime. After Soviet Union troops and British government troops both marched into Iran during World War II in August 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi was compelled to abdicate because of his previous expressions of support for a Nazi Germany military victory. His son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (who wasn’t considered as pro-Nazi), however, was allowed to replace him as the new Shah of Iran. For most of the years between 1941 and early 1979, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would rule Iran as a dictator, with the bipartisan support of the U.S. White Corporate Male Power Structure’s government. (end of part 2)

Time to Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 1

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 1 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

By the early 1900s, Iran (which was then more commonly known as “Persia”) was pretty much a semi-colony of the UK and Czarist Russia. A government controlled by the Qajar royal dynasty of Iranian feudal landowners had handed out telegraphy, railroad and other commercial concessions to British and Russian business people during the late 1800s, after the British imperialists opened the Shahanshah Bank in 1889 and the Russian imperialists opened the Discount-Loan Bank in 1890.

In the early 20th century the British imperialists received what would turn out to be its most valuable concession from the Qajar dynasty’s government: a concession for the exploitation of Iranian oil. By 1909, the British company that exercised a special influence in Iranian society for much of the 20th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, had been founded. By the early 1900s, foreign advisers had also been put in charge of Iranian customs and finances by the subservient feudalist Iranian government. The southern part of Iran was by then dominated by UK imperialist interests and the northern part of Iran by Russian imperialist interests.

Not surprisingly, in reaction to increased domination by foreign imperialist economic interests, nationalist consciousness began to grow in Iran in the late 19th century and various secret anti-government societies were formed by Iranian intellectuals who sought democratic reforms and an end to Iran’s semi-colonial status. By 1905, the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911 had begun.

The demands of the revolutionary movement were anti-imperialist and anti-feudalist; and, during this revolutionary period, there was an uprising in the Iranian city of Tabriz in 1909. But both the Czarist Russian government and the UK government decided that their special imperialist economic interests were threatened by the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. So at the end of 1911, the Czarist Russian troops and the British troops that were stationed in Iran united with their reactionary Iranian domestic allies and suppressed by force the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. (end of part 1)

Australian Anti-War Activist Joan Coxsedge's Summation of 2011

In a November 27, 2011 letter from Australia, long-time Australian anti-war activist and writer Joan Coxsedge (who’s also a former elected anti-war member of the Victoria State parliament in Australia and a long-time Latin American solidarity activist) summarized 2011, from an anti-war and anti-imperialist left perspective, in the following way

"Christmas is coming. It always does. And 2011 is nearly over. In some ways the quicker the better, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and fly in/fly out visits of foreign leaders like Barack Obama, treated like a hero when he’s anything but, gearing up to bomb Iran using bodgie UN and IAEA reports. Hypocrisy on steroids. The US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons – the only country to use them – and Israel has over 300, both with a long history of invading and occupying other countries. Iran has no such history. But we suck up to Obama, who treats us like mugs, using us to help contain China. A ‘special relationship’? Don’t make me laugh. More marines and more US snooping. Let’s not forget 1975 or Malcolm Fraser’s role in it.

"So eat your pud, put on a party hat and for a brief time forget the mess we’re in where big money is pulling our strings. The bigger the money, the bigger the crime, the bigger the corruption. Despite the clowns in parliament yelling abuse at each other, we’ve seen a convergence of the two party system where a new economic extremism has come into play regardless of party label. Today we’re all customers and clients in the ‘market’ and the lack of alternative policies and useless media have left us sleepwalking into economic mayhem. Few understand that Wall Street deliberately planned the housing bubble, spending billions on advertising campaigns to con people into taking second mortgages, forking out money they simply didn’t have. The bubble burst and the state galloped to the rescue. Socialism for the rich.

"The crisis spread to Europe and rules were flushed down the toilet. The EU stepped in to impose austerity measures and save the banking systems, but not the people. The Greek elite was blackmailed into total submission, bringing the country to the edge of chaos. Greece should have defaulted, quit the Euro zone, re-introduced the drachma and organised from the ground up, Tariq Ali writes. It didn’t default and Italy was next. In recent months, three other highly indebted countries - Ireland, Portugal and Spain – have either gone through or are on the verge of changing government. Germany is now in the queue. Each time, the push has come from big business. Papandreou and Berlusconi were forced from office – without any democratic legitimacy - and replaced with unelected technocrats and hedge fund shysters who get their orders from the European Central Bank and the IMF, with barely a yawn from our media. Apparently not interested that two elected governments were overthrown in what are virtual coup d’etats, ignoring that what ultimately toppled Berlusconi was not moral outrage but international finance capital.

"`To save the euro we had to destroy Europe’, said one leading US financier, which translates to ‘the reign of banks requires the end of democracy’, which is why there’s a growing feeling that major policy decisions are being made in secret by a cabal of immensely powerful people who are by-passing elected governments. Heavily involved is Goldman Sachs, referred to as Wall Street’s secret society. Former employees now head the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the US Treasury and work in the White House. Mario Monti, the unelected replacement for Berlusconi is on Goldman’s board of international advisers, Lucas Papademos who replaces Papandreou is a member of the Trilateral Commission and much else and the European Central Bank’s new boss, Mario Draghi, is also former managing Director at Goldman Sachs and a lot more. At this year’s highly secretive Bilderberg meeting for global high-flyers - Hilary Clinton was there - topics included modifying the public mind to accept a world without borders, fast-tracking austerity measures and extending the influence of transnationals and banks over Western politicians. These are the creeps who will use their power to smash the lives of ordinary people. Out unions, out the welfare state and out public assets, all of which will intensify the slump, shrink government revenues, increase unemployment and foment social unrest. Peaceful protests will turn into pitched battles as working people fight to have their voices heard. A situation all too reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s that paved the way for a Nazi takeover. Opposition is growing but lacks a clear perspective. Strikes and protests are important but not enough. This life-and-death struggle requires a clear socialist perspective and programme.

"In the Middle East, Assad’s enemies are closing in for the kill and Syria’s fall will throw the entire region into turmoil, sowing the seeds of future conflicts, which seems to be the idea. No surprise that in NATO’s ‘New Libya’, terror is spreading via US, French and British SAS units, known locally as ‘disappearance squads’ where people associated with Qaddafi are being ‘disappeared’, just like the murderous years in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a hint of irony, ‘New’ Libyan radio has reported that ‘one of the worst aspects of the Qaddafi era was his welfare state’, complaining that Libyan workers were ‘too coddled’ because they had job tenure, government subsidies of about $800 a month, petrol at about 60 cents a gallon and the highest standard of living in Africa. For NATO and its corporate mates, such prosperity for workers simply will not do. In our New World Order, workers must struggle and be dealt with by violence if they dare to fight back. And fight back we must. In big ways and small ways like helping us support Cuba. So come and join us on December 5 for our final fund-raiser for 2011! In the meantime, stay safe and enjoy time with friends and family. Viva!"

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 12

Real estate developers like the Simon Properties Group [SPG] that have signed master leases with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or Department of Transportation that govern what kind of residential apartment buildings can or cannot be constructed on the Copley Place project’s public land site are usually required by the Attorney General of Massachusetts to abide by the use restrictions that determine what percentage of the rental units in Copley Place project residential apartment buildings “must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.”

According to the March 27, 1985 "Cooperative Housing Area Notice of Sub-Sublease between Urban Investment & Development Co. and Copley Place Cooperative Corporation, "the premises" of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street, for example, are "subject to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions dated March 27, 1985," which states in Section 7: Assumption of Certain Obligations:

"7.1. Obligation to Provide Housing.
"Reference is made to the obligation of Urban, pursuant to Schedule C of the Master Lease, to construct `at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and the requirement that `a minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.' The term `low income' is further defined in the Master Lease.'...

"Urban, for itself and on behalf of the successors in title to the Rental Area, hereby agrees that the Rental Area should be used to provide 26 units of housing available for rent at all times throughout the terms of the Master Lease to persons and families of low income.

"The provisions of this paragraph may not be amended unless such provisions as amended are consistent with the requirements to provide housing set forth in Schedule C. of the Master Lease." (See Bk 11488/074 to 095 in registry of deeds).

Yet although 25% of the 104 residential units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are required, at all times, to be low-income rental units, according to the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (C.H.A.P.A.) Mass housing access web site none of the 26 rental units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are currently low-income residential rental units, 3 of the 26 rental units are market rate residential units and 23 of the 26 rental units are moderate-income residential units.

So, ironically, it appears that the real estate developer that now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 to increase the percentage of luxury residential units on the public land (by building a 47-floor skyscraper on top of the Neiman Marcus anchor store) may already be violating the terms of both its Master Lease with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Section 7.1 of the March 27, 1985 Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions governing The Residences at Copley Place apartment building at 16 Harcourt Street.

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' ' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 11 (Mel King's Open Letter)

In November 2011, former Massachusetts State Representative and 1979/1983 Boston Mayoral Candidate Mel King explained why the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA], the Democratic Patrick Administration and the Democratic Menino Administration should not allow Simon Properties Group [SPG] to reconstruct and expand the Copley Place project (by building a 47-story skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units and an enclosed “winter garden” on the Copley Place project land in 2012) in the following “Open Letter to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas Menino”:

“To the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Governor and the Mayor

“This is a request that you not be guilty of promoting a segregated housing program here at Copley Place . The Copley Expansion Project that is under consideration under your leadership should not be allowed to go forward. There are many reasons that have been raised by way of serious objections from the local community to the plans for The Copley Expansion. For me, the most crucial one, the one I believe causes the most harm, is the acceptance of a proposal that will; A) Allow segregated housing on public land and B) Create conditions that will further exacerbate the housing problems and the ability to exist in this neighborhood by folks of color and persons of lower income. The economic and social diversity of our community is threatened.

“I have spent a large part of my life dealing with segregation. What is the most egregious and one of the most serious aspects of this proposal, is how many people turn a blind eye to the kind of impact that projects based on segregation like this will have on individuals. I have heard the voices of the youth who clearly see that they are being pushed out of the South End. They understand far too clearly that the policies and practice are geared to the study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that says that in the next 20 years over thirty percent of the people who are living in Boston whose incomes are low will be living at least 25 miles from the center of the city. So when you understand that and you attend meetings where there is an indifference to these issues, it reminds me of the signs that I saw when I went South to college. So it is not a question for me of whether there will be 25 percent of the housing as affordable or not. I start with the fact that this is a project or process that one cannot trust.

“One of the things that we hear about The Copley Expansion Project is that they will create some jobs and therefore the scars that it places on people of color do not matter. This is part of the reason why it took so long to end the segregated systems both here and in the South. Yes, there were some people who stood because they understand injustice. The fact of the matter is that if the people themselves who were affected had not stood up and marched and did not face the cattle prods and the fire hoses and sometimes death; things to whatever extent would have not changed. I feel, and see, a similar thing that is necessary here. It is interesting that in the shadow of the Expansion Project there are folks who are involved in Occupations as a way to confront and expose the same kind of behavior which put profits before people’s humanity and dignity.

“You, as elected officials, and as members of the Boston Redevelopment Authority have a moral of responsibility and we do not want you to get sucked in with a policy that is geared to dehumanize. You have a chance to establish a policy of inclusion where all the tribes are welcome and all the gifts are shared. It’s time for you to step up and provide leadership based on justice. The issue of jobs and money is what allowed slavery to exist. Do not become advocates for a system that uses the public land to put greed before a person’s dignity, a community’s dignity and spiritual and mental health. Make it known that projects like this are not welcome.

“Mel King”

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 10

Simon Properties Group (SPG) now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 by adding a 47-story skyscraper of 320 mostly luxury residential units that will reduce the percentage of low-income residential units on the Copley Place project’s public land to below 16 percent.

Yet the South End and Back Bay neighborhood community benefit that was incorporated into the April 30, 1980 UDAG application and the 1978/80/82 lease/amended lease/sub-lease for the Copley Place Project requires 25% of the residential units on the Copley Place public land to be affordable to low-income and minority tenants. And a Boston Globe article of 12/23/78 by Anthony J. Yudis originally described the planned residential portion of the Copley Place project as "a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development." Following is the complete text of the December 23, 1978 Boston Globe article:

"Gov. Michael Dukakis and the Massachustts Turnpike Authority yesterday signed a long-term lease agreement with a Chicago development firm which plans to build a $250 million residential-hotel-shopping center-office-garage complex in Copley square.

"The lease signing with Urban and Investment Development Co. (UIDC) of Chicago came after more than a year of negotiations by the Chicago firm, the state and representatives of surrounding neighborhoods and organizations.

"Gov. Dukakis, before the signing ceremony, termed the project, Copley Place, `a national model for successful citizens participation in the planning and design of large scale urban projects.'

"The project plans, which now will be going through reviews and negotiations with the city of Boston, would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike ramp network, a 9.5 acre open site bounded by Dartmouth and Harcourt streets, the Southwest Corridor abutting the South End, and Huntington avenue.

"The commitment calls for an 868-room Western International convention-oriented hotel; two and possibly three major department stores on a five level plan; some 400,000 square feet of smaller-retail shops on a three-level shopping mall; a 1400 to 1800-car garage; a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development and a 600,000 square foot office building.

"Frank Keefe, director of state planning who coordinated the year-and-a-half planning effort, said the lease signing represented a lot of `firsts.'

"He said they included provisions in the lease that commits the development firm to assure the employment of a minimum of 20 percent minority construction workers with `good faith' effor to exceed that figure.

"Kenneth Himmel, project director and vice president for UIDC--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--estimated the project would provide 1300 to 1400 construction jobs during a three-year period.

"The lease also will require that 50 percent of the permanent jobs will go to Boston residents--50 percent of them women; 30 percent minorities and 17.2 percent residents of the immediate impacted area (including Chinatown, South End, Fenway, South Cove, and Back Bay). Himmel said that 6000 to 6500 permanent jobs would be available, depending if two or three department stores are built.

"Also, the state will commit state rent subsidies for 50 existing houses and families in the South End who might be impacted by rising rents as a result of the new project nearby.

"Keefe, mindful of dissent over the project plans from some organizations and neighborhood groups, despite the citizens' involvement, said every effort has been made to come up with a good plan.

"The project was endorsed by the Back Bay Federation for Community Development comprising representatives from the residential and institutional life of the Back Bay, and the Back Bay Assn. The endorsement was coupled with concerns for further refinement in areas of pedestrian access, environmental issues, scale and size, hotel tower location and continuation of the citizens review process. The latter also was made a part of the lease commitment.

"The Back Bay Neighborhood Assn. issued a separate statement, saying the organization supported a development over the turnpike but `does not support the proposed Copley Place project.'

"The organization objects to the size (3.8 million square feet, compared to 2.8 million square feet for the Park Plaza project in Park Square), traffic impact and air pollution.

"Himmel, asked about the unresolved neighborhood concerns, said: `During the first 9 days (1979) we plan to try to resolve our differences. There are some questions on our own minds and I think the direction we go in would be satisfactory.'

"He said there is a possibility of diminishing the size. He anticipated an agreement would be signed in February or March for the hotel with basic site work beginning during the summer.

"In September, work could start on the hotel, retail, office and housing elements, he said.

"Robert Ryan, head of the BRA, which will now inherit the planning process from the state, said he hopes that problems could be resolved in early 1979.

"Under terms of the Turnpike Authority lease, to run 40 years with renewal to 99 years, the Turnpike Authority would receive annual rent ranging from $140,000 in year one, to $920,000 in the 10th through 15th years, with increases after that determined by a formula based on the inflation rate. From the 30th to the 40th years, the rent would be about $2.7 million and after that year the rent schedule would be renegotiated.

"Mayor Kevin H. White's office issued a statement lauding the state's accomplishment. He said his administration is sure that the several remaining steps will be resolved. The jobs the development would bring are crucial to the city, he said. The city is negotiating with UIDC on a tax agreement covering the various buildings to be constructed.

"Also endorsing the program was Greater Boston Convention and Tourist Bureau, Inc., as `the most significant addition to Boston's convention facilities since the construction of the Prudential Center complex.'"

An article by William J. Lewis that appeared in the Boston Herald-American on December 23, 1978 also stated that "the agreement reserves 15,000-20,000 square feet of space for neighborhood-oriented businesses, half of which are to be minority-owned or community development corporations;" and "the development will include a 868-room convention-oriented hotel, two to three department stores, more than 100 shops and restaurants in an enclosed central mall, a 600,000 square foot office building, 1800-space parking garage and 150 units of mixed-income housing."

Judy Clark's Trial & Sixth Amendment Violations

As a recent New York Times article indicated, 1981 Brink's Case defendant Judy Clark still has not apparently been released by New York State authorities. Yet before a U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit trio of judges (that then included soon-to-be-named U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor) overturned a lower federal court decision in the Clark v. Perez case in early 2008, lower federal court Judge Scheindlin had issued the following ruling on September 22, 2006:

"...There were two separate violations of the Sixth Amendment during Clark's trial: 1) the court should not have granted leave for Clark to represent herself; and 2) in any event, her pro se status should have been terminated when it became clear that no one would be in the courtroom to represent her interests during the presentation of the prosecution's case. Both problems constitute structural defects in Clark's trial...

"...The core of the constitutional defect is found in one snapshot from Clark's trial. During the prosecutor's opening statement and during the government's entire direct case against defendants, which spanned at least seven trial days, no one was present in the courtroom to represent Clark's interests. Clark was without assistance of counsel for her defense, in clear abrogation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel...The proceedings at issue, with no one sitting at the defense table during the prosecution's entire case would have appeared unfair to many people with knowledge of the constitutional right to counsel or a respect for our adversarial system of justice...

"The trial judge was obligated to procure standby counsel for Clark when her inability to proceed according to court rules and protocol led to the absence of any representation at all during vital portions of her trial...

"For the reasons set forth above, Clark's petition is hereby granted and her conviction is reversed. The State must conduct a new trial within ninety days of this Order or release Clark from confinement...SO ORDERED S.D.NY 2006"

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 9

Regarding the BRA's undemocratic decision to approve Simon Properties Group/Copley Place Associates' planned reconstruction of Copley Place--in order to reduce the percentage of low-income residential units in the HUD Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG]-funded Copley Place project to less than 16%-- the following facts should be considered in 2012:

1. As the Boston Globe reported on Dec. 23, 1978, former Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed a long-term lease on Dec. 22, 1978 with Urban and Investment Development Co. [UIDC]--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--in which it was agreed that the Copley Place project would just include "a 150 unit low and moderate income housing development" during the 99 year period in which the lease remained in effect.

2. On Jan. 31, 1980, former Massachusetts Gov. King and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed an "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC which states on pages 14 to 15 of its attached Schedule C: "Housing: The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing. A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income."

3. On Apr. 30, 1980, Mayor Kevin White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston a "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] Application To The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development" which stated the following:

"The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place...In the final months of the year, UIDC, the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:...2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households..."

4. On the "UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing" document which the City of Boston submitted to HUD in 1980 it states that 25% of the units to be constructed on the Copley Place project site are to be "low and moderate" and "Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority."

5. In their Aug. 11, 1980 "Response By The City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning The Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant," City of Boston attorneys stated:

"From the CRC review process has come significant design change and affirmative action commitments. These include the following, many of which have been incorporated into the final air-rights lease between UIDC and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority...3. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing, with at least 25% for low-income households.

"With regard to the housing to be constructed as part of Copley Place, there is little question that it will further fair housing goals...For the record it should be noted that there will be at least 100 units with 25% designated for low-income households. This provision was incorporated into the Air Rights Lease through the efforts of the Citizen's Review Committee. In conformance with Federal guidelines, the developer will submit an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. The Mayor's Office of Fair Housing will provide technical assistance to the developer in designing and implementing the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan...

"...The complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incoporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application.

"In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreement cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units with 25% reserved for low income households..."

6. The Aug. 31, 1982 sub-lease between UIDC and UIDC of Massachusetts states the following in Section 6:12 on page 17: "Regulations: Affirmative Action. Urban Investment and Development Co. supports the Affirmative Action and Resident Preferences set forth in Attachment C of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant Application for Copley Place..."

7. Section 11.6 of the January 31, 1980 "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority indicates on page 39 that any reconstruction of the Copley Place project is "subject" to "the use restrictions of Section 6:12" regarding affirmative action in the allocation of both Copley Place project jobs and Copley Place project residential housing units.

8. In his Nov. 15, 2011 memorandum to William Tuttle, Deputy Director and Robin Blatt-Eisengat of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Office of Real Estate and Asset Development, Andrew Royce of Sherin and Lodgen LLP notes that "after the first 15 years, Tenant may" only "construct additional improvements subject to...non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements;" and that "Schedule C, entitled HOUSING, states, in part `The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and `A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low-income.'

Given these facts, Simon Properties/Copley Place Associates would appear to be violating the affirmative action use restrictions of the 99-year lease between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Copley Place project developer, as well as the community benefit terms and community benefit intentions of the City of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant application, if its reconstruction of Copley Place decreases the percentage of Copley Place project low-income residential units below 16% between 2012 and 2077.

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 8

As noted in the Meeting Summary of the Copley Place Expansion Project CAC for November 9, 2011, Robin Blatt, MassDOT, claimed that the "the original lease as part of the original” Copley Place “project stipulated that 25% of any units built at the time, for that project only, would have to be affordable,” “this was extinguished when the Harcourt Street residences were constructed,” and “moreover, this part of the lease had a sunset clause that expires after 15 years."

But in the April 30, 1980 "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application" that Boston Mayor Kevin White submitted to HUD there's no public mention of the lease allegedly containing a "sunset clause that expires after 15 years" or the 25% low-income units requirement for the whole Copley Place project included in the 99 year lease being "extinguished when the Harcourt Residences" are constructed.

Yet the "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application To The U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development" that Mayor Kevin H. White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston on April 30, 1980 does state the following:

“The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place …In the final months of the year, UIDC [Urban Investment & Development Co.], the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:

“…2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households…

“…UIDC entered into a 99-year agreement with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in December, 1978, amended January 1980…”

In addition, page 118 of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” is a copy of a form submitted by the City of Boston, titled “UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing” which also indicated that 25% of the new units to be constructed are to be “low and moderate;” and states that “Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority…”

And in the “Assurances” section of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” on page 145, the City of Boston also “certifies that it has not knowingly and willfully made or used a document containing any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.”

Since one of the "additional community benefits" included as part of the 99 year lease as part of the "many community recommendations" incorporated "into a final air rights lease" is the "at least 25% for low income households" benefit, a reconstruction of the same project that increases the total number of on-site residential units in the Copley Place project in a way that reduces the percentage of low-income household units to below 25% contradicts what the City of Boston stated in its April 30, 1980 UDAG application (although it looks like the proponents of Simon Properties Group and Neiman Marcus’ “Jim Crow” reconstruction/skyscraper are apparently also constructing a legalistic rationalization for scrapping the required 25% low-income units requirement/community benefit on the Copley Place project public land in 2012).

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 7

Simon Properties Group [SPG]’s attorney, James H. Greene of the Rubin & Rudman corporate law firm, has claimed at recent Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA] and Boston Zoning Commission hearings that Simon Properties is no longer required to keep 25% of all residential units constructed on the Copley Place Project land affordable to low-income and minority tenants who wish to live in the Back Bay/South End neighborhood of Boston until 2077 (as mandated by the Section 16 housing affirmative action and residential affordability provisions of the 1978 and early 1980s master and amended master leases between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the original developer, the UIDC subsidiary of Aetna Life).

Yet in its August 11, 1980 "Response by the City of Boston to an administrative complaint submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Group," the City of Boston attorneys, themselves, stated:

"Again, the complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incorporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application .

“In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreements cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units of housing with 25% reserved for low-income households, and provisions for 15,000 to 20,000SF of community retail space with 50% reserved for Community Development Corporations and Minority Business Enterprises at below market rents...."

But, coincidentally. according to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance website data, the proposed Copley Place Reconstruction project's lead architect, Jack Hobbs of Hingham, Massachusetts, gave 5 campaign contributions--totalling $1,100--to Mayor Menino's campaign committee between May 16,2005 and November 4, 2010.

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 6

The Indianapolis, Indiana-based Simon Properties Group [SPG] should not be allowed to enclose the public open space at Stuart and Dartmouth Street in Boston’s Back Bay/South End neighborhood and add a massive 47-story “Neiman Marcus Tower” skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units to the Copley Place project (atop the shopping mall’s Neiman Marcus anchor store) for the following nine reasons:

1) As Judge Caffrey noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum in the Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce case, “ Copley Place is a…multi-use development of housing, 25 percent of which are to be subsidized.” Yet of the 318 units of additional residential housing units that SPG/Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to Copley Place , less than 16 percent are to be subsidized, in contradiction to Judge Caffrey’s August 17, 1981 legal memorandum.

2) As Judge Caffrey also noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum:

“In April of 1980 the City of Boston submitted to HUD a UDAG [Urban Development Action Grant] application for Copley Place , and HUD announced preliminary approval of the funding on October 9, 1980…The City of Boston and HUD signed a formal UDAG contract in the early months of 1981.”

Regarding the contract between HUD and the City of Boston that provided the original developer of Copley Place with over $18 million in public UDAG federal funds, in its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston indicated that the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA]'s previous review of the proposed Copley Place project determined that HUD’s $18.8 million UDAG was to be used to develop “landscaped open space” at the Dartmouth and Stuart Streets site—not an enclosed “winter garden” that’s linked to a 47-story skyscraper residential addition to Copley Place and reconstruction of its anchor retail department store, Neiman Marcus. As the City of Boston noted in its August 11, 1980 response:

“…The development site will be landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation…These areas include…the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets…At the Dartmouth/Stuart entrance to the retail center the public mall and plaza entrance will be constructed over the Turnpike deck. This entrance is designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square and a gateway to Copley Place …

“At the Dartmouth/Stuart Street entrance to the proposed retail development, the Turnpike will be decked and a public plaza and mall entrance will be constructed. This entrance will provide a spatial extension of Copley Square and act as a major focal point. The public plaza and mall entrance will cover approximately 21,800 square feet…

“…The project would not reach a fair level of return without such a UDAG investment…

“The Boston Redevelopment Authority will be the recipient of the UDAG funds from the City. The BRA will administer the grant and loan portions of the UDAG…UDAG funds are in fact necessary to the construction of Copley Place …”

The terms of the 1981 UDAG contract between the City of Boston and HUD do not authorize any current or future private developer (such as SPG/Copley Place Associates) to construct an enclosed “winter garden” and a 47-story skyscraper residential addition on the “landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation” and 21,800 square foot “public plaza and mall entrance” at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets.

So without HUD approval of amendments to the 1981 UDAG contract, SPG/Copley Place Associates should not be allowed to now reconstruct Copley Place --especially given the opposition of most Back Bay and South End neighborhood residents. As section 570.463 of HUD UDAG regulations on “project amendment and revisions” notes, “applicants…must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment” to a UDAG-funded project and “a significant amendment involves new activities or alternations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities...”

3) In its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston also asserted that the “construction of Copley Place will further the objectives of the UDAG program by…creating opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities.”

Yet of the 318 units of addition residential housing that SPG//Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to the partially HUD UDAG program-funded Copley Place project, less than 16 percent of the constructed new residential units would create residential “opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities;” and the Indianapolis-based SPG/Copley Place Associates executives have indicated that if the City of Boston now requires their proposed Neiman Marcus skyscraper/Copley Place residential addition to contain 25 percent subsidized units that are affordable for low-and moderate income people and minorities—as mandated by the late 1970s and early 1980s Copley Place project development legal agreements—they would be unwilling to build any additional residential units on a construction site which previously received over $18 million in HUD UDAG program federal funds.

4) The 1,558 parking spaces that SPG/Copley Place Associates controls are often filled to capacity during the Boston Red Sox baseball season, during the workweek, and on weekends at the peak of the tourist and shopping seasons. So adding at least 300 more cars of the residents of the proposed 47-story skyscraper residential addition will likely force many more non-residents of the neighborhood to park on nearby streets, and, thereby, reduce the parking spaces available to South End and Back Bay neighborhood residents.

5) If the 47-story skyscraper is built, the wind force level on pedestrians on the street at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets is expected to increase by 20 percent; and the shadows cast over Copley Square during workweek lunch hours between October and March—when this public park is most crowded on weekdays during these months—are also expected to increase by 20 percent. In addition, the proposed 47-story skyscraper is expected to cast a shadow over the Commonwealth Mall park space at around 9 a.m. each day—at a time when the Commonwealth Mall is being used most by people in the Back Bay neighborhood who pass through Commonwealth Mall each day as they walk to work or to the Copley Square subway station.

6) At a recent public meeting in the Boston Public Library, little specific information or visual material indicating how the construction site area at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets and the surrounding neighborhood streets are going to be affected or inconvenienced during the 3 years it would take to complete the proposed 47-story skyscraper/enclosed “winter garden”/over-development project was provided to the public. No mention was made, for example, of the amount of fugitive dust that will be created so close to the Back Bay Station (which is used by large numbers of commuters) during the demolition part of the proposed construction project. Nor was there any discussion of whether current crane safety precautions in Boston to assure pedestrian, commuter driver and construction worker safety are sufficient to build a 47-story skyscraper (over a 1 to 3-year period) in a highly windy area of heavy foot and car traffic, and where the ground regularly shakes as trains pull in and out of Back Bay station (and which even experienced a recent earthquake tremor).

7) Regarding the crane safety issue, the City Council in New York City requires, for example, that in Manhattan “prior to a crane’s initial erection or dismantling, the general contractor must hold a safety coordination meeting;” and “a pre-jump safety meeting must take place no more than 24-hours prior to each instance of a tower or climber crane jump or climb.” In addition, “the general contractor must notify Department of Buildings at least 48-hours before any safety coordination meetings or pre-jump safety meetings are held, and these meetings must cover topics related to scope of work, roles and responsibilities, rigging equipment, sequence of operations, inspection of rigging equipment tools prior to work, review of all equipment, permit validity, qualifications and training of personnel, relevant weather warnings, compliance with the manufacturer’s manual.”

8) Regarding the promise of 1,700 temporary construction work jobs that SPG/Copley Place Associates’ proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition over-development project would provide, at the recent BPL public meeting no specific break-down on how long each of the 1,700 temporary construction job positions created actually would last or which of the expected temporary construction worker jobs will actually be filled with Boston and/or South End and Back Bay residents was provided. Does the “1,700 jobs” estimate, for example, include particular construction work jobs that will only last less than 3 months? Are the Boston and/or South End residents who get hired to work on the proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project only to be allowed to fill the temporary construction jobs that pay the lowest hourly rate and/or last less than 3 months?

9) Between the time that SPG/Copley Place Associates first proposed to build a 47-story “Neiman Marcus” Tower and enclosed “winter garden” (mainly to apparently provide more potential local residential customers for its anchor retail department store tenant) and April 2009, construction work on 29 skyscraper construction projects in the United States were halted because of the U.S. economic recession. And since the U.S. economy is expected to be in an even deeper economic recession in 2012 and 2013, there’s a possibility that SPG/Copley Place Associates would also eventually be forced to halt construction of its 47-story skyscraper and enclosed “winter garden” if its proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project is begun in 2012.

Given the Simon Properties Group’s current financial condition, it’s not totally impossible that it might be forced financially to halt construction of this proposed 47-story skyscraper construction project before completion, if a post-2012 economic recession intensifies. Regarding SPG’s current financial condition, Wayne Gorsek, for example, expressed the following opinion in his September 2 and September 5, 2011 column on the Seeking Alpha website:

“Simon Property Group, Inc (SPG) is a mall REIT that owns and manages retail mall properties…Fundamentally, the stock looks way overvalued….There is a high chance the USA will enter another recession and this will cause people to stop spending at high price retailers (Saks (SKS), Nordstrom (JWN), etc.) in the malls that Simon owns. This can reduce their revenues as part of their revenues are based on the sales of the retailers in the malls….Look at 2009, these high price retailer sales plummeted as did their stocks, 2011 2nd half and 2012 will look very similar to 2008 and 2009, in my humble opinion, based on massive fundamental facts regarding world debt, deficits and economies.

“Reviewing cash flow at Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG) and using it to support an approximate $34 billion valuation does not add up. Cash flow ending in 2010 shows a negative cash flow of $3.1 billion. First half of 2011 shows negative cash flow negative of about $7 million.

“Massive debt and liabilities at SPG total $19.648 billion dollars. This creates a high degree of risk for a company relying on high priced retailers in mall locations to maintain profitability. Another risk would be higher interest rates and this could rapidly destroy their earnings.

“The risk of world and USA economies heading into a double dip recession is a high probability. If this occurs, look at the 2008 and 2009 performance of SPG during the prior recession, it dropped from over $100 per share to under $30 per share in less than one year! A potential loss of 70%! … A quick review indicates numerous insiders (executives and directors) sold over $60 million worth of stock from Dec 2009 to August 30, 2011. In fact there was not one insider purchase during this time frame as indicated by Yahoo finance reports. Massive insider selling by numerous officers and executives as in the case of Simon Property Group is a major red flag….”

For all these reasons, the SPG/Copley Place Associates’ “Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition” reconstruction project that would over-develop the Back Bay’s Copley Place (mainly for the benefit of private, special corporate interests) should not be allowed by the City of Boston and the State of Massachusetts to go forward; and the “landscaped open space” at “the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets,” which is now “designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square” and a “spatial extension of Copley Square” in “the public plaza,” should now be maintained in accordance with the terms of the HUD-City of Boston formal Urban Development Action Grant contract of 1981.

Upton Sinclair On The Politics of U.S. Publishing Industry

In his 1937 message "To the Reader" that preceded the text of his 1937 book about Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company's hidden history, The Flivver King: A Story of Ford-America, U.S. left-wing writer Upton Sinclair wrote the following about the politics of the U.S. publising industry:

"Thirty-five years ago I dedicated my life to the cause of justice for the American workers. In the course of those years I have published fifty-nine books and plays. Some have been successes, some failures. When I made money, I have spent it to finance new books, or to circulate the old ones. Nineteen times, by actual count, I have been forced to deal with a new publisher, because my new book was considered too dangerous by the old publisher. On as many occasions I have had to publish the new book myself, because it was too dangerous for any publisher I could find.

"The last experinece was with a novel called No Pasaran! (They Shall Not Pass): A Story of the Battle of Madrid. This was an effort to help the new Spanish democracy, and I sold most of them below cost. The significant fact is that not one of the literary organs of this country, not one of the big newspapers of New York, so much as mentioned the book. Yet it was judged worth publication as a serial by a leading newspaper of Paris, and was advertised on billboards all over that city; in six months it has been published serially in a score of different languages, and has been published or is being prepared in book form in a score of countries. It has been published by the government in Spain, and is being made into a motion picture in Barcelona.

"The books of Upton Sinclair have been issued in more than seven hundred editions in foreign countries, including more than forty different languages, practically all those spoken by civilized peoples. The foreign sales have amounted to more than ten millions. But the job of getting these books to the people in my own country has been a hard one, because books are sold for high prices in America, and the people for whom I write books have little money. Now a new labor movement with enlightened leadership has been born; and this brings me great satisfaction, because I have been calling all my public life for mass unions of the workers. I am glad to have my books read by the men and women who are going to build the happy society in which our children will live, and I am content to get along without the honors and applause which a writer wins by catering to the leisure class booktrade."

Black Worker Jobless Rate Increases To 15.8 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 15.5 to 15.8 percent between November and December 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data; while the unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 13 to 13.9 percent during the same period. The jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 39.6 to 42.1 percent between November and December 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 15.7 percent in December 2011.

The number of officially unemployed Black workers increased by 79,000 (from 2,783,000 to 2,862,000) between November and December 2011; while the number of jobless Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 91,000 (from 1,184,000 to 1,275,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also increased from 6.5 to 6.8 percent between November and December 2011; while the number of unemployed Asian-American workers increased by 34,000 (from 480,000 to 514,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

Between November and December 2011, the official jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 9.8 to 10.5 percent, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 102,000 (from 1,285,000 to 1,387,000) during the same period. The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all Latino or Hispanic workers was still 11 percent in December 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic women workers over 20 years-of-age was still 10.3 percent in that same month. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age was also still 26.3 percent in December 2011

The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 20.3 percent in December 2011; while the unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.5 percent during that same month. In December 2011, the jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age was also still 6.8 percent; while 3,713,000 white female workers over 20 years-of-age were still unemployed in that same month.

The number of white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age who had jobs also decreased by 15,000 (from 3,751,000 to 3,736,000) between November and December 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the total number of white workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 109,000 (from 124,652,000 to 124,543,000) during the same period. And in December 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,097,000; while the official jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was stilll 8.7 percent in that same month.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ January 6, 2012 press release:

“…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed...

“About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in December, little different from a year earlier…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…Among the marginally attached, there were 945,000 discouraged workers in December…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“…Employment in sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores fell by 10,000…Construction employment changed little in December…Employment in professional and business services changed little in December for the second month in a row…Government employment changed little in December but was down by 280,000 over the year. Job losses in 2011 occurred in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service…”

2012 GOP Presidential Candiate Ron Paul Spoke Out Against Obama's Illegal War In Afghanistan in 2010