Category: Housing Activism

  • Apryl Lewis is in a housing fight — again. This time, she is pushing to keep dozens of families from being put out of a Charlotte extended-stay motel that is scheduled to be shut down in a matter of weeks. Such motels cost as much as $500 each week, expensive compared to long-term housing. But many of these families are living paycheck-to-paycheck or on fixed incomes, and have no other option.

    “They can’t afford the move-in costs for an apartment,” Lewis said. “Landlords want up-front rent and utilities and a security deposit. Now they are even making people pay for rental insurance.”

    Others stay at the motel because they are shut out of traditional housing due to a past eviction or criminal record. Some simply can’t find a suitable place to live in a time when rental vacancies are at historic lows.

    The good news for the motel residents is that this is not Lewis’s first fight. An organizer for Action NC, Lewis coordinated “Cancel Rent” protests at the local courthouse in the early days of the COVID pandemic, led tenants in chants of “housing is a human right” at various government meetings, and organizes canvassing and phone banks, pulling together tenants to advocate for their rights. A current focus is calling out corporate landlords, like the one in Charlotte who was repeatedly cited for refusing to address rampant mold, vermin and dangerous wiring.

    In early September, Lewis and other tenants joined with other organizations that, like Action NC, are affiliated with Center for Popular Democracy, to make an uninvited appearance at the Washington, D.C. meeting of a trade association of corporate landlords. Dozens of tenants took over a conference room, poured themselves glasses of the fancy lemon and orange-infused water, and chanted, “Corporate landlord you can’t hide, we can see your greedy side.”

    “We go everywhere,” Lewis said. “We not only go door-to-door, we do banner drops and disrupt official meetings — just be there and be loud so they can’t ignore what is happening to these tenants.”

    Lewis has fought for her own housing, too. As a single mom, she more than once had to scramble to keep from being evicted, despite working two and sometimes three jobs. “The rent kept going up, so I had to be pretty crafty just so I could keep my daughter housed,” she said. When Lewis later began working with youth and families as a counselor, the challenges they shared with her kept coming back to housing, far and away the top expense in most U.S. households.

    The tenants Lewis works with are not alone. More than 10 million U.S. renters report being behind on their rent, and thus in imminent risk of eviction. Sixty-five percent of those behind on their rent are people of color. These Americans desperately need housing assistance, but unlike Medicaid or SNAP (food stamps), federal housing programs are not an entitlement. Families and individuals may qualify for housing help, but they only get that assistance if there is supply available. And it is usually not available. Only one in four eligible persons are able to receive a federal housing subsidy, leaving over 8 million households eligible but unsupported.

    As grim as those numbers are, they may soon be getting worse. Rent prices on average rose more than 16 percent during 2021, and went up more than 20 percent in some cities. A recent study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that every $100 in average monthly rent increases is associated with a 9 percent increase in homelessness. So it is no surprise that, by mid-2022, homeless shelters were reporting a surge in people asking for help, with waitlists doubling and tripling as a result.

    Corporate Landlords and Housing Racism

    The United States is often referred to as having a free market economic system, but housing in this country does not remotely resemble an unfettered market. Federal, state and local governments have eagerly assumed roles as major players in the housing business. The problem is that the government’s heavy hand in housing is usually placed on the scales on the side of the wealthy. Over the past decade, corporations have taken advantage of significant tax breaks to dramatically increase their holdings of both multi-unit rental properties and residential homes. Institutional owners — corporations or limited liability companies — now own the majority of all U.S. rental units and 80 percent-plus of the properties with 25 or more units.

    As Lewis and others familiar with U.S. rental homes can attest, this is a problem. Corporations are demonstrably more eager to evict and less responsive to maintenance needs than smaller landlords. Tenants struggle with out-of-state landlords that leave mold unaddressed, broken appliances and windows unrepaired, trash not picked up, and even fail to pay for water and other services. “And too often they blame the people living there, saying they don’t keep their homes clean,” Lewis said. “Corporate landlords should be regulated like banks.”

    U.S. housing dysfunction is grounded in a long legacy of racist housing practices. During the early and mid-20th century, the federal government used homeownership subsidies to benefit whites and exclude Blacks, while restrictive covenants prevented Blacks from moving to the neighborhoods where mortgages were easier to obtain. With homeownership the top means for accumulating wealth in the U.S., generations of housing and income discrimination has left Black homeownership rates — and wealth — far below those of their white counterparts. Housing racism is the core reason why white U.S. households have on average 10 times the wealth of Black households.

    The trends continue today. The current scourge of absentee corporate landlords and speculative purchasing of homes is disproportionately visited on Black and brown communities. It is a trend reminiscent of corporate purchases made in those same communities during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. During that recession, Black household wealth — much of it dependent on home values — fell nearly 50 percent.

    That all leads to grimly predictable outcomes. Black families are more than twice as likely to be renters as white families. Among renters, Black renters are far more likely to be evicted than white renters, with Black women and children the most likely of all to be thrown out of their homes. Nearly one in five Black or Hispanic children have experienced eviction by age 15. “A lot of things in housing have not changed since the Jim Crow era,” Lewis said. “To address it we have to address the racism.”

    A Robust and Growing Movement

    Activists like Apryl Lewis have the public’s attention. Polls show both a great deal of contemporary concern about housing and a commitment to remedying the problem. A 2021 survey showed that two-thirds of Americans in growing metropolitan areas are “extremely/very concerned” about homelessness and the high cost of housing, ranking it as their top priority. “Housing is the most critical component for a successful community,” Lewis said. “A lot of issues we are struggling with, like crime, are connected to people not being able to stay housed.”

    At a more individual level, housing insecurity is associated with all manner of health crises, from asthma and heart disease to violence and suicide. “If you are not secure in your housing, your mental health is in jeopardy. You are always stressing, you are always at level 10 because you are fighting for housing,” Lewis said. “I can tell you myself that me sitting here in a comfortable position in my housing, my thought patterns are way better than when I was struggling to stay housed.”

    So it should be no surprise that surveys also show that three-quarters of Americans agree with the tenants chants in Charlotte and around the nation: safe, secure housing should be considered a human right. Those Americans are not content for that right to be an abstraction: The vast majority of people expressing support of housing as a human right also support expanded government programs to make that right a reality.

    Federal-level housing efforts include Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Homes for All Act, which would devote $1 trillion to building 12 million new, permanently affordable public and social housing units. It would also repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which in 1998 responded to the deterioration of public housing by blocking new public housing construction. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition is leading a “HoUSed” campaign to expand rental assistance to every eligible household and create a national housing stabilization fund to provide emergency help.

    Meanwhile, there is robust and successful activism going on at the state and local level. Activists using tactics ranging from occupying vacant buildings to canvassing to pushing ballot initiatives have won commitments for expanded affordable housing support in cities like Minneapolis, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore and Los Angeles. Community activists are engaged in current housing campaigns in Las Vegas and New York. Rent control advocacy is ongoing in California, Florida and Michigan, with a recent rent control victory in Minnesota. San Francisco is now requiring landlords to recognize and meet with tenant associations or face a mandated rent reduction. Activists in cities like Indianapolis are persuading their local governments to follow the European example of directing public real estate and public funding to social housing.

    Religious communities are engaged with the movement. The federal HoUSed campaign is joined by Catholic Charities USA, the Union for Reform Judaism and the national leadership of the Episcopal and Methodist churches. As for the Action NC housing effort in Charlotte, it counts as a key ally St. Martin’s Episcopal church.

    Several homeless people live on the downtown Charlotte grounds of St. Martin’s, and the congregation welcomes and supports them. After a group visit to the local eviction court and conversations with several of the Action NC leaders, the congregation decided to focus on housing justice. “We wanted to see how we could be of help before a family becomes evicted, before someone becomes homeless,” St. Martin’s mission board president Kay Miller said.

    So St. Martin’s parishioners have staffed a tenant crisis hotline and recruited pro bono attorneys to help families facing eviction. A new team has pulled together to do phone canvassing of tenants living in some of the worst corporate-owned housing in Charlotte. They are discussing the possibility of following other churches’ leads in helping low-income homeowners pay off the property tax bills and fines that often causes a family to lose a home, and even exploring how to help create more affordable housing units.

    “I give credit to the people of St. Martin’s for showing us how community and faith-based groups can really help the movement,” Lewis said. “I try to push faith groups into action, not just praying, and they are definitely taking action.”

    Social, Not For-Profit Housing

    A common theme of housing activism is the need to move away from expectations that the private, for-profit market will solve our crisis. The big picture, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has written in her book, “Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership,” is that entrusting a human right to profit-seeking entities will inevitably lead to suffering. “Satisfying basic human needs, like the provision of shelter, medical treatment, water or even education run counter to business’s objective of maximizing return on investment or simply making money … One of the most pressing questions has been how to secure the provision of safe, sound, affordable and decent housing for everyone. The obstacles to that goal have always been business’s bottom line.”

    Increasingly, activists have been able to convince state and city governments that Taylor is right: the private housing market will never meet the needs of everyone in their communities. States like Rhode Island, Hawaii and Colorado are investing in building government-run housing, as are communities like Montgomery County, Maryland. Governments at all levels hold the power to solve the housing crisis. They can raise revenue for subsidized housing by taxing high-end housing and housing speculation. They can tightly regulate for-profit housing activity and exercise eminent domain, especially on vacant or distressed corporate properties. Governments can significantly increase the resources and power of public land banks to acquire property and transfer or develop it into affordable housing, and pass Community Opportunities to Purchase Act, or COPA, legislation, which gives the first rights of land purchase to tenants and the community. Governments can then subsidize those organizations’ development and maintenance efforts via public housing finance agencies.

    Housing activists’ demands like these are often framed with the term “social housing.” Social housing is publicly owned by either the government or non-profit organizations that respond to democratic control by residents. It is decommodified — protected from the profiteering of the private market — and affordable for the life of the building or unit, with no expiration date. Social housing sees housing as a human right, not a commodity or wealth-building tool. Like public education, public safety, our justice system, and infrastructure like roads and sewers and water, social housing recognizes that a place to live is a good that is too important to be left dependent on whether a family has enough money to ensure a profit to a private landlord or a bank.

    Apryl Lewis helped advise the Center for Popular Democracy in its manifesto in support of social housing published in March of this year. In Minnesota and New York, activist pressure led to corporate-owned properties being converted to community ownership, while public dollars for affordable housing are being raised in San Francisco via taxes on high-end real estate. COPA legislation has passed or is pending in multiple states and communities, including Washington D.C. and Portland. Baltimore community advocacy successfully forced the creation of a housing trust fund, and North Dakota, Philadelphia and California now have public banks to fund social housing.

    One social housing approach enjoying significant current momentum is community land trusts, which have a legacy that traces back to Black-owned projects like the New Communities that grew out of the southern U.S. civil rights movement. In a community land trust, the non-profit trust retains ownership of the land while the resident purchases the house on it. The purchase cost is lowered due to the discount for not buying the land, and the purchase is often supported with subsidies. In exchange for the reduced price and the subsidy, the resident’s resale price is limited in order to make sure the home is permanently affordable. There are now over 225 community land trusts in the U.S., with local governments supporting them by acquiring land and buildings from private ownership and transferring title to the trusts to develop and manage.

    The rationale behind all of these campaigns is simple, says Dianne Enriquez, housing organizer for the Center for Popular Democracy. “We just need to prioritize renters the way we have been doing for landlords. If there is a will, there definitely is a way.”

    A History of Successful Housing Activism

    An impressive history of housing activism supports Enriquez’s optimism. Nations like Finland, France and Singapore have far more affordable housing and far less homelessness than the U.S. The impressive social housing track record in those and other nations came about because of advocacy, including tenant and labor union campaigns in Sweden, grassroots organizing in Germany for expropriating corporate landlord property, activists occupying banks and homes in Spain and a broad socialist movement in Austria.

    Finland, Germany, South Africa, France, the Netherlands, and multiple other countries have created legal rights to housing and followed up the pronouncements with programs to ensure their enforcement. In Scotland, for example, which has enshrined a right to housing in its constitution and legislation, homelessness is “brief, rare and a non-recurring phenomenon,” writes Eric Tars of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

    The U.S. has its own record of successful housing activism. Rent strikes and community organizing led to rent control measures in 200-plus U.S. cities. Activism created the momentum for the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act in 1975, the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. The St. Louis rent strike of 1969, the first and still-largest U.S. public housing rent strike, helped shape the Brooke Amendment of 1969. The Brooke Amendment capped public housing tenants’ rent and increased federal subsidies for housing. Like other U.S. housing activism, the St. Louis strike had deep connections to faith communities. The strike was led in part by United Church of Christ minister Buck Jones, and buttressed by broad support from the local religious congregations.

    There is a shared theme among these movements: We can and must reclaim our housing system from those whose sole mission is to extract as much money as possible from people who need a roof over their heads to survive. It is a theme Apryl Lewis keeps in mind as she fights alongside her fellow tenants. “Our activism is radical, not violent,” she said. “The violence is what is happening to these tenants. The bills keep coming and they are increasing but wages are not.” And then Lewis repeated what tenants across the nation are saying in public meetings, corporate events and street protests. “At the end of the day, the rent is just too damn high.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • India Walton speaks to a crowd in Buffalo, New York. Walton's all-volunteer campaign for mayor defeated a four-term incumbent the in Democratic primary.

    Buffalo, New York, was alive and buzzing when this reporter visited in July. Summer festivals were underway, pandemic restrictions had eased, and India Walton had just defeated four-term incumbent Mayor Byron Brown in a Democratic primary bid a month earlier.

    It wasn’t just the multiplying yard signs bearing the name of a nurse and community organizer that suggested change was afoot in the Queen City. Brown and his entrenched allies have occupied Buffalo’s majestic city hall for nearly 16 years, and the excitement around Walton’s primary victory was the talk of the town, rattling the Democratic Party establishment in Buffalo and beyond. If elected, Walton would be the first Black woman to serve as mayor of Buffalo and the first socialist to lead a major city in decades.

    Brown launched a write-in campaign after losing the primary in June and received support from business interests and representatives of the city’s political status-quo, including Republicans. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed Walton this week, and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is campaigning for Walton in Buffalo. Brown and Walton will face off at the polls again on November 2, and if the race is close, it could take weeks to determine a winner due to the number of write-in ballots.

    For activists in Buffalo — Walton says her campaign “is the activists” — the election represents a major turning point for a proud rust belt city where economic revitalization has failed to conceal deep inequities. Truthout spoke to Walton on Thursday to learn more about her perspectives on housing, gentrification and racist policing — and why these challenges have voters in Buffalo clamoring for change.

    Mike Ludwig: I want to ask you first about housing, because when I first came to Buffalo in 2007, the West Side had maybe a 60 percent occupancy rate. And obviously that’s not the case anymore. It’s a very different city, at least in parts of the city, but economic recovery has not been equal everywhere. I know you have a background in housing activism, is that correct?

    India Walton: I kind of [got] into it accidentally, but that’s an accurate assessment.

    I’m curious about how housing laid the groundwork for your campaign or inspired you to run?

    You know, I was executive director of the Fruit Belt Community Land Trust and that happened because the community demanded it, right? We saw the growth of the Buffalo Niagara medical campus on the heels of a billion-dollar investment from the State of New York, and it didn’t translate into any improvement in the quality of life for the folks who live in the neighborhood.

    In fact, it had many negative effects. One of which was parking, and I helped work to put a parking permit system put in place, and the other was the speculation and the rapid increase in property values and rents. So, the genesis of the Fruit Belt Community Land Trust was really an effort by neighborhood groups to maintain their space in their own community and not be driven out by the rising housing costs.

    Working as executive director and trying to work with the city to have some of those 200 lots that they own in the neighborhood dedicated toward affordable housing and have the city be the barrier to progress, that really did motivate me to run and informed a lot of the decisions about why my housing policy and my platform looks the way it does it. It prioritizes people over profits and neighborhoods over corporate developers.

    Buffalo has experienced what some people might call a “rust belt revitalization.” There are more houses occupied now than when I first went there. I’ve always taken a nuanced view of gentrification in Buffalo because when I first came there, I would go down, for instance, Grant Street, and a lot of businesses were not open. Now Grant Street is bustling, but also the West Side has experienced rising housing costs. What are your thoughts on gentrification and what do your policies do about any inequities that come out of gentrification?

    There is a saying, you know, in the activist community : “Change is inevitable, but justice is not,” right? I think that the neighborhood change is cyclical, but poverty is a policy decision, and the problem with gentrification is that, those who are the most vulnerable in neighborhoods and communities are often the ones who suffer the negative consequences. The renters who now can’t afford a [home] in the neighborhood that they live in; the homeowners, the legacy homeowners who own homes for decades, who now, who their reassessments now are not conducive to being able to keep up with their tax bills. Not only that, but you know, the increase in policing and the style of policing, right? You see a lot of the policing of culture. We see a lot of folks who come from different communities move into diverse neighborhoods like the West Side and who are calling me complaining because they hear drumming in the evening. And that’s been happening for a number of decades on the West Side, but now because we have new folks moving into the community who haven’t integrated themselves into the culture, you know, it’s offensive to them…and they want it to stop.

    So, a lot of my policies just center on community building, right, on getting to know our neighbors, and so that we can have a relationship that prevents us from having this adversarial relationship, but also that honors the culture of existing neighborhoods. Buffalo has so many neighborhoods with their own character and their own charm and their own cultural subsets.

    Folks moving into the neighborhood should be able to add to it, but not take from it. So, it’s about protecting renters. It’s about opening up capital for homeowners to make improvements to their homes. It’s about development without this displacement. It’s about, when you want to build a building, you don’t build it on top of the people that currently there, you don’t build it without the consent of the majority of the folks that live there, you don’t build it and it doesn’t fit into the character and charm of the existing fabric of that neighborhood, you do in consideration of all of those things.

    So, you know, that is how our policy platform is centered, is around the people that currently exist, and in the spirit of lifting all boats, and hoping all folks have boats to begin with, and not allowing a rising tide to cast some folks away.

    I saw the community land trust model in your platform. How does that model come out of City Hall? I can imagine a non-profit running a community land trust, but how can City Hall help with something like establishing community land trust?

    That’s a great question. I mean, there are municipally supported land trusts all over the country. There’s one in Austin, Texas, and to a lesser extent in places like Boston at Dudley Street. You know, in Boston, Massachusetts, the City of Boston actually invoked eminent domain to allow Dudley Street to acquire land, to put in something into their land trust, right? And the city of Buffalo being one of the largest land owners in the city has a responsibility to have a disposition policy that prioritizes groups that are going to build affordable housing.

    So, the city of Buffalo definitely has a role to play in supporting the proliferation and success of community land trusts.

    And what about the East Side? Traditionally a majority-Black area, also Polish, but also has not seen the same kind of investment in development as the rest of the city. What are your thoughts about the East Side moving forward?

    Yeah, East Side’s going to be a priority economic development area for the Walton administration. We are going to prioritize mixed-use buildings on commercial corridors, like Michigan Avenue, Fillmore, Bailey; traditionally, those are our arteries that cross through the East Side of the city from north to south. And we’re also going to be focusing on affordable infill housing for ownership opportunities in our neighborhoods and, you know, coupling that with a very thoughtful strategic neighborhood plans that bring the amenities to the neighborhood. You know, taking better care of our public spaces, our parks, simple things like the environmental design, making sure that street lights are functioning, making sure that streets are paved, sidewalks are paved, that there’s crosswalks and grocery stores and just things that the East Side of Buffalo has been wanting but missing for a very long time.

    That’s so powerful because, for people who have not been to Buffalo, to hear that crosswalks and streetlights that work are what people have been wanting for a while, I think that paints a powerful picture. You said “infill housing,” is that correct?

    Yes, infill housing. So, on the East Side of Buffalo for a long time, the policy of the current administration to fight blight and vacancy was to demolish homes. So, you know, we have lots and lots of streets on the East Side where there’s… just a sprinkling of housing, and you can walk for several blocks and maybe only see two or three houses. They’re calling it now an “urban prairie.” The deer have come back into the city because there’s so much vacancy.

    There’s just all of these vacant lots and fields. You know, some folks have put them to productive use as community gardens, but we know there is a housing crisis. There’s a lack of affordable housing, both for renters and first-time homeowners. But there’s just really the availability of quality housing in Buffalo is pretty much nonexistent at this point.

    Last summer I was on the West Side and a group of African immigrant youth asked me if I would just walk around with them at night. And the point of them doing this (they were friends of friends) was to show me that they were being consistently harassed by the police. I walked around with them, and this is what was happening to them on a nightly basis.

    You have a strong police reform platform, but you seem to stop short of defunding the police and taking police funds and putting them into other areas of community development. What is your thinking on police and defunding the police, since defunding the police was such a strong call during the Black Lives Matter protests in the past year and a half?

    Yeah, I think using such simple terms to describe such complicated problems is just a general challenge, especially when we’re talking about electoral politics, right? “Defund” is the language of protest, and right now I need to be speaking the language of governance, the language of a mayor. You know, everyone doesn’t understand what that means in the same way that everyone doesn’t completely understand what gentrification means.

    Buffalo has a couple of things going on, right? Our police are not accountable. Our police practice racist and broken windows policing strategies that do not work to reduce crime. And at the same time, we have an uptick in violent crimes. A 17-year-old girl was murdered last night.

    So, we not only have to address our police transparency and accountability issue, but we also have to get to the root causes of crime, which at the foundation, at the very foundation, of it is concentrated poverty. It’s kind of a created disadvantage, and it’s community historical trauma that has gone unaddressed and unhealed for too long.

    Our young people shouldn’t be out in the streets at night and there should be something productive for them to do. Our young people and young adults shouldn’t have to resort to dangerous, underground methods of supporting themselves. They should have the availability of good quality jobs. And if they’re not equipped to work that job, there should be job training available to them in their neighborhood. We know that transportation is a barrier to accessing a lot of job training. We know that our literacy rates are, you know, pretty shameful here in the City of Buffalo.

    So, the answer should not be encapsulated in a single word, right? And that is why our public safety policy is very robust, but, you know, there is always room to reconsider how we spend our money. We have positions that are vacant and unfilled, and the money that we’re saving from positions that we’re probably never going to fill in the police department can be reallocated to make sure that we’re getting preventative mental health services and an improved homelessness outreach, and improved youth outreach services.

    The police budget has ballooned, and our youth services and community services budget has dwindled over the years. So, I’m not as interested in defunding the police as I am in refunding our community and making sure that services exist to keep our children off the streets and keep our community safe.

    With your campaign, you’ve definitely shaken up the Democratic Party in Buffalo, actually maybe across the country, shaken up what people think is possible in a local race within the Democratic Party. I’ve always thought that perhaps this reflects the deeply-rooted activist scene that exists in Buffalo. And I wonder how that has been part of your campaign. Has it been a grassroots campaign? Who has been supporting you in the streets, really, in the organizing to get out the vote?

    Yeah. The Indian Walton from for Mayor Campaign is the activists, right? It is the protestors. It is the thinkers, the progressive thinkers and doers in the City of Buffalo. It is a grassroots campaign. You know, we won the primary without a single paid staff member, all volunteers. These are folks who are showing up for me and showing up for us because they believe in what we’re trying to do. They’ve seen the failures of our city leadership and are craving change.

    It’s funny because a friend of mine just posted a memory of his from 2017 when we had our first “state of our city” address. And I was saying in 2017 a lot of the same things that I’m saying right now that I’m running for mayor, but this is years and years of building coalition and policy platforms. Now we finally have a chance to bring a lot of those policies into the light and into the forefront. And I don’t think there’s any person who lives in the city who will be disappointed when they see us implement a lot of these smart ideas that we’ve been trying to convince the leadership of this city for almost a decade are good policy.

    That’s interesting, right, that there has been a Democratic mayor for such a long time, but some of these policies that came out of community organizing were not picked up by city hall. Do you have any idea why that is? Why is it that you needed to challenge the existing Democrat?

    The feeling that I get being a lifelong Buffalonian is that they don’t care about us. They care about one another. You know, the power structure cares about folks who are powerful, folks who are wealthy, folks who are influential and have largely ignored the fact the power really rests in the hands of community members and of voters and residents of the City of Buffalo. And because we’ve allowed Democrats to coast for so long, largely going unchallenged, they’ve gotten very comfortable doing nothing, even when the people have placed a demand upon them. And I think that this campaign is a really significant signal that those days of the feet-warming, three-piece suit Democrats are over in Buffalo.

    This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.