Fund Economic Parity

Philadelphia government should “defund the economic disparity” is the rallying call heard by no one – until now. Of course, the rallying call to “defund the police” has drawn the attention of the entire country, presidential campaigns, and thousands of local activists. The best way to describe the demand of those activists is that they support divesting funds from the police department to be reinvested in non-policing forms of public safety, housing, social services, education and youth programs, healthcare and other community resources. Yet, "defunding" the police and reinvesting in housing and social services does little to resolve the economic disparity that communities of colors face every day – and the disparate policing of their communities. Communities of color are not policed differently just because of race, but also because of economics.

For every policing dollar that is reinvested in affordable housing, how much of it will end up in the hands of people of color? The construction workers are mostly not people of color – but will get paid from those reinvested dollars. The contractors are mostly not people of color – but will get paid from those reinvested dollars. The banks that provide the mortgages mostly are not owned by people of color. So, what do the people of color get? Mortgage debt. And the banks make even more money from the mortgage interest. As for social services, if you track the economic benefit of providing those services to communities of color – you’ll find some “poverty pimps” along the way getting paid, while people of color will continue to face the same economic disparity. None of that is to suggest that communities of color do not greatly need affordable housing and social services – but that every government dollar should be spent in a way that creates more economic parity.

Some say that “defund the police” is an empty political slogan. “Defund the economic disparity” might not be a better slogan. But why do we need political slogans anyway? That is just “progressive politics” without real policy analysis.

Recently, there was an announcement about a potential $4 billion investment on the waterfront – highlighting the economic benefit to people of color. The proposal comes from a major sports franchise that is requesting a public subsidy in the form of a tax break for the development. The quid pro quo has been presented as an exchange of public benefit for public tax dollars. Further policy analysis might suggest that the public subsidy is an equity investment that should demand more diverse ownership of the permanent development. In other words, fund economic parity.