Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
Somerville City Councilor At-Large Willie Burnley Jr.
By Somerville City Councilor At-Large Willie Burnley Jr.
As your At-Large Somerville City Councilor, I’ve poured myself into making our community as welcoming as it can be for all. From making Somerville a sanctuary for those seeking gender-affirming healthcare to uplifting Somerville’s Black history by being the first person to name a park after an African-American (Leonard Grimes Park is on its way) to passing first-in-the-nation non-discrimination ordinances that protect non-traditional family structures from discrimination, I’ve sought to ensure that Somerville sends the message far and wide that we are an inclusive community. However, I know that there is no future for equitable inclusion without affordability.
Anyone will tell you that the cost of housing is at the heart of the affordability crisis in our region. As a renter who was displaced from Somerville several years ago, I know viscerally the stress, terror, and trauma that housing instability has on our neighbors. Unfortunately, the statehouse makes it nearly impossible for cities like ours to implement common sense housing regulations that would create stability for tenants. As such, while we fight to pass policies like rent stabilization and additional tenant rights, it is crucial that our city does everything in its power to reduce the burden on residents teetering toward the economic edge.
One way that I have pursued economic justice on the council is by proposing expansions to worker benefits. For example, in January, I sponsored an ordinance that would extend paid leave to survivors of abuse and violence. In Massachusetts, employers are required to offer up to 15 days of leave annually to employees who suffer from these horrific circumstances. However, it is up to the employer whether this leave should be paid or unpaid. As a result, survivors of domestic violence on average lose out on 137 hours of paid work a year. In order to support workers and survivors, we cannot economically punish them for the violence of others. The City of Somerville must establish by law that survivors will receive paid leave while they seek safety.
The City of Somerville cannot say that it supports workers if we are not ensuring our own workers are receiving a living wage and decent benefits. As someone who grew up in a union household and who was recently endorsed by the Greater Boston Labor Council, I want all of our workers to have the most robust economic security they can. That is one reason why in January I proposed opting Somerville into the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, which would prolong paid leave for medical and family emergencies for many municipal workers. Sadly, despite the fact that opting us into this program is in the jurisdiction of the city council, the administration has failed to move with urgency to provide necessary clarity around the financial implications of PFML.
My deep conviction that we need to shatter this status quo that isn’t working for working people has only been strengthened by my time on the council. Since taking on this role less than two years ago, I have become more convinced than ever that our community needs have been pitted against corporate greed. As such, I believe that government has a moral duty to be as bold and creative as possible in pursuing economic relief for our residents. As a Councilor, I’ve been blessed to speak with many of my neighbors about what economically drags them down and one thing that comes up again and again is the cost of healthcare.
Here’s my hot take of the day: medical debt shouldn’t exist. It is a policy failure that harms our neighbors fiscally by damaging their credit scores and driving them into bankruptcy as well as physically by coercing them into seeking care less and increasing their general stress. The very existence of medical debt remains an existential threat to ensuring healthcare is a human right.
Through partnership with the nonprofit RIP Medical Debt (RIPMD), I’ve found a way for the city to abolish over $11 million worth of medical debt for thousands of Somerville residents who make less than 400% of the federal poverty rate for roughly $250,000. This is due to the complex yet frugal way in which entities are able to purchase portfolios of debt for pennies on the dollar. RIPMD has already done this in jurisdictions across the country using municipal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). In pursuit of this effort, I have already gotten two major hospitals in our area to signal their support and offer their assistance for this program. However, because the city council has no power to allocate funds, the mayor is the ultimate decider of whether we will be a community gripped by corporate healthcare greed. Despite the fact that this program would be transformative for thousands of residents and the months-long dialogue I have had with them behind the scenes, the administration has failed to move with urgency on this matter.
Our community is at a crossroads. We have to decide if we will be a home only for the wealthy and elite or if we will fight to protect our economic and racial diversity. Those of us on the edge of displacement and economic ruin, along with our co-conspirators in this class struggle, cannot afford lip service about economic justice any longer. We need leaders who will enact decisive and bold policies that refund our residents.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
I disagree with two areas where you are proposing regulations.
First, regarding the “affordability crisis.” You state “the statehouse makes it nearly impossible for cities like ours to implement common sense housing regulations that would create stability for tenants.” Have you considered that the proposed regulations defy common sense? The most common sense approach is to first educate people to live in areas that they can afford to live in. If one cannot afford to rent or buy a home in Somerville then they should consider moving to a neighborhood that is more in line with their household budget. There is no more of a right to live in Somerville that there is a right to live in Weston, Manchester, or any other wealthy community. With that said, there should be a limited type of circuit breaker protection for elderly or disabled residents who have long established roots in the community and are now living on a limited income. That circuit breaker protection should only be granted those who have a legitimate need to remain in Somerville and not just a preference.
Second, I empathize with those who are victims of domestic violence but have two issue with what is being proposed. The first issue is why is it being limited to just domestic violence? It should be extended to victims of other types of violence too. The second issue has to do with economic reality. Most businesses in Somerville are small business and would experience a severe hardship if they were asked to provide paid leave to victims, especially if surrounding communities do not have the same requirement. A business only has two options in reaction to an increased cost, either raise prices or reduce cost. If the business raises prices, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage against other business that do not have the increased cost. If the business decides to cut costs instead, that cost reduction may likely be in the form of going with less employees or reducing employee hours. This later option may lead to more economic harm than it is intended to remedy.
Finally, if you’re truly concerned about economic injustice, work towards ways of providing educational opportunities and development of trade skills for those who wish to improve their economic status.
“There is no more of a right to live in Somerville that there is a right to live in Weston, Manchester, or any other wealthy community.” With an attitude like that you should stay in the suburbs. The fact that poor people increasingly cannot afford to live in urban centers is a major problem that worsens poverty by increasing distance to jobs, services, education, and community/social support. It also adds transportation costs, especially if moving further out means you now need a car (which is also unaffordable to many people), when you didn’t before. There absolutely is a right to the city, and it must be defended from people like you who are fine with turning them into gated communities for the rich.
“The first issue is why is it being limited to just domestic violence? It should be extended to victims of other types of violence too.” Domestic violence is specific and has specific and different impacts compared to other kinds of violence in that seeking safety from it can require completely uprooting your life. As the author mentions “As a result, survivors of domestic violence on average lose out on 137 hours of paid work a year.” Having specific responses to address that makes sense. Domestic violence victims also suffer greater stigma and blame than victims of other kinds of violence.
“The second issue has to do with economic reality. Most businesses in Somerville are small business and would experience a severe hardship if they were asked to provide paid leave to victims” what about the economic reality of hardship that victims face going unpaid for 137 hours on average? Not being paid while seeking safety from abuse makes it harder to get that safety and more likely that someone has to rely on their abuser for financial support.
“If the business decides to cut costs instead, that cost reduction may likely be in the form of going with less employees or reducing employee hours. This later option may lead to more economic harm than it is intended to remedy.” This is bad faith nonsense and positions any improvement to working conditions as actually making things worse for workers. If you follow your logic there should be no labor regulations because cheaper working conditions (aka less safe ones) mean more people can be employed. Good jobs have good standards, more bad jobs helps no one. This is a race to the bottom mentality.
“Finally, if you’re truly concerned about economic injustice, work towards ways of providing educational opportunities and development of trade skills for those who wish to improve their economic status.” This does nothing at all to provide “economic justice.” It does not challenge the fundamental inequalities of the system and only provides a meritocratic excuse for why those who are impoverished supposedly deserve it. Pouring money into education assuming it will relieve poverty has only exasperated inequality because our eduction system is extremely unequal. Thus the already privileged are able to get credentialed for leadership in a way that appears they earned it but really it more accurately reflects their class position and access to those spaces. Those kind of trade skills development opportunities aren’t immune from this either, they started in order to undermine union led worker trainings and therefore also undermine union power. Education isn’t important but when you look at it as a panacea for inequality you are much more likely to increase it. See “The education Trap” by Cristina Viviana Groeger, which is written specifically about Boston.
Meant to say ” Education is important but when you look at it as a panacea for inequality you are much more likely to increase it.” not that it isn’t important. Should be clear from the “but” that that is a typo but just to prevent a bad faith response.