RECONSTRUCTING CALIFORNIA FROM THE BOTTOM UP One of the greatest myths of our time is that public funds are used for "social welfare," whereas the "private sector" amasses obscene levels of wealth because its top executives take risks and work on their own without government help or subsidy. The reality is that the lion's share of public spending is used to subsidize entire industries and many people got rich this way. In other words, corporations and the highest income groups have used their economic and political power to transform the U.S. into a "wealthfare state". Our "upside-down" welfare system occurs through two hidden "wealthfares": first, through direct subsidies and credits to assist corporations, banks, agribusiness, and defense industries; and, second, through tax loopholes~legal mechanisms by which the government officially permits certain corporations and individuals to pay lower taxes or no taxes at all. It is important to remember that while separated here due to the two different tax systems~personal income and corporate taxes, in reality, the heads of corporations and the highest income groups (the richest 1 percent to 5 percent of the population) are closely interconnected and essentially the same. As Cynthia Hamilton points out, the first objective of government, as it functions in the U.S., is to make specific companies and industries rich. Then, individual wealth is achieved by first paying exorbitant salaries, benefits, and stock options, and second, by using political power to ensure that tax loopholes allow almost all of this money to be kept. In other words, while a few of the most wealthy families at the top are lawyers married to lawyers and a sprinkling of music and sports stars, the vast majority own and manage the Fortune 500 companies. This is reflected in the skyrocketing pay of chief corporate executives. By the end of the 1980s the average corporate executive was making 120 times the wages of a worker and 72 times that of teacher~compared with 35 times the wages of workers in the mid-1970s. Why Worker and Community Demands for Socially Responsible Investment Must Replace Pleas to "the Market" Readers of the above may say: "such ineqality may be interesting, even shocking, but let's get realistic. We are living at a time when companies are running away, when community movements and the labor movement are weak, when racial tensions between and within communities are growing, when big business seems to hold all of the cards as it operates internationally, and when the Clinton administration is obsessed with the middle class, deficit reduction, and business incentives. Face it--the market is defining everything." Our response is to point out that when people think about civil rights, or an end to police brutality, or a demand that existing firms hire women or people of color, there is some sense of activism and of having some "rights." This consciousness is not innate, but is the product of social movements and actual historical experience of the past century, when civil rights, women's, and labor struggles shaped oppressed people's sense of the possible. In the arena of "community economic development" and "industrial policy," however, the rhetoric and the practice is very conservative, even among people whose overall politics are quite progressive. This is reflected in the campaign slogans of the day that tell us that in the name of "realism" we must: make communities "attractive to industry;" "work together with business in a "public private partnership;" "streamline permitting processes" to get rid of "unnecessary environmental regulations" and "redtape;" "re-structure union contracts" to give away wages and benefits; and embrace "labor/management cooperation." To some degree this behavior is understandable. Given the growing internationalization of capital, the more ruthless behavior of corporations in the past few decades, and the failures of most social movements to check the behavior of multinational companies, many labor and community activists have been beaten into compliance. For example, in virtually every movement in Los Angeles to keep open Goodyear, Firestone, GM Southgate, and GM Van Nuys, there was a pattern of contract concessions by workers, sell-outs by international union leaderships that refused to challenge management's rights, and a complete refusal by the Reagan (Republican), Jerry Brown (Democrat), Deukmejian (Republican), or Bradley (Democrat) administrations to challenge the "right" of companies to come and go as they please. Isn't bipartisanship wonderful? And today, it is certainly reasonable to ask, "Given that the virtually every non-union and low-wage furniture industry has already run away to Mexico (even after the AQMD negotiated very reasonable air quality rules for the industry), how can we demand high wages, unions, and stricter environmental standards without driving many other companies and entire industries out of the Los Angeles area? Moreover, with the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and very weak labor and environmental protections, these problems will get even worse. How can low-income communities demand higher wages, community standards, and environmental protection if the existing low- wages, and weak environmental standards have not succeeded in attracting companies?" After twenty years of Bradley, twelve years of Reagan and Bush, a year of Peter Ueberroth, and a few months of Bill Clinton, the common mantra in the country and the city is, `the only way to bring in business is to play ball with business.' These are real challenges to community environmental and economic sustainability. These challenges must be met by a strategy that ensures democratic intervention in the economy, that is, public control over the use of capital, both private and public. To begin with, remember that it was the "market strategy" that deindustrialized South L.A.: For the past twenty years, the Bradley administration (and the power elite behind it) gave business the keys to the city, which included substantial funds from the CRA and the unfailing support of local governement that might as well have renamed itself `the Chamber of Commerce.' So, if the market strategy is so effective, and after 20 unimpeded years in which to operate, where are all the decent paying jobs? Similarly, recall that for a full year Peter Ueberroth and his Rebuild LA group were given a honeymoon by the press and virtual carte blanche by Mayor Bradley and Governor Wilson. What have they accomplished? Peter Ueberroth, our greatest advocate of the role of the market in urban development, has hit a dead-end precisely because of the inability of a market strategy to meet the needs of low-income communities. Companies don't want to invest in the inner city, especially in predominantly African- American communities, when they can get cheaper labor and lower environmental standards elsewhere. They hope to avoid the historical militancy of the African-American movement, the assertiveness of many African American workers who are union veterans, and the potential for another rebellion. Thus, for those who say it's time to be "realistic," a practical look at the work of RLA should indicate that the disadvantaged can expect to see, realistically, very few of their urban problems solved by the market. Rather, urban communities in need must challenge the market strategy and place our demands directly on capital. A multiracial anticorporate united front thus advances a vision of society in which a job is a right, not a privilege, in which low-income communities have a voice in industrial policy and community economic development, and in which corporations are subject to socially responsible criteria of behavior, not avaricious pursuit of profit. Setting Standards with Companies that Need to or Want to Locate in Los Angeles Companies have cleverly made it seem like capital flight is a weapon that all can use equally, but in fact, L.A. attracts many companies who want or need to locate here. First, the hotel and restaurant industry needs to operate here. There are nine million people in L.A. County: for McDonalds and Wolfgang Puck, for Motel 6 and the Beverly Wilshire, there is nowhere to run. Second, there are industries and utilities that need to be near Los Angeles, from Southern California Edison to the Gas Company, from Union Pacific to Harbor Area oil refineries that need to be near tankers and the harbor. Third, government should become the model employer. The L.A. Unified School Board's cutting of public school teacher salaries by 10 percent and the County of Los Angeles' contracting-out of services to sweat-shop employers are policies that must be challenged. It will be more difficult to win higher wages and more jobs in the private sector if government is cutting back essential social services and public workers. Conversely, if government becomes a higher-wage, pro-union employer, this can place "market pressure" on private industry and pull wages and conditions upwards. Pressuring Companies with Substantial Markets in Los Angeles for Socially Responsible Investment in L.A.: The GM Van Nuys Model The Campaign to Keep GM Van Nuys Open pressured GM to postpone closing down its last auto plant in Los Angeles. The union local, warned of a closing by GM in 1982 with the anticipation of gaining contract concessions, organized a proactive movement against GM, focusing on the rights of workers and the special concerns of L.A.'s Latino and African-American communities (given that the plant was 50 percent Latino, 15 percent African American, and 15 percent female). The workers and their union, The United Auto Workers (UAW), organized a Labor/Community Coalition to Keep GM Van Nuys Open. Made up of a broad cross-section of groups~Catholic priests and Baptist ministers, Latino and African-American student groups as well as students of all races, other labor unions, entertainment celebrities, and even some elected officials, the Coalition threatened GM with an L.A. county boycott of its products if it ever closed the plant. Because L.A. was the largest new car market in the U.S., GM was particularly vulnerable to that threat; and the plant was kept open with almost 4,000 jobs maintained for another decade before it eventually closed in 1992. While the movement was eventually broken by an unholy alliance between GM and the UAW International in Detroit (including the firing of the local union president Pete Beltran with the complicity of UAW). However, that struggle at its height showed the possibility of social movements changing capital investment decisions. From the United Farmworkers' lettuce, grape, and Gallo wine boycotts to the movement for disinvestment in South Africa, large-scale consumer pressure, as part of an overall social movement, can force changes in corporate policies. What if all L.A. high school students refused to buy Nikes or Reeboks unless they built a manufacturing plant in L.A., or churches, unions, and governmental bodies with relatively large budgets demanded that a certain number of key companies invest in L.A. or lose their business? This strategy has the potential to compel capital investment, as well as generate a long overdue debate about the responsibilities of firms to invest in oppressed communities where they earn significant profits. Companies that Receive Government Contracts, Subsidies, or Grants The critical principle here is that government funds are a public trust, and business cannot receive funds and then operate contrary to broader public interests. The Capital Flight Contract Model. Capital flight or its threat~when companies constantly say they will relocate their factory if unions organize or if governments regulate~is the single greatest obstacle to any model of sustainable community economic development. If companies continue to have that trump card, how can workers or communities have any leverage, and how can government and elected officials attempt to regulate corporate behavior without being threatened with "having driven jobs out of Los Angeles or California"? Again, government and the public have more leverage than is admitted, for virtually all "private companies" in fact look for ways to have their businesses and profits subsidized by public funds. What if L.A. City and the State of California passed legislation stipulating that any funds passed from government to business, whether research and development grants or government contracts, must include contractual prohibitions against capital flight? Companies violating this agreement would have to repay the grants or a substantial portion of the contract before being allowed to leave the city. This overall approach differs sharply from both the Ueberroth RLA strategy of deregulation and overall business subsidy, and also differs from the "targeted business subsidy" strategy of Joel Kotkin and David Friedman of the Progressive Policy Institute. While Ueberroth proposes subsidizing the entire business class and granting wholesale environmental deregulation, Kotkin and Friedman focus on subsidizing and deregulating only the winners~cutting-edge companies with greater job development potential. Kotkin and Friedman oppose social welfare spending in the inner cities, oppose race-specific solutions to address centuries of race-specific discrimination, and essentially, call for a targeted and selected use of government funds to back the winners in a world economy. They argue that this approach as necessary to fuel economic growth. By contrast, the Strategy Center, which embraces economic sustainability as a strategic goal rather than the economic growth inherent in the mechanism of the "free" market, supports targeted investment to help certain business entities; however, its definition of "winning" industries is determined by more socially responsible characteristics, of which job development is certainly one, but so is strict adherence to environmental regulation, a high wage strategy, responsible policies towards surrounding communities, acceptance of higher corporate and upper income individual income taxes, and non-interference in union organizing efforts. All of these ideas are complex and will have to be refined in the realm of organizing. But they all point to a diametrically different approach to economic development, one in which a broader social agenda must govern business behavior, and one in which workers and communities have rights in directing capital investment. Wages and Working Conditions: Making Los Angeles a Union Town and Demanding Community Labor Standards We cannot demands "jobs" without simultaneously emphasizing high wages; humane working conditions; medical, dental, and retirement benefits; and the right to union representation. While wages are to some degree a product of the market, government policy and social movements can significantly impact wage levels. Government policy: Present "Enterprise Zones" offer businesses tax breaks to come into communities without placing any restrictions on corporate behavior other than "encouraging" job creation. While the Strategy Center believes that the entire program of Enterprise Zones should be rejected, nonetheless, it is urgent to develop a "business subsidy/high wage" set of laws that require any company receiving any public funds~for new technology, for small business loans, for research and development~to adhere to selected requirements regarding working conditions such as paying at least $8 per hour. Combined with new laws setting the minimum wage at $6.50 per hour or more, government policy could help raise the bottom of the wage scale. Union representation: Wage levels are as much a reflection of the relative power between labor and management as they are of market pressures and industry "competitiveness." During the 1960s, when most downtown office buildings were unionized, with most of the janitors being African American, the average wage was relatively high. When the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was dealt a severe setback by the "contracting out" to non- union janitorial companies that hired primarily immigrant labor, the wages in the industry fell to less than $5 per hour. Since SEIU has initiated its impressive Justice for Janitors Campaign, more office buildings have once again been forced to sign contracts with union janitorial firms and the wages in the industry have slowly begun to rise. However, because the firms being unionized are still "independent" sweat-shop contractors, virtually all the African American workers who worked at decent wages under previous union contracts have been driven out of the industry. For African American and Latino workers, unions represent an opportunity to have greater power in the workplace, some sense of protection from management abuse, and an organizational base from which to exercise political power in the city and the nation. Workers in non-union firms work for less, live in constant fear of being fired, and go home from work alone, exploited, and powerless. In Los Angeles, the LAPD's beating of Justice for Janitors demonstrators and the Bradley administration's ongoing lack of support for Hotel and Restaurant Workers as well as the downtown janitors have reinforced a low-wage economy even in unionized workplaces. Thus, it's not enough to "want" unions. If we want a high-wage economy, community groups must become involved in campaigns to actually help unions. Such involvement is critical in several areas: First, changes to federal, state, and local laws are needed that expand the rights of workers to organize unions. Examples of such changes are: laws prohibiting companies from hiring permanent replacements during strikes; repeal of laws restricting the number of pickets at a worksite; and changes in the procedures of the National Labor Relations Board such as the immediate reinstatement with back pay of workers fired for union activity while the unfair labor practice is being debated. (At present, militant workers are fired on the spot, and are kept out of work for years while "appeals" are filed.) Second, community campaigns can support union campaigns. Numerous successful union struggles have been rooted in community campaigns. It was strong community pressure threatening a boycott that forced General Motors to keep open the Van Nuys plant for an entire decade longer than it planned to. Similarly, due to protests from both the Korean and Latino community, the Koreana hotel that originally fired all of its union workers and replaced them with scabs, was forced to rehire much of its original union workforce who are members of the Hotel and Restaurant Local 11. Because of community boycott pressure, the United Farm Workers Union was able to get contracts for agricultural laborers with lettuce growers, grape growers, and the Gallo corporation. Third, while communities strive to support workers, responsible, community-supportive behavior must be demanded from organized labor. Many community residents do not see support of organized labor as a priority, because experience has taught them that there are forces at the center of power within the L.A. County Federation of Labor who have supported policies that have hurt the economic, social, and public health interests of many low-income communities. These conservative forces within the labor movement have carried out a narrow and self-interested strategy to pursue "jobs" for a relatively limited number of workers at the expense of the larger society, tying these workers' interests to the most reactionary interests of corporations. For example, the conservatives within the County Federation of Labor have helped lead the Community Redevelopment Agency in its destabilization of communities and its advancement of a downtown building frenzy that provided jobs for relatively well-paid construction workers while reinforcing a low-wage economy for most of the other workers in the area. They have lobbied the AQMD and other agencies against community protective standards by advancing the interests of developers, oil companies, chemical companies, and any other companies that used the threat of capital flight and "job loss" to gain deregulation of emissions, thereby risking the public health of low-income communities. These conservative unionists supported the Cold War and the Reagan military build up (and the policies of the defense contractors who moved out of the city) and played no role in demanding conversion to peace time production. They did this in order to keep the supply of high paying military jobs flowing to "their members" when such policies were directly against the public interest. Most significantly, they have suppressed dissidents within the United Auto Workers, the Teamsters, and other unions who were disagreeing with the company's agenda in their industries or the unions' complicity with that agenda. With this track record, it is not surprising that community groups and progressive organizations often view unions in general as reactionary. This is shortsighted, however. There are also many independent, democratic, and very progressive unions and individuals within the labor movement in Los Angeles that constitute a progressive wing. And there can be no doubt that union organization provides the much needed organizational power to wage the fight for worker rights within any workplace. The Strategy Center is unwavering in advocating a pro-union strategy of development for the union movement's present and future. Of course, this means advocating a reform strategy for the labor movement and making a commitment to the interests of the most militant and principled labor and community activists~not expanding the influence of labor elites. Community residents must become more aware of the conflict within the labor movement~between progressives and conservatives; between those who support environmental objectives and those who work with companies to destroy environmental laws and agencies; between those who support a multiracial membership and affirmative action in hiring and those who use unionism to maintain white racism; and between those who support debate and democracy within unions and those who work to crush it. In this way, community organizations can help the labor movement rediscover its soul and its potential role as a major progressive force in U.S. society. Creating a Multiracial, Anticorporate United Front: Confronting White Racism and Ethnic Balkanism in Confronting the Domination of Big Business Since the brief moment of "black and white together" and "Third World Solidarity" during the 1960s, the urban politics of the past 20 years has focused on a pluralist model of social change which argues that the system can accomodate demands when communities organize around immediate self-interest and fight their way to the table. Thus, separate African-American, Asian- American, and Latino organizations are seen as the way for one's "people" and one's "community" to organize for power and "inclusion." The problem is that all too often, the system creates a "zero-sum game" in which African Americans, Latinos, and Asians are fighting for a limited number of city council seats, government contracts, or even seats on the RLA board, while middle-class demagogues in each ethnic group attempt to instill anger against the others to advance their own economic or political agendas. We have to find a new politics that can go past the tame and worthless "multiculturalism" that is used to paper over rather than confront the real political, economic, and cultural conflicts between groups. We have to create a more compelling organizing model in which those conflicts can be struggled out, and if not resolved, then at least minimized in the context of a broader set of objectives. The Labor/Community Strategy Center is a multiracial "think tank/act tank" which generates analysis and policy proposals on urban issues and organizes working-class and low-income communities in L.A. For the past five years, we have been working to reconstruct a social theory that requires at least as much ideological coherence and strategic thinking as that displayed by our government and corporate adversaries. While not a totalizing worldview, this theory begins with the proposition that the domination of society by the most monopolized and internationalized forms of corporate capital is against the interests of the vast majority of people. This kind of class analysis, we believe, can galvanize a multiracial anticorporate united front: workers (employed and unemployed); people of color of all classes except the most corporate; women, especially working class and of color; poor and working-class people; small business owners; progressive intellectuals; and even segments of the white middle class. From the perspective of political consciousness, this united front can, again at least in theory, unite activists and scholars around a common critique of corporate behavior without assuming agreement as to the causes of that behavior. At a time when the movement is fragmented, a sharper united front politics can attract a wide variety of progressive political forces: liberation theology activists; Rainbow Coalition Democrats; Marxists re- evaluating the achievements and failures of the many experiments in socialist alternatives to capitalism; Latino, African-American, and Asian-American community activists who do not necessarily define themselves ideologically but who are involved in community-based struggles against toxic polluters and corporate developers; Mexican, Korean, and Central American immigrants with long histories in the left, and anticolonial politics regarding their native countries and an interest in making the difficult transition into U.S. politics; former activists from the Black Panthers, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, CASA, and SDS whose critique of U.S. racism is undiminished after all these years but who have "settled in" to union or social service agency positions and find themselves thwarted by the narrowness of their own social practice. Such a united front provides a theoretical and practical vehicle to allow diverse points of view and constituencies to work together on immediate and compelling projects while continuing to debate social theory that is integrally related to organizing and activism. An anticorporate discourse needs to be reopened in the movement. Challenging corporate power must include challenging the ideological stranglehold of the political right in suppressing criticisms of the market economy and capitalism itself. If international capitalism wants to proclaim itself the only game not only in town, but in the world, it must take responsibility for its glaring social problems and what appears to be its structural inability to solve the problems of poverty, racism, unemployment, and environmental degradation within a profit-oriented system. A proactive role for white progressives in a multi-racial movement needs to be created. Challenging the growing racism even among former liberals must begin with a positive vision of the place of white people within the new demographics of cities, and with the most up-front cultural challenges to the assumption that white people must always be the majority. While some forms of white supremacy can remain dormant in comfortable, predominantly white liberal settings, the new social dynamics of the cities will require a conscious organizing strategy to reach out to white people as part of a transformation of consciousness. The Strategy Center, through the process of building a multiracial organization in which the majority of members are people of color, but with large numbers of white members as well, has learned that antiracism is not an "issue;" antiracism must be a component of all work on the environment, foreign policy, urban transportation, and the rights of unions to bargain collectively. Openings for the socially committed middle class need to be created. Socially concerned and committed doctors, architects, attorneys, environmental scientists, public health nurses, and even socially responsible owners of small businesses can play a critical role in the fight to defend the rights of society's most oppressed. While most middle class people are attracted to a more tepid and reformist politics that protects and even reinforces their narrow class interests, there is a long history in this country, especially among professionals of color who continue to experience racism and discrimination, of dedicated professionals who have made important contributions to social movements. The job is to recreate those social movements among the oppressed, rather than continuing to criticise the middle class for its inaction and somewhat predictable evasion of social responsibility. The anticorporate united front, with its more class-conscious politics and emphasis on working people and communities of color, creates the clear class confrontations that turn off many middle class people, but more effectively attract others. Challenging the growing ethnic balkanization can only be achieved by a long-term strategy in which there is a real and discernible common target and common set of objectives. The anticorporate united front is one concrete strategic way to bring together the races on many of the issues raised in this paper. While there is a legitimate and even essential role for race- specific organizations among oppressed groups, there is an even more urgent need for multiracial organizations in which people are organizing and working together for common goals. By multiracial organization we do not mean simply "coalitions" in which each race and ethnicity is organized separately and then "negotiations" take place; we mean a common project in which people work together closely to develop a multiracial, multiethnic political culture. Today, the Latina garment worker and the African-American unemployed worker, the Korean shop owner and the African American artist, the Japanese student and the Latino street vendor, the white welfare mother and the Cambodian skilled craftsperson, the Salvadorean high school student and the Chinese teacher, the white worker with a disability and the Chicano supervisor who is not disabled can barely speak to each other, barely understand each other and, too often, operate in either the realm of polite multi-cultural "tolerance" or overt racial and cultural hatred and contempt. Reconstructing Los Angeles from the Bottom Up focuses sharply on workers and unions because the workplace is one of the few arenas where people of different races and ethnicities, often not really liking or trusting each other in the beginning, develop longstanding relationships. For example, during the Rolling Thunder strike of SEIU Local 660, Strategy Center members played a small role in solidarity and attended several of the meetings of union members. So many African American, Latino, Asian, and white workers fighting together for a common cause set an example of what the labor movement at its best can look like~and provided a workshop that at least offered the possibility for multiracial cooperation and class solidarity. Since many Strategy Center members have worked in large multiracial workplaces, we have no illusions about the many racial and ethnic tensions that exist at the job site and within labor unions. Our intent here is not to romanticize the experience, but simply to point out that one terrible toll of the deindustrialization of South L.A. was the loss of more than 75,000 jobs in workforces where there was a large multiracial character. The bustling factories of GM Southgate and Van Nuys, Bethlehem Steel and Firestone Rubber created large scale centers where workers of all races and nationalities, Chicanos and Italians, African Americans and Koreans, Jews and Salvadorans, men and women, were at first forced to work together, and, over time, came to have a greater cultural appreciation (or at least tolerance) than in virtually any other place in the city. And as hundreds of workers left a union meeting or a softball league game and drove to communities throughout L.A. county, large-scale production, and the social relationships that developed out of it, provided at least a skeleton of a hopeful multiracial future for this dynamic city. Our emphasis on demanding private and public reinvestment in large-scale factories and offices is partially motivated by the positive vision of large multi-racial workforces. The challenge of multiracialism has to be faced at the community level as well. Today, communities are often categorized by the predominant racial group when, in fact, all areas of L.A. are both multiracial in present composition and in a continual process of changing their ethnic and racial character. The future of South L.A. must focus on the reconstruction of a new social movement based on an acceptance and embracing of a new demographics, requiring new models of organization and organizing. South L.A. is now approximately 50 percent African American and 50 percent Latino, with some outmigration of African Americans from Los Angeles and a larger inmigration of Latinos, many of whom are immigrants. The African- American community can contribute not just numbers, but a rich history of struggle and resourcefulness in a never-ending battle against racism and national oppression. Similarly, many of the Latino immigrants in the city immigrated from Mexico and Central America where they were involved in progressive social movements, often against very repressive regimes supported by the U.S. government. Moreover, communities such as South L.A., East L.A., Pacoima/San Fernando, and Wilmington cannot become viable if they see themselves in economic or political isolation. There are some who talk about sustainable economic development in a utopian, separatist manner, with quaint little ethnic communities somehow solving the enormous problems of employment, education, crime, police, and public life on their own. The idea of L.A. as a series of balkanized areas at best trying to work out "coalitions" or at worst going to war over city council seats or federal funds is a disaster waiting to happen. If, after considerable community pressure, a new plant opens up in East L.A. instead of South L.A., or South L.A. instead of Pico Union, does that mean that people in other nearby or even adjacent communities are barred from getting many of those jobs? Will we have wars between communities, as strong community-based demands quickly degenerate into offers of concessions as each community is played against the others by potential corporate investors? The future of each community and each racial and ethnic group in Los Angeles is best served by that community becoming a part of an L.A., regional, and nationwide movement for economic and political transfor-mation. Greater Los Angeles, with more individual and corporate wealth than any city in the U.S., offers the possibility of transforming despair into hope by initiating radical innovations in urban strategy~ because the resources exist here to be fought over. But to take on corporate and governmental forces of that magnitude, "neighborhood" organizing must be seen as a building block of a larger regional strategy.