Buffalo Criterion

Two comments made during the era of slavery:
"There is no Man so bad but he secretly respects the Good"- Franklin
"For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a
rival," -Frederick Douglas

DEMARCATION BY SKIN COLOR

This is a story about skin color, or race, or ancestry, as much as it is about government, so let us agree for a moment to use some terms of demarcation.
While there is no uniformity of skin color and our prehistoric ancestries are uncertain, we must still find an accurate way to label ourselves. The Buffalo News in reporting this story has used "white" for one group, and "black,""African-American," and "minority" to label the other. We hope to segregate the people of this story as neatly.
We could use, although cumbersome, the terms, Caucasian (C) and Negro (N) or, perhaps, European-Americans (EA) and African-Americans (AA) or People of Color (POC) and People without Color (PWC) or terms I've heard, "crackers"(C) and "niggers" (N). (I know these last terms insult peace, make mischief, and rise anger; I risk by merely mentioning these to draw ire upon myself, yet, I wish to make a point: Consider that these, especially the latter word, are more volatile than practically any other words of our language. Consider how dangerous mere words are, how horribly insulting. Therefore before we settle into intransigence, before we say one side is all right, or all wrong, remember how words alone can jolt and hurt.
At one time I thought it might be best to allow levity, to use ridiculous terms like "dusky-skinned people" (dsp) and "pale - skinned," (psp) or brownish -skinned (bs) and peach- skinned (ps), to take my palette and divide those whose skin is alike from pinto white (i.e. Highgrove honey, Venetian light, Belgian lace, [my own skin seems a cross between garden bench and Persian plum]) to golden charm, from those who are from shale, or, maybe, glove suede, to, proceeding darker, cordovan brown, or coffee. Hence to make our divisions seem absurd, i.e.. "A Persian Plum District Councilmen said to a Caramel Colored At-large member etc.."
But accurate skin color reporting will only distract. Our story is serious, somewhat. And knowing our ethnicity may not be true-blue either, we are in a politically (in)correct quandary. Is every black an African? Is every white European? Our ancestors, multitudinous hordes of them, mixed and bifurcated long before we kept track of time, and race, and ethnicity? "When Adam delved and Eve span who was then the gentleman?" This is not all black and white, as the expression goes. Yet tiny pin pricks bleed skins so thin, and red with pain; it may be best to use the simple, inaccurate, polarizing words like "black" (B) and "white" (W) to describe our skin divisions.

A BATTLE PLAN

A Buffalo Common Council resolution, sponsored by councilmen David Franczyk, who represents the Fillmore district, who is "white", and, who, ironically, represents a majority "black" district, calls for a reduction of the number of members of the council from its current 13 to nine to reflect Buffalo's loss of population. As far as it goes, this is right: People are leaving Buffalo. Most of them are white. Three of four seats to be cut by Franczyk's resolution are held by "blacks." The fourth is held by a "white," Rose Lotempio, who is rumored to be retiring.

Dramatically, the seven white members of the council support the plan, the six black members oppose it, and virulently.
Council President, James Pitts, (B) said he'll take this to "the streets," meaning, presumably, he will bring it to the people in the black community - and attempt to make this an issue where future votes are cast in consequence of decisions made on this issue. Some have wondered, aloud, (perhaps as race baiting) if what Pitts means by "the streets" is not some kind of thinly veiled threat of a race riot.
Pitts speaks of an America where there is "white skin privilege," meaning that light or rather Persian plum-skinned people have an advantage, as they move about the USA, among strangers generally, and those who would give them opportunity specifically, over those whose skin is closer to, for instance, mountain ebony. And Pitts (B) speaks about preventing the council from becoming a "white gentlemen's club." By this perhaps he means a group of people whose skin is more like the color of, as my pallette goes, of "French champagne," and whose sensibilities are devoid of that experience of coexisting among a majority of those people, when the color of your skin is closer to coffee. He sees America as racist and this plan as racist. He means to take it to the streets; and by this he means, he says, getting people to vote against it if it goes to referendum.

INCUMBENTS NOT GUARANTEED ANYTHING

The Franczyk (W) plan, if it passes in the council, and survives a mayoral veto, will go to referendum, where voters in this racially divided city will vote yeah or nay on it and, if it succeeds, will take effect January, 2004.
Under the plan, if all incumbents are reelected, the council would change from its current 7-6 white/black membership to one that is 6 white/3 black.
Supporters of the Franczyk (W) plan, however, argue that it is presumptuous to say that all incumbents would stay in office. Indeed, Franczyk's (W) own seat may be vulnerable, depending on how it is reconfigured during reapportionment. Franczyk (W) himself won election helped by that fortuitous event of having two blacks running against one white - him. Franczyk (W) said his plan is fair since four districts will have a black majority and four will have a white majority, and one could be either, potentially decided by a group of brown or Hispanic.

That district, named the Niagara, bounds the famed river.The reduction plan stems ostensibly from a desire to save money. If it were not for At-Large member Charley Fisher (B) and Pitts (B), it might readily pass. Fisher (B) who is running for the NYS assembly seat held by retiring incumbent, Arthur Eve (B), during one heated council meeting, stood and called a white member a coward, and one suspects Fisher (B), who once laid down in front of a moving garbage truck (while TV cameras filmed furiously) to protest the garbage/user fee might well do something equally "theatric" (W) or "heroic" (B) before this is all resolved.
Pitts (B), too, a cerebral and articulate man, and, depending on whether one admires or detests him, is either passionate and brilliant, or arbitrary and vindictive, said he is ready to "fight, street style," and clearly he is the undisputed leader of the pack (B), the man who must be heard; if it were not for he, there might be no issue. He will hold up summer intern money from Francyzk (W) and three other members (W) - viewed as retaliatory -- for their support of this plan which eliminates Pitts's job. The fight has more than begun.

A RACIAL SCHISM OVER WHAT?

Ironically, this reduction plan would result in negligible tax savings- perhaps only $600,000 in an $800,000,000 city (and school) budget. To put it in perspective, if your personal budget was $40,000 per year, it would result in a savings of $30 dollars. Still, symbolically, it may show city leaders are willing to make self-sacrificing measures to cure the city's enormous financial ills. It may not be the most judicious sacrifice, however, especially if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as monstrously racist.
One has little doubt that if the likes of Fisher (B), Pitts (B), Beverly Gray (B), Eve (B), Crystal Peoples (B),

Antoine Thompson (B), Brian Davis (B), Connie Eve (B), Loretta Renford (B), Maurice Garner (B), Darnell Jackson (B), Betty Jean Grant (B), Ron Fleming (B), Clarence Lott (B), Champ Eve (B), Vivien Jackson (B), Frank Messiah (B), Al Nisa Banks (B), Frank Merriweather (B), Chris Stevenson (B), Eva Doyle (B), Frank Gist (B), and a host of others (B) were to unite and take this to the streets (and the pulpits, and the press [B]) permanent damage may be done to some (W) politically. But some, both white and black politicians, might conceivably think they could gain from such a political race strife. Many whites, both urban and suburban, have little sympathy for the black council members. They think their protests self-serving and racist in reverse. More than a few applaud the white council majority for their 'brave" stand against the "tyranny" of the "minority."

BUFFALO NEWS

Among media, the Buffalo News deserves credit for treating the issue to a sober kind of coverage and one calculated not to exacerbate tensions. In this they are abetted by city hall reporter Brian Meyer's (W) knowledgeable coverage; if he has a bias, it is well hid, and Meyer writes in a straightforward, balanced way, not intended to excite emotions. The News has resisted sensational-izing this story and relegated it to bottom-of-the-fold local, or Metro page status, when front page, top-of-the-fold would sell more newspapers and perhaps by sheer gravamen is where the story otherwise belongs. Almost everyone likes to read about brewing racial havoc until a riot erupts. Then they blame it on the media.

REDUCING REPRESENTATION

Absent, however, racial considerations, politically, the Franczyk (W) resolution is really more about changing the structure of Buffalo government than tax saving. Consider: There are nine "district" council members who now represent specific neighborhoods and three "at-large" members, who represent the entire city, plus a council president who is elected city wide. Today one can call upon six different elected officials to serve them: the mayor, one's district council-member, any of three at- large members, or the council president to seek redress of, for instance, grievances. Under the new proposal, people of Buffalo would have a reduction from six to two, (i.e. the mayor and their specific district council member only.) Few so far have bemoaned this loss of representation, preferring the issue of race, money or symbolism.

RETALIATION FOR A RECALL?

The plan however has sparked grave concern among blacks that minority representation will be dramatically reduced; they have resolved not to let it happen. Expect a long battle, unless the mayor or some other voice dictates that this seemingly appalling fight be not worth the purported gain. Some have opined that this racial feud creates a distraction for Pitts (B) and is offered as a tit for tat by Mayor Anthony Masiello (W) - through his influence on the sudden shifting of the pivotal position of Lotempio (W) - in retaliation for a mayoral recall initiative that is underway, and that, according to varius sources, is either doomed to utter failure because of a feeble, underfunded effort by ex-mayor James Griffin (W), or already has more than 10,000 signatures on paper thanks to police and fire union help, a possum-playing Griffin (W) and Pitts (B) and Democratic Party Chairman Steve Pigeon's (W) sub-rosa collaboration.

INTRANSIGENCE

In Council chambers, Fisher (B), as he was accusing his fellow, albeit-white council member, Rich Fontana (W) of an absence of, literally, manhood, he was called to order, but mildly by President Pitts, (B) who tapped the gavel rather lightly. Marc Coppola (W) and the accused, Fontana (W), both objected to the name calling, and so perhaps intransigence has already settled in. Fisher, as he stood to denounce the plan, showed what one observer (W) said characterized true "black anger". I have heard Fisher denounced and praised for his action which many have watched as it airs repeatedly on cable TV. Fontana (W) perhaps surprised by Fisher's vehemence is likely angry now, as no man likes to be publicly called a craven. Where will it end? Will Fontana call him to duel? It is ironic too since the new lines of the Franczyk proposal seem to shift Fontana's (W) Lovejoy district from a majority white to a majority black district. One might have expected Fontana (W) to consider aligning, out of self interest, with the black members.

THE LONG HARD RUN OF RACIAL STRIFE

Absent, however, any political or self-serving considerations, one wonders if such a plan which sparks such anger and fear and galvanizes a host of ill-wishers segregated by race or skin color is not ill-advised, and whether we should not take pause, presume everyone is operating in the public interest, and look again to see whether a less controversial plan might be proposed?
In the long run, (or is it the short run?) we live and work together; these particular members have to serve together until at least December 31, 2003. That's a long run. Now that it is mired in strife and the intended symbolism of the cut is liable to be irrevocably lost, is this plan in the best interest of anyone? The public hearing set for July 22 may answer that question. Expect a large, mainly angry, possibly unruly crowd (B). By that time, this story may be widely reported. (The NY Times, the AP, and other publications may think their readers will be interested.)
In any event, a Pyrrhic victory seems the best anyone can hope for, but more likely the result will be akin to where two parties warring are seen salting each others fields and starving both.
Considering the amount of money saved, the loss of individual representation, and absent a hidden agenda- the one most often proffered by those who believe in conspiratorial, back-room politics is that of the evisceration of the city -a plan of city governance swallowed by regionalism (ie county
takeover - made easier - once those "meddlesome blacks" are out of the way), absent a hidden agenda - why risk all for such a unsubstantial accomplishment? Are there no bigger things to work on (or fight all summer and fall over) for the betterment of Buffalo than the symbolic downsizing of its council?