Think back a few years, and you may recall Boston’s hipster boutiques sporting a line of t-shirts festooned with an M4 carbine and a cryptic stenciled message: “Defend Allston”(which was followed by “Defend JP,”  “Defend Dorchester,” and, I suppose inevitably, “Invade Harvard Square”). The text’s ambiguity gave it its edge: defend from what, exactly? Students? Rats? The Yankees?

Well, as it turned out … it was the banks we needed defendin’ against! Who knew, back in the halcyon days on 2006?  

Now, I know–everyone and their grandmother is all pissed off at the banks these days, and it goes well beyond exasperation with the eye-popping fees at ATMs. When banks describe themselves, they use words like “friendly,” “neighborhood,” “secure,” and “personal.” When most Americans think of banks, they think, instead, “failed,” “toxic,” “bonuses,” “bail-outs,” “foreclosures.”  As for bankers, the image that comes to mind isn’t folksy George Bailey eating his losses on the subprime mortgages he dispensed with so freely in Bedford Falls, but rather, coked-up high rollers who make up what they lose at the tables off the backs of the serfs who know too well the new law of the jungle: the bank giveth, and the bank taketh away.

Call it “the new feudalism.”

If you think I exaggerate, consider the case of Roberto Velasquez, as reported in Common Dreams:

Mr. Velasquez, a general contractor, bought a single-family home in Dedham, Massachusetts six years ago. Unfortunately, his mortgage turned out to be a predatory time bomb. After a few affordable years, the interest rate on his adjustable-rate mortgage ballooned and his payments rose to $4,800 a month. He kept up though; until the Wall Street crash knocked the stuffing out of the construction industry. Then he fell three months behind.

Mr. Velasquez found jobs and came up with the three months’ payments, but the bank wouldn’t work with him. His home was foreclosed on in November. A local bank offered to buy the home and sell it back to Mr. Velasquez for its present market value, which is the most his bank would get for the house if they sold it at auction. Still no deal. “We did what they asked,” says Mr. Velasquez, “but they don’t want to work with anybody.”

“Los bancos tienen mucho dinero”

…Including, it seems, regulators. The bank in question here is Deutsche Bank. It just so happens that the head of Deutsche Bank was at the economic conference in Davos this week–think of it as a council of barons, “Braveheart” in bespoke suits—-and he had something to say. And when the head of DB speaks, people do in fact listen, because Deutsche Bank is a very very big and a very very powerful bank indeed. This is what Mr. Ackerman, CEO, had to say:

“Banks have to do more, proactively, in order to demonstrate that we want to help, because at the end we are not working for ourselves, we are not working for the real economy alone, we are working for the benefit of people around the world.”

Oh.

Mr. Ackerman, by the way, is paid  %8,232.00. Per Day. Which is admittedly next to nothing compared to the $14 million USD he raked in in 2006.  He also proceeded to advise his felllow princelings to join in creating  a private insurance fund, since, of course, the last damn thing banks want or need is any outside regulation from those outside the industry.

Oh.

Defending Dedham

In any case, yeah–Allston needs defending. As does Boston. And Somerville. Worcester. My town of Stoughton–and probably yours as well.

What’s remarkable is that ordinary citizens– with some help from folks experienced in both the streets and the courtrooms–have decided to take matters into their hands and to defend themselves, forming homegrown citizens coalitions coming together to defend folks like Roberto–in front of whose home we gathered last night for a lively candlelit vigil protesting the Velasqez family’s eviction (brief Herald report here).

(Some video I shot–you may need to boost the volume. My apologies for poor audio).

The event was facilitated by City Life Vita Urbana, with representatives from the Mass Alliance Against Predatory Lending and the Green Rainbow Party (among others) in attendance, but this was as grassrootsy as it comes. There were no ideological speeches, no political posturing. Instead, various people from in and around Boston stood in the fifteen-degree chill up to speak about their own experiences dealing with foreclosures. In English, and in Spanish, black, white and hispanic women and men spoke, some with wild enthusiasm, others quietly.

I thought: goddamn, but it’s tough out there.

But also: this is how Shay’s Rebellion started . Just a few miles to the west.

But most important, unlike too many rallies and conferences, there’s nothing of the therapeutic or quixotic about these vigils (and ensuing blockades). They have a select, specific purpose–and they work, thanks to a two-pronged strategy, as organizer Steve Meacham explained to Bill Moyers:

The “shield” is a strategy of legal defense: teaching City Life members about their rights under the law, plus providing access to volunteer legal assistance. The “sword” is a public relations strategy, where City Life organizes protests in front of banks, and eviction blockades in front of people’s homes. For these protests, City Life tries to attract as much media attention as possible, trying to draw public scrutiny towards what they argue are unfair banking and eviction practices in their community.

“We find that the two [strategies] work extremely well in combination,” says Meacham. He says that a strong legal defense often isn’t enough to avoid eviction. “A legal defense is not enough because in Massachusetts the banks can evict you for no reason. And so for many people the strongest legal defense will simply slow the bank down. Slowing the bank down, however, can be very, very important because it gives us a chance to use the public protest to good benefit. If the bank is facing the prospect of a long, drawn-out legal procedure, even one that they might ultimately win.. and at the same time they’re going through that, they’re being regularly protested by City Life.. that is a public relations battle the bank loses every time. So faced with that combination of long, drawn-out legal defense and public protest, the banks are very often choosing to negotiate and settle with us.”

According to City Life, they’ve been able to prevent evictions for 95% of the people who’ve come to their door by employing the “sword and shield” strategy.

And the pressure may be working in favor of Roberto Velasquez’s family; there’s been a “tentative indication from the bank” suggesting that they may not evict after all, depending on the results of negotiations with Boston Community Capital. Which is a marked detour from last week, when the bank was gung-ho on serving a 48-hour eviction notice.  

It’s important to note that while last night’s vigil was peaceful, City Life/Vita Urbana has no compunction about announcing that if DB/Equity does go through with plans for an eviction, City Life will in fact create a blockade. They’ve done it before. They’re not afraid of being arrested.  Could be that spirit of Daniel Shays and his grassroots rebels is still alive in Commonwealth.

There’s a monument to Shays in Petersham, MA, and I’ll leave you with the inscription:

In this town on Sunday morning, February fourth, 1787, CAPTAIN DANIEL SHAYS and 150 of his followers who fought for the common people against the established powers and who tried to make real the vision of justice and equality embodied in our revolutionary declaration of independence, was surprised and routed, while enjoying the hospitality of Petersham, by General Benjamin Lincoln and an army financed by the wealthy merchants of Boston.

True Liberty and Justice may require resistance to law.

_________________________

Incidentally, the commentary which appears on the CommonDreams site is by Mike Prokosch of United for a Fair Economy–who compiled the Dream 2010: Drained – Jobless and Foreclosed in Communities of Color report referenced in Suzanne’s post, below. Everything connects .