Home Blog Page 5

Two Reports Expose the Failure of NY Attorney General Letitia James

DAMON K JONES
-
0
Two Reports Expose the Failure of NY Attorney General Letitia James

Two recent reports should make New Yorkers take a closer look at Attorney General Letitia James and her office. One report covers serious allegations from an Assistant Attorney General on her team. The other looks at the results of New York’s police accountability efforts after George Floyd’s death and questions whether promised reforms for Black communities have made a real difference. While these stories focus on different topics, together they reveal a bigger issue: New York often talks about accountability but has trouble making it happen.

For years, James has presented herself as one of New York’s strongest advocates for accountability. Her office has investigated politicians, corporations, police departments, and other powerful groups. She has often shown she is willing to use the Attorney General’s broad investigative powers. But accountability should not be something government officials expect only from others. Sooner or later, those in charge must also be open to questions about their own actions.

An Assistant Attorney General Sounds the Alarm

The first Times Union report should concern every New Yorker regardless of political affiliation. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Wiesenfeld reportedly sent an email to more than 2,000 employees inside the Attorney General’s Office making serious allegations about prosecutorial decision-making within the agency. According to the reporting, Wiesenfeld alleged that his supervisor, Investor Protection Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe, directed him to pursue matters involving Donald Trump, Truth Social, and Hewlett Packard without what Wiesenfeld considered a credible reason to target them.

These claims have not been proven, and it’s important to note that the reporting does not show that James herself gave Wiesenfeld those orders. His claims are about instructions he says came from his supervisor. Still, this does not make the accusations unimportant. An Assistant Attorney General is questioning how investigative targets were chosen in one of New York’s most powerful law enforcement agencies, and that alone deserves a thorough, independent review.

The main accusation challenges the idea of equal justice. Law enforcement should find evidence of wrongdoing first and then follow where it leads. The government should not pick a person or group to investigate and then look for reasons to justify it. This rule should not change just because Donald Trump is involved. If you take Trump out of the picture and imagine a prosecutor being told to investigate a Black-owned business or civil rights group without good reason, Black leaders would want to know who approved it, what evidence there was, and if power was misused. We should ask the same questions in this case.

The Email Raises Even More Questions

The Times Union reports that Wiesenfeld’s email was quickly deleted from the Attorney General Office’s computer system after it was sent out. Later, James’ general counsel told staff that the issue was an internal matter and that no one in the office was at risk. No matter the reason for deleting the email, removing it from inboxes does not address the serious claims it raised.

New Yorkers have a right to know who decided to delete the email, why that choice was made, and if the original message and related records were kept. More importantly, we need to find out if other prosecutors got similar instructions, how investigative targets were chosen, and what evidence supports or challenges Wiesenfeld’s claims. These questions all lead to the key issue: What did Attorney General Letitia James know, when did she learn about it, and what did she do after these claims came up?

Asking this is not the same as accusing anyone of wrongdoing. It’s the kind of question James’ own office would ask if another agency’s leaders were under investigation. The Attorney General cannot expect strict accountability from others while asking New Yorkers to accept less when her own office faces questions.

A Second Report Exposes New York’s Police-Accountability Problem

The second Times Union investigation examined what happened to New York’s promises of police reform following the murder of George Floyd. In 2020, millions of Americans marched, New York politicians held press conferences, task forces were created, and municipalities were required to develop police-reform plans. Civilian oversight became a central part of the discussion because communities were repeatedly told that police departments could not be expected to police themselves.

Years later, the Times Union looked at 173 local governments with police forces in the Capital Region and Hudson Valley to see what happened to those promises. Twenty-four towns or cities suggested creating civilian oversight boards or similar groups, and thirteen already had some kind of oversight. The investigation found that at least eight governments never set up the boards they promised. For five others, there was no public information showing if their boards were ever created.

Even in places that did set up civilian oversight, the power of these boards is very different. Some can investigate complaints on their own, while others only review cases already handled by the police. Some can suggest discipline or use subpoenas, but others have much less authority. This difference is important because just calling something a “civilian review board” does not mean it truly provides independent oversight. We should judge government by what these boards can actually do, not just by their names.

The Attorney General’s Own Police-Accountability Record Deserves Scrutiny

The Times Union’s broader examination of police reform also looked at the New York Attorney General’s Office of Special Investigation, which investigates deaths involving police and correction officers. According to the newspaper, the office has reviewed nearly 1,400 cases. Of the 142 civilian-death investigations it had completed, 11 resulted in prosecutions, and 7 resulted in convictions.

These numbers alone do not prove that prosecutors failed. Police use-of-force cases are complicated and involve tough legal standards, including New York’s justification laws. Prosecutors also have a duty not to file charges just because people want them to. Still, these numbers should be looked at closely because Black communities were often told that independent investigations would lead to more accountability and trust in the system.

The real question is not just how many people were prosecuted. We should ask if investigations became more independent and open, if families got better explanations, if there were useful recommendations when charges could not be filed, and if those suggestions led to real changes in police policy. These results show if the reforms worked. The government should not get credit just for creating a new office or writing another report.

The Jarrel Garris Case Is a Prime Example

The handling of Jarrel Garris’ death in New Rochelle is a prime example of the gap between Attorney General Letitia James’ rhetoric on police accountability and measurable reform. After Garris, a 37-year-old Black man, was shot following an encounter that began with an allegation involving food taken from a grocery store, James’ Office of Special Investigation declined criminal charges. Yet her own office acknowledged that the encounter raised serious policy questions and recommended that New Rochelle change its training and policies for petty, nonviolent offenses. OSI specifically said officers should consider whether someone is experiencing a mental-health crisis, whether nonviolent de-escalation has been exhausted, and whether physical force is actually necessary. Her office went so far as to recognize that an officer’s decision about whether to use physical force in circumstances like these could mean the difference between life and death.

But that raises an even bigger accountability question for Attorney General James: what changed after the recommendation? James’ office has repeatedly recommended better mental-health crisis training—not only after Garris, but following other fatal police encounters—and as recently as 2026 was still calling for all New York law-enforcement agencies to implement written crisis-response policies and improve training. The Attorney General does not personally control every police department’s training curriculum; statewide standards are principally developed through MPTC and DCJS. But as New York’s attorney general and the official whose Office of Special Investigation repeatedly examines these deaths, James should be asked what she did to turn her office’s recommendations into measurable statewide reform. What specific model policies did her office propose? What training standards did it push state policymakers to adopt? Which recommendations were actually implemented by departments? How did her office track compliance? And after the death of Jarrel Garris, did James ever determine whether New Rochelle implemented the very reforms her investigators recommended? Accountability cannot simply mean investigating a Black man’s death, issuing recommendations, closing the case, and waiting for the next tragedy.

Police Cannot Police Themselves, But Prosecutors Can?

This is where the two Times Union stories come together. For years, a main idea behind police reform has been that police departments should not be the only ones to judge their own officers. This idea led to civilian review boards, independent investigations, and calls for more openness. If this principle is valid, New York should apply it just as firmly when serious claims are made about prosecutors.

Who takes an independent look at claims of politically motivated prosecution? Who checks how the Attorney General’s Office chooses its investigative targets? Who decides if prosecutors started with evidence and followed it to a person, or if they picked a person first and then looked for evidence? Most importantly, who investigates the Attorney General’s Office when serious claims are made about it? New York cannot base its police reform on independent accountability and then object when people ask for the same level of review for prosecutors.

Prosecutors have a lot of power. They can issue subpoenas, look into financial records, require documents, start civil actions, and launch investigations that can damage reputations even before anything is proven in court. This power may be needed to enforce the law, but it still needs checks and balances. The more the government can affect someone’s life or reputation, the more important it is to use that power fairly.

Black Political Representation Cannot Replace Accountability.

There is another difficult part of this discussion that Black New Yorkers need to face. Letitia James is a Black woman in one of the most powerful elected law enforcement roles in the country. Her success should be recognized, but her identity should not make her office immune to tough questions. Black journalists should feel free to question Black politicians, and Black elected officials should not be shielded from criticism just because it might be uncomfortable.

For too long, Black politics has sometimes mixed up representation with real results. Having a Black leader in charge does not automatically mean an institution is accountable to Black communities. We should judge our elected officials by the same questions we ask of any public servant: What did you promise? What did you achieve? How did you use your power? Who benefited from your decisions? What were the real results, and are you willing to be held to the same standards you expect from others?

Criticizing a Black elected official is not automatically anti-Black, just as avoiding criticism is not always pro-Black. Independent Black media should examine those in power without acting as a PR team for any party or politician. Our duty is to our readers and communities, not to making politicians comfortable.

Who Polices the Prosecutors?

Together, these two stories reveal more than just questions about one Attorney General’s future. They show that New York still struggles with accountability. After 2020, communities were promised big changes in police reform, but years later, some oversight boards were never created and others have different levels of power. Meanwhile, an Assistant Attorney General has raised serious concerns about how decisions are made in the state’s top legal office.

Attorney General Letitia James has spent years calling for accountability from powerful people and organizations. Now that serious questions are being asked about her own office, she should accept the same level of scrutiny. Her office should keep all records, explain how investigations are handled, respond directly to the claims, and support a fair, independent review to find out what really happened. If the claims are false, an outside review can show that. If there was wrongdoing, New Yorkers should know who was involved and how serious it was.

Black New Yorkers especially should see why this principle is important. History shows what can happen when government agencies gain too much power without enough oversight. The power we accept when it is used against someone we dislike today could be used against our own communities in the future. That’s why accountability should not depend on party, personality, or race.

No one who holds government power should be free from real scrutiny. That includes police officers, chiefs, prosecutors, governors, mayors, and the Attorney General of New York. If New York truly believes that institutions should not oversee themselves, then it’s time to ask the question we often avoid: Who polices the prosecutors?

FOLLOW THE MONEY – Westchester’s Banking Numbers Under the Microscope, Part One: Apple Bank

Larnez Kinsey
-
0
FOLLOW THE MONEY – Westchester’s Banking Numbers Under the Microscope, Part One: Apple Bank

Let’s skip the corporate language for a minute and go straight to the numbers. Apple Bank: $68.5 million in new qualified investments. $665,000 in qualified grants. 77.4% of the dollar value of new qualified investments directed toward affordable housing. And the percentage we are examining against its stated strategic commitment: 0.057%. Now look at the previous CRA evaluation period: $96.9 million in new qualified investments and approximately $15.7 million in qualified grants. If you live, work, or build a business in Westchester County, those numbers should make you pause.

This isn’t about creating a headline just for the sake of creating a headline. It’s about asking what those numbers mean on the ground in Mount Vernon, Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains, Peekskill, Ossining and communities throughout Westchester and the Hudson Valley. What does the investment look like in the neighborhoods where Black and Latino families are building businesses, raising children, creating nonprofits, producing media and trying to build generational wealth?

I’m not saying Apple Bank did something improper. I’m asking the question that every community should be able to ask: What did you commit, what did you deploy, where did it go, and could the people who needed it actually access it? The 0.057% figure also needs to be tied to the exact strategic commitment and denominator before it is presented as a final apples-to-apples measurement. The math matters. The methodology matters. The community deserves both.

Now look at the change in reported activity. $96.9 million became $68.5 million. Approximately $15.7 million in qualified grants became $665,000. That is a dramatic difference. I’m not saying Apple Bank had a $15.7 million grant budget and then only spent $665,000. The CRA evaluations don’t establish that. I am saying the reported numbers changed, and the community has every right to ask what changed and why.

Then there is the 77.4%. Apple Bank reported that 77.4% of the dollar value of its new qualified investments went toward affordable housing. Housing is absolutely part of economic stability in Westchester, where housing costs can make building wealth feel like trying to run uphill in heels. But community development is bigger than housing. It includes the small-business owner on a commercial corridor in Mount Vernon, the entrepreneur in Yonkers, the nonprofit in New Rochelle, the community organization in Peekskill, the creative building a media company, and the family-owned business trying to remain open long enough for the next generation to take over.

That brings me to the question I really want Westchester to wrestle with: Who has the key?

Community resources should not become inherited privileges. If one organization, business, nonprofit or community leader was given the key to a financial institution, grantmaker, sponsor or decision-maker, that key should not simply be passed from one connected person to another while everyone else is left trying to figure out who to call. Access should create more access. It should not create ownership of the doorway.

A new nonprofit should know where to apply. A small business owner should know who to contact. A first-generation entrepreneur should understand the requirements. A community organization should not need an inside connection just to discover that a resource exists. If the opportunity is intended for the community, the pathway should be visible to the community.

And then there is another piece of the economic equation that deserves attention: marketing.

Financial institutions want our customers, our businesses, our deposits, our mortgages and our attention. So who gets paid to reach us? What percentage of those marketing dollars goes to Black-owned and minority-owned media in Westchester and the Hudson Valley? What happens to the advertising dollars going into publications like Black Westchester Magazine, community newspapers, podcasts, radio programs, newsletters and independent digital outlets?

Community media is not simply a place to put an advertisement. It is part of the economic infrastructure of our communities. These outlets employ journalists, photographers, designers, salespeople, web developers and other professionals. They tell our stories, cover our elected officials, promote our businesses, announce our events and connect residents to information that often doesn’t receive the same attention from larger media organizations.

If a financial institution says it wants to reach Black and Latino communities, then I want to know whether its spending actually reaches the businesses and media organizations that already have relationships with those communities.

That is not asking for a favor.

That is asking about economic circulation.

Money comes into our communities. Where does it go next?

Does it stay with local businesses?

Does it support minority-owned media?

Does it create jobs?

Does it strengthen nonprofits?

Does it help entrepreneurs grow?

Does it reach organizations that don’t already have a relationship with the institution?

Those are Westchester questions.

And I want Westchester’s elected officials in this conversation.

Not to tell a private bank who must receive a loan. Not to interfere with legitimate underwriting. The role is bigger than that. Our elected leaders can help bring financial institutions, business owners, nonprofits, community organizations and residents into the same conversation about economic development.

Imagine a Westchester where residents don’t have to know somebody who knows somebody to find out where the opportunities are. Imagine a centralized community resource system where nonprofits and businesses can see available grants, loans, CRA opportunities, sponsorships, contracts and educational programs. Imagine banks regularly explaining their programs directly to the communities they serve. Imagine minority-owned media being included in the economic-development conversation instead of being remembered only when somebody needs a press release published.

That is the kind of conversation I want to have.

The African American Chamber of Commerce Hudson Valley can be part of that bridge. If you’re a business owner, nonprofit leader, or community member trying to understand financial resources, business opportunities, or financial literacy, reach out to the Chamber at 845-570-2367 or connect with @AACCHV.

I also want bankers, elected officials, nonprofit leaders, business owners and media organizations to reach out. I’m not presenting myself as the person who has every answer. I’m presenting myself as someone willing to ask the questions and bring the right people into the room.

Westchester doesn’t need another conversation where everybody agrees that economic opportunity matters and then goes home.

We need the people with capital talking to the people building businesses.

We need the people with programs talking to the people who need them.

We need the people making decisions talking to the people affected by those decisions.

And we need to stop treating access like a family heirloom.

The key should not be inherited.

It should be visible.

The rules should be clear.

The opportunity should be real.

Apple Bank is where I’m starting.

Bank of America. Citizens. TD Bank. Trustco Bank. Wells Fargo. You’re next.

The questions will remain the same: What did you commit? What did you report? Where did it go? Who benefited? Who didn’t? Who received the contracts? Who received the sponsorships? Who received the marketing dollars? And could the people who needed the opportunity actually find the door?

This isn’t about attacking banks.

It’s about accountability.

It’s about economic power.

It’s about Westchester deciding that community investment should be something we can actually see, understand and participate in.

So if you’ve tried to access resources and couldn’t figure out where to start, reach out.

If you’re a business owner who has successfully accessed capital, tell us what worked.

If you’re a nonprofit that keeps getting told about opportunities after the deadline, tell us.

If you’re a banker who believes there is a better way to connect with Westchester communities, come to the table.

If you’re an elected official who wants to help build that table, let’s talk.

And if you’re a minority-owned media organization that wants a seat in the conversation about the dollars being spent to reach our communities, I want to hear from you too.

This is only Part One.

A is for Apple.

The numbers are the beginning.

The questions are the point.

Let’s follow the money. Let’s follow the access. And let’s build the bridge right here in Westchester.

THE BANKS: READ THEIR OWN COMMITMENTS 

PUBLIC STRATEGIC / COMMUNITY COMMITMENTS

Blacks In Law Enforcement Organization Questions Syracuse Policing Policies Under Mayor Sharon Owens

Black Westchester
-
0
Blacks In Law Enforcement Organization Questions Syracuse Policing Policies Under Mayor Sharon Owens

BLEA Says Changes to Police Residency and Civilian Review Raise Questions About Community Policing and Accountability

Blacks In Law Enforcement of America (BLEA) is raising concerns about policing policy in Syracuse under Mayor Sharon Owens, arguing that recent decisions involving police residency and the city’s Citizen Review Board deserve greater scrutiny from residents, elected officials and advocates of community policing.

Owens made history when she became Syracuse’s first Black mayor. But BLEA says that historic representation should not prevent Black organizations from examining policies that could affect police accountability and the relationship between officers and the communities they serve.

At the center of the organization’s concerns are two issues: Syracuse’s temporary suspension of its five-year residency requirement for newly hired police officers and the controversy surrounding the investigative authority of the city’s Citizen Review Board.

Syracuse Moves Away From Police Residency

Syracuse has temporarily suspended its residency requirement for new police officers as officials attempt to address recruitment and staffing challenges. Under the previous policy, newly hired officers were required to establish residency in Syracuse and remain city residents for their first five years of employment.

Police Chief Mark Rusin has argued that expanding the pool of potential applicants could help the department address staffing shortages. Mayor Owens has also acknowledged that she fundamentally believes residency is beneficial for new officers but has supported temporarily relaxing the requirement because of current recruitment challenges.

BLEA says those concerns are legitimate but argues that the discussion cannot end with recruitment numbers.

Residency has historically been viewed by some community-policing advocates as a way of strengthening an officer’s connection to the municipality being policed. Officers who live within the city may become homeowners and taxpayers, send their children to local schools, shop at neighborhood businesses and experience many of the same quality-of-life issues as other residents.

Residency does not guarantee better policing, just as living outside a city does not make someone a bad police officer. The larger question, according to BLEA, is what Syracuse intends to do to preserve strong police-community relationships if residency is no longer required.

Questions Surround Syracuse Citizen Review Board

The second issue involves Syracuse’s Citizen Review Board, which provides civilians with an avenue for complaints involving alleged police misconduct.

Independent CRB investigations stopped in April after city attorneys interpreted an appellate court decision involving Rochester’s Police Accountability Board as limiting the investigative authority of Syracuse’s board. The Owens administration followed that legal interpretation.

The distinction is important: Mayor Owens did not abolish the Citizen Review Board. However, the legal position supported by her administration resulted in the board temporarily being unable to conduct independent investigations, one of its most consequential functions.

Members of the CRB and Syracuse Common Council subsequently challenged that interpretation. In August, the board moved to resume investigations, with CRB leadership arguing that responsibilities established by city law could not simply be suspended through a legal opinion from the administration.

For BLEA, the controversy raises a broader question about whether residents will continue to have meaningful independent civilian participation in the police-accountability process.

Jones: Accountability Cannot Depend on Political Party

Damon K. Jones, New York Representative for Blacks In Law Enforcement of America and a 33-year law-enforcement veteran, said police staffing and recruitment are genuine challenges but should not be addressed at the expense of policies intended to strengthen public trust.

“After 33 years in law enforcement, I understand the challenges police departments face with recruitment and staffing. But we cannot solve one problem by weakening the principles that help create trust between police and the communities they serve,” Jones said. “For Syracuse’s first Black mayor to move away from residency while her administration supported stopping independent CRB investigations should concern us. Accountability cannot depend on whether a Democrat or Republican occupies City Hall.”

The organization’s position also raises a politically uncomfortable question: Would these policies receive the same response if they were implemented by a Republican mayor?

BLEA argues that Black communities cannot demand civilian oversight, police accountability and stronger community relationships when Republicans are in power but become less critical when similar policies are implemented under a Black Democratic administration.

What Did National Police Reform Recommend?

BLEA points to recommendations developed during the Obama administration as evidence that its concerns are not anti-police.

President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended that law-enforcement agencies consider residency incentive programs, including Resident Officer Programs, as part of broader efforts to strengthen trust and legitimacy.

The Task Force did not call for mandatory residency requirements nationwide, an important distinction. But it did recognize encouraging officers to live in the communities they serve as one potential strategy for strengthening police-community relationships.

The Task Force also addressed civilian oversight, stating that some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important to strengthening trust with the community, while leaving individual communities to determine the structure most appropriate for them.

That makes the Syracuse debate more complicated than a simple argument between being pro-police and anti-police. Recruitment, adequate staffing, civilian accountability and community relationships are all legitimate components of professional policing.

Representation Cannot Replace Accountability

Owens’ election remains historically significant for Syracuse. But BLEA argues that Black political representation must come with the same level of scrutiny applied to any other administration.

The organization’s criticism is not that Syracuse should ignore its staffing problems or disregard legitimate court decisions. Instead, BLEA is asking what safeguards will replace policies that were intended to strengthen connections between police officers and residents.

If Syracuse suspends residency to attract more officers, what will the department do to ensure those officers develop meaningful relationships with city neighborhoods? If courts limit certain forms of civilian oversight, what legally sustainable mechanism will guarantee residents an independent voice when allegations of misconduct arise?

Those are questions that transcend political party.

BLEA says supporting good police officers and demanding meaningful accountability are not contradictory positions. Professional officers benefit from credible accountability because unchecked misconduct damages public confidence in every officer wearing the badge.

As BLEA stated in its release, “The badge should never be protected by politics, and accountability should never depend on political party.”

For Syracuse’s first Black mayor, that may ultimately be the larger test: not simply making history by occupying City Hall, but demonstrating that recruitment, public safety, community policing and police accountability can exist together.

BW August 2026 – 12th Anniversary Issue (Digital Edition)

AJ Woodson
-
0
BW August 2026 – 12th Anniversary Issue (Digital Edition)

Master P’s Comments Raise a Larger Question About Historical Memory, Black Wealth and Institutional Power

DAMON K JONES
-
0
Master P’s Comments Raise a Larger Question About Historical Memory, Black Wealth and Institutional Power

Earlier this week, Master P sparked a bit of controversy when quotes surfaced of him saying that he hoped Black people would stop talking about slavery and start changing the future. As usual when topics like this arise, people found the comment problematic. But what Master P said about the backlash should receive as much attention as the original comments. “I love my people. And when you bring up slavery our ancestors went through so much. We’re not going to forget about them, we will continue to bring awareness. But we got to bridge the wealth gap.” Master P continued on responding to the backlash. This is an important distinction. If Master P is saying all that Black Americans should do is remember our past and stop looking toward a future of building businesses, purchasing property, investing our dollars, starting institutions and closing the racial wealth gap, then there is little to agree with. When Master P speaks about ownership he has earned his credibility. He didn’t just become a rapper and get rich. He built an empire with No Limit Records that was predicated on the concepts of ownership, control, and entrepreneurship. However, his original statement left many with a far larger question. Why are black people so often told to stop talking about slavery?

America hasn’t ever stopped remembering history.

Black people have been told some version of this line our whole lives. “Slavery was over 100 years ago, stop living in the past. Stop talking about racism and move forward.” America doesn’t say that about itself. We teach kids about the founding fathers who died over 200 years ago. We say “Never forget” about 9/11. We have memorials for Pearl Harbor, museums on battlefields, and presidential libraries. We litigate in courtrooms every day about what specific words written in the Constitution in 1787 mean in 2026. No one questions the relevance of the constitution; America knows its past is the foundation of its present. So why is it when Black people apply that same logic we’re told our history/memory is unhealthy? Remembering slavery doesn’t mean you want to be enslaved. Researching Jim Crow doesn’t mean you want Jim Crow back, and knowing about redlining doesn’t remove Black Americans from personal accountability. Pointing to history isn’t an excuse… It’s proof. It’s why we’re here.

Here Is Why Conversations About Slavery Are Still Valid: This Conversation Is Also About Power

Part of that response may be attributed to institutional power. Jewish Americans have constructed and been influential in creating robust institutions in American business, media, entertainment, academia, philanthropy and politics. I’m not suggesting Jewish people have taken over those industries. Neither am I suggesting Jewish Americans are a monolith. The lesson is not how to hate on another group of people for being successful. The lesson is studying how they built and maintain institutions that allow them to protect their history and their interests. Black America has millionaires and billionaires. We have superstar athletes, award-winning entertainers, powerful executives, politicians and household-name television personalities. What we failed to do as a community, however, was connect individual success to collective institutional power. One does not imply the other. Individual Black excellence is not communal Black power. A highly compensated Black manager on the staff of a major media company does not translate to Black ownership of that media company. Black people strategically placed in positions of influence at financial institutions does not always mean we have enough Black-controlled capital. Black elected officials do not mean Black communities have accumulated enough political strength to possess sway independent of the party in power. There’s a reason why People of Color are often referred to as “minority groups.” There’s power in numbers and collective control. Understanding the difference between being invited to the table and owning the table is critical. Institutions allow communities to keep their history alive, protect their interests, educate young people and mobilize when their interests are being undermined. So maybe the question is not only about why people feel empowered to tell Black people to stop talking about slavery. Maybe we should also ask ourselves why have we not built enough institutions of our own to scare people off when they try to dismiss our past. We don’t need people to forget. We need power behind our memory.

If You’re Talking About the Wealth Gap, You Have to Talk About History Too

When Master P took to Twitter earlier this week to say if there was a “wealth gap between white and black people lets stop trying to close the gap and study how to get it back,” he actually made a strong argument for the study of history.

If there exists a racial wealth gap, why wouldn’t we want to know how that gap was created in the first place before trying to close it? Blacks did not wake up one day and collectively decide that we did not want to build wealth. After slavery there was emancipation, Black Codes, racial terrorism, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining and restricted access to wealth-building opportunities. The former were not just acts of individual bias; many were undergirded by laws, government policies and institutions. Through it all, Blacks still built wealth. We purchased property. We established businesses. We founded churches. We created banks and developed thriving communities and business districts. Sometimes what was built by Black Americans was destroyed. Other times it was stolen. And other times government policies prevented Black families from capitalizing on wealth-building opportunities that were afforded to other Americans. Just because slavery ended in 1865 didn’t mean that racial inequality ended the next day. The 13th Amendment ratified in 1865, the 14th Amendment in 1868 and the 15th in 1870 but Black Americans would spend generations trying to access the rights those amendments were supposed to guarantee them. The Fair Housing Act wasn’t passed until 1968, over 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. That means there are people currently living in the United States who were born into a country where major forms of housing discrimination were legally permitted by the federal government. That isn’t ancient history.

Advantages Compound, and So Do Disadvantages

America seems fine acknowledging inheritance when we talk about wealth. Families can inherit homes, businesses, land, investments and financial savings, all opportunity and wealth that can be passed down from generation to generation for children and grandchildren who had nothing to do with actually building that wealth. If we can accept that advantages can accrue generationally, we shouldn’t be arguing about whether or not disadvantages can do the same. Just because American history was marked by discrimination against Black people doesn’t mean the economic state of every Black person in America today can be tied directly to an event that happened 100 years ago. And just because America has a history of economic discrimination against Black people doesn’t mean every white American has been personally handed wealth from slavery. But for too many people, that’s where the conversation ends. Saying that historical policies have no bearing on today’s economy is just as stupid as saying that today’s economy is wholly determined by past policies. Acknowledging the former should not absolve anyone of believing in the latter.

Master P Is Right About Responsibility and Ownership

This is why Black America needs to truly listen to Master P. While we can’t ignore our history, we cannot let learning about it become an excuse not to act. We cannot spend all of our time highlighting what somebody did to us instead of figuring out what we are willing to do for ourselves and future generations. The next generation of Black children should learn about entrepreneurship, investing, credit, homeownership, owning land, technology, AI, financial literacy and how to build a business. We should be asking ourselves how much money Black America makes and spends but also how much Black America owns and controls. We need Black banks to become stronger but we also need Black businesses to become stronger. We need to fix our families and build stronger financial networks. We need Black media that is independent and community organizations that address the needs of our people. We also need to build stronger political institutions within our communities. Black America can demand that they teach slavery properly in schools while we build and learn how to grow our own businesses. We can talk about redlining while also encouraging Black homeownership. We can demand that the government be held accountable for past injustices while we also demand those who commit crimes against our community inside our communities be held accountable. We can debate reparations while we build generational wealth for our families. Accepting what America did to us and demanding more from ourselves are not mutually exclusive. If our goal is true empowerment we must do both.

Don’t Forget Slavery—Learn From It

Maybe instead of telling Black America to “stop talking about slavery”, we should focus on telling Black America to learn something from the slavery we keep talking about. Learn what slavery can teach us about ownership. Learn what Reconstruction can teach us about political power and the danger of losing it. Learn what Jim Crow can teach us about government and law. Learn what redlining can teach us about property ownership and generational wealth. Learn what economic exclusion has taught us about controlling our own capital, and learn what Black Wall Streets can teach us about building and maintaining our own institutions. Once we learn these lessons, we can apply them by purchasing property, starting businesses, investing, teaching financial literacy, empowering families, and building up independent Black institutions while gaining political and economic leverage. Master P is right that we can’t change yesterday, but we can learn from yesterday how to build our tomorrow. I actually think his follow-up statement steers us into waaay better territory: “We are not going to forget them and will keep bringing awareness, but we have to bridge the wealth gap.” I’ll gladly drink to that.

Black America Needs More Power Behind the Memory

Never should black Americans forget our ancestors. However we should never allow ourselves to define black existence during enslavement solely through the lens of our suffering. They lived through it. They formed families despite it. They created a culture in spite of it. They built institutions because of it. They fought for their freedoms knowing their children and grandchildren may reap the rewards of that fight. Remembering is not what’s holding black America back. What we do after we remember is what will determine our future. America remembers the Boston Tea Party and calls it patriotism. America remembers the victims of September 11th and calls it honoring the dead. Jewish Americans remember the Holocaust and the world understands the necessity of teaching future generations about what happened. Black Americans should never feel embarrassed about demanding slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights stay engraved in our collective memories as well. Remembering won’t kill us.

However, pride in our history alone will not give black Americans the power we’ve yet to achieve as a people. Ownership of our history is just the beginning. Our next step should include institution building, economic independence and the ability to defend ourselves from anyone who threatens our best interests. We shouldn’t celebrate when we produce another black millionaire and ignore the fact that we have no institutions that can outlive him. That may be the biggest lesson black America can take from the Master P controversy. We don’t remember too much. Our history is not typically tied to our economics or our political ideologies in a way that will build independent black power. Individual black success does not mean collective black strength. Black America will never have to forget slavery to move forward. We simply have to figure out what our history has taught us, apply those lessons to today and build something that can be passed down to future generations. We don’t need less black history. We need more black power behind our history.

ELOC Receives $5,000 United Way Grant to Expand SAT Prep Access for Westchester Students

DAMON K JONES
-
0
ELOC Receives $5,000 United Way Grant to Expand SAT Prep Access for Westchester Students

MOUNT VERNON, NY — Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC), a Mount Vernon-based nonprofit, has received a $5,000 Community Impact Grant from United Way of Westchester and Putnam to support its 2026 Summer SAT Prep Camp and help make college preparation more affordable for Westchester County students.

ELOC was selected from more than 160 applicants through a competitive grant process. The funding allowed the organization to provide full $250 scholarships to students participating in its summer SAT preparation program.

The grant addresses an issue that can easily be overlooked in conversations about educational opportunity: college preparation itself can be expensive. Families already struggling with the cost of housing, food, transportation and other necessities may find private SAT preparation financially out of reach.

ELOC’s Summer SAT Prep Camp is a 16-session, 72-hour online program led by experienced instructors through Google Meet. The program began July 18 and runs Saturdays and Sundays as students prepare for the September 12, 2026, SAT.

According to ELOC, commercial SAT preparation programs can cost between $1,000 and $3,000. The organization designed its program to provide students from under-resourced and ALICE households — families who are working but still struggling to meet basic living expenses — access to preparation without allowing family income to become another obstacle on the road to college.

“Strong SAT scores open doors — to college admissions, to scholarships, and to greater financial opportunity,” said Diana Kaye Williams, Executive Director of Environmental Leaders of Color. “This support from United Way of Westchester and Putnam helps us put high-quality, expert-led SAT preparation within reach of Westchester students who might not otherwise have access to it.”

United Way officials said the grant reflects the organization’s commitment to removing financial barriers facing local students.

“At United Way of Westchester and Putnam, we believe every student should have access to the tools and opportunities they need to succeed, regardless of their family’s financial circumstances,” said Juan Cabrera, Director of Community Impact for United Way of Westchester and Putnam.

Cabrera said the partnership with ELOC provides students with resources that can have a meaningful impact on their educational futures.

The investment also highlights the importance of supporting community-based organizations that are working directly with young people. For Mount Vernon and other communities throughout Westchester, college readiness isn’t simply about encouraging students to attend college. Students also need access to the preparation, information and resources necessary to compete for admissions and scholarships.

Programs like ELOC’s SAT Prep Camp are especially important for Black students and other students from families who may not have the financial resources to pay for private test preparation. In Westchester County, where significant wealth exists alongside communities facing real economic challenges, access to quality college-prep resources can vary greatly by ZIP code and household income. Providing professional SAT preparation at no cost helps close that opportunity gap, giving Black students greater access to the same preparation, scholarship opportunities and college pathways available to families who can afford expensive private programs

ELOC says it hopes to offer additional SAT preparation cycles in the future, expanding opportunities for more students throughout Westchester County.

Environmental Leaders of Color is a Mount Vernon-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit providing environmental education, STEM programming, clean-energy workforce development and college-readiness programs to young people across Westchester County.Families interested in future SAT Prep Camp opportunities can contact ELOC at contactus@eloc.earth or visit the organization’s website 

When Banks See Your Business as “Too Risky”: What Westchester Entrepreneurs Need to Know

Black Westchester
-
0
When Banks See Your Business as “Too Risky”: What Westchester Entrepreneurs Need to Know

For many entrepreneurs in Westchester, the first goal is straightforward: open the business, serve customers well, and generate steady revenue. A restaurant may want to take online orders. A wellness provider may want to sell service packages. A consultant may need to accept deposits. A local retailer may want to reach customers beyond foot traffic.

A less visible issue can interrupt all of that: payment access. If a business cannot accept cards, process online orders, handle disputes, or receive funds reliably, growth becomes harder. Some owners discover the problem when a payment platform rejects their application. Others find out after funds are held, transactions are reviewed, or an account is closed.

In many cases, the business is legal and legitimate. The problem is that banks and processors may classify it as higher risk.

What “High-Risk” Really Means in Payment Processing

In payment processing, “high-risk” refers to how banks, card networks, and processors evaluate the chance of financial loss. It does not automatically mean the business is unsafe, illegal, or poorly managed.

A business may be considered higher risk because of frequent refunds, fraud exposure, large transaction amounts, recurring billing, delayed delivery, regulatory scrutiny, or chargeback history. Certain industries are reviewed more carefully because customers may dispute payments more often or because the service is delivered after payment is collected. Common examples include travel, coaching, online education, CBD-related products, nutraceuticals, credit-related services, subscription offers, event ticketing, telehealth, and some e-commerce categories.

When a customer disputes a charge, the merchant may lose the sale, pay a fee, and face closer monitoring. If disputes become frequent, the processor may decide the account presents too much risk.

For entrepreneurs whose businesses fall into categories that banks review more carefully, understanding payment processing for high-risk industries can help reduce the chance of rejected applications, frozen funds, or sudden interruptions in revenue.

Why Some Westchester Businesses May Face More Scrutiny

Westchester has a wide mix of local service providers, online sellers, consultants, wellness entrepreneurs, event organizers, beauty professionals, restaurants, nonprofits, and community-based brands. Many rely on digital payments to book appointments, take deposits, send invoices, process online orders, and serve customers across the Tri-State area.

Some business models create risk signals. A company that takes deposits months before delivering a service may receive more review than a store that sells products in person. A subscription business may face questions because customers sometimes forget recurring billing terms. A wellness brand selling online may need to document product claims, refund policies, and shipping timelines. A coaching or consulting business may have to explain exactly what the customer receives and when.

For Black-owned and community-based businesses, these barriers can be especially frustrating. Entrepreneurs are encouraged to create jobs, build wealth, and reach customers beyond their immediate neighborhood. But expansion usually requires more than cash transactions. It requires card payments, online checkout, digital invoices, deposits, and reliable settlement.

If a business is treated as risky, the owner may need to provide more documentation, pay higher processing fees, operate with rolling reserves, or use stricter fraud prevention tools. The result affects practical decisions such as payroll, inventory, vendor payments, and customer service.

What Happens When a Customer Pays by Card

When a customer pays by card, several parties are involved. The customer enters card details online, taps a card in person, or uses a stored payment method. A payment gateway or terminal captures the transaction information and sends it securely for review. The processor routes the request through the card network. The issuing bank checks whether the card is valid, whether funds or credit are available, and whether the transaction appears suspicious.

If the transaction is approved, the money still has to be settled. Funds move through the payment system and are later deposited into the merchant’s account, usually after fees are deducted.

Risk checks may happen throughout this process. Processors may review transaction size, customer location, card type, billing pattern, refund history, chargeback activity, and fraud signals. If a business suddenly processes much larger payments than expected, receives several disputes, or operates in a category with higher complaint rates, the account may be reviewed.

That is why payment processing should be treated as part of a business’s financial infrastructure, not as a simple checkout feature.

Why Chargebacks Can Put a Business at Risk

A chargeback happens when a customer disputes a transaction through their card issuer. The customer may not recognize the charge, claim the product never arrived, object to the service, or report fraudulent card use.

Consumers have formal rights around credit card disputes, so merchants need clear records, refund policies, delivery confirmations, signed agreements, and customer communication before a payment problem escalates.

For a small business, a chargeback can be costly. The merchant may lose the sale amount, pay an additional fee, and spend time gathering evidence. Processors also measure dispute patterns, even when the merchant believes each sale was valid.

Some industries face more misunderstandings than others. A customer may forget they agreed to recurring billing. A client may expect immediate results from a service that takes time. A buyer may dispute a charge instead of requesting a refund. A delayed shipment may become a formal payment dispute.

High-risk businesses should reduce confusion before the sale. Product descriptions should be accurate. Refund policies should be easy to find. Subscription terms should be clear. Service agreements should explain timelines and deliverables. Receipts should display a business name customers will recognize on their bank statement.

The Difference Between a Standard Account and a Higher-Risk Setup

Many popular payment platforms are built for simple businesses with low dispute rates and predictable transaction patterns. A local coffee shop selling in person is easier for a processor to evaluate than an online coaching company selling six-month programs to customers across several states.

Higher-risk businesses usually go through more detailed underwriting. The processor may review the owner, business model, website, refund policy, expected monthly volume, average transaction size, customer base, and dispute history. It may also request prior processing statements, business registration documents, bank information, and proof that the company operates transparently.

A higher-risk setup may include fraud filters, chargeback alerts, transaction monitoring, reserve requirements, ACH options, virtual terminals, or e-commerce integrations. These tools help reduce losses and keep payments moving.

Rules vary by industry, sales model, transaction volume, and documentation quality. A business that can clearly explain how it sells, fulfills orders, manages refunds, and handles complaints has a better chance of passing review.

What Entrepreneurs Should Prepare Before Applying

Business owners should address payment processing during launch planning. A strong application should include business documents, accurate ownership information, clear product or service descriptions, expected processing volume, average sale amount, refund policy, delivery timeline, and customer support process.

For online businesses, the website matters. It should show contact information, terms and conditions, a privacy policy, refund or cancellation rules, and clear descriptions of what customers are buying. Subscription terms should be easy to understand. If a service will be delivered later, the timeline should be visible before payment is collected.

Recordkeeping is equally important. Invoices, signed agreements, shipment tracking, appointment confirmations, email communication, and proof of delivery can help if a customer disputes a payment. These records do not prevent every dispute, but they give the business a stronger response.

Entrepreneurs who have processed payments before should review past statements and chargeback history. If issues occurred, they should be ready to explain what changed, such as updated refund policies, improved customer service, clearer product descriptions, or discontinued offers that caused complaints.

Why This Matters for Local Economic Growth

Payment access affects business opportunity. A company that accepts reliable digital payments can sell beyond its immediate area, book customers in advance, invoice professionally, and reach people who rarely carry cash. A company that struggles to process payments may lose customers to competitors with stronger systems.

For Westchester entrepreneurs, this connects to ownership, self-determination, and local wealth. A business needs customers, visibility, and community support, but it also needs back-end systems that convert that support into revenue.

Discussions around local Black business growth often focus on visibility and community spending. Those issues matter, but payment systems, bookkeeping, tax planning, customer records, and fraud prevention also shape whether a business survives beyond the launch stage.

This is especially true for hybrid businesses. A local brand may sell at community events, through social media, on its website, and by invoice. A service provider may work with customers in Mount Vernon, Yonkers, White Plains, New Rochelle, the Bronx, and New Jersey. Each sales channel can create different payment needs.

Entrepreneurs should ask direct questions before choosing a processor. What happens if sales volume grows quickly? How are disputes handled? Are funds held in reserve? What industries are supported? What fraud tools are available? What documents are needed before approval?

Payment Access Is Part of Business Infrastructure

Entrepreneurs often spend months thinking about branding, pricing, marketing, and customer service. Payment processing deserves the same level of planning because unreliable access to funds can weaken every part of the business.

For businesses in industries that banks review more carefully, preparation is essential. Owners should understand why their category may be considered higher risk, how transactions are reviewed, why chargebacks matter, and what documents processors may request. They should also build clear policies and keep strong records from the beginning.

A business can have a strong mission, loyal customers, and real community value, yet still struggle if the payment side is weak. Westchester entrepreneurs who understand the risk conversation early can protect cash flow, avoid preventable disruptions, and build businesses ready for a card-first economy.

If You Felt That, You’re Not Wrong – Your Collaborators Are Your Competitors, and That’s Not a Bad Thing

Larnez Kinsey
-
0
If You Felt That, You’re Not Wrong – Your Collaborators Are Your Competitors, and That’s Not a Bad Thing

Yonkers is home to approximately 212,603 people. Nearly half of its residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, more than 16 percent identify as Black, one-third were born outside the United States, and half speak a language other than English at home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau⁠. Diversity is not a special initiative here; diversity is the city.

According to Yonkers’ 2025 Annual Action Plan⁠, approximately $3.25 million in federal Community Development Block Grant funding was allocated across the city. About $1.41 million was designated for public facilities, $649,749 for city administration, $500,000 for economic development, $200,000 for code enforcement and $487,312 for nonprofit public-service programs.

Only 15 percent of the total allocation was designated for organizations providing direct services to young people, seniors, families and people with disabilities. That was not entirely the city’s choice, because federal CDBG requirements⁠ generally cap public-service spending at 15 percent while permitting as much as 20 percent for planning and administration.

These figures do not prove that funds were mishandled. Administration, economic development, code enforcement and safe public facilities are legitimate community investments. They also do not establish that every allocated dollar has been spent, because money assigned on paper is not the same as money drawn down after eligible expenses are documented.

What the numbers reveal is how the system is built. Millions can be announced in the name of community development while grassroots organizations compete over a much smaller portion. The public hears that $3.25 million was invested while community leaders try to stretch $5,000 across months of programming, and both realities are somehow expected to live peacefully inside the same press release.

This is why we have to examine what “collaboration” actually means. The word appears in grant proposals, campaign speeches, strategic plans and photographs crowded with community logos. Everybody is a partner until it is time to discuss who controls the money, owns the idea or makes the final decision.

A photograph can show who attended, but it cannot show who possessed authority. It cannot tell us who designed the initiative, who entered the room after the important decisions were made, or who received enough funding to build something sustainable. Collaboration is not measured by how many people stand behind the podium; it is measured by what power they possess after the microphone is turned off.

That brings us to a truth community organizations should be willing to name: Your collaborators are your competitors, and that is not necessarily a problem. Competition can sharpen an organization’s purpose, improve its services and require its leaders to explain what makes their work distinct. It can expose unmet needs, reduce duplication and encourage organizations to produce measurable results.

The problem is not competition; the problem is performing collaboration as though competition does not exist. The organization sitting beside you at a coalition meeting may submit for the same grant, approach the same sponsor or recruit from the same community. It can respect your work, support your mission, and still believe it is the strongest candidate for the opportunity.

That is not betrayal; that is an ecosystem operating with limited resources. Collaboration and competition can occupy the same relationship, but only when everyone is honest about both.

Working together does not require surrendering every contact, concept or strategy you have developed. Partnership is not a community-property agreement for your intellectual capital. Organizations can share a mission without sharing every method, and they can celebrate one another’s success while protecting what makes their own work valuable.

Competition becomes harmful when scarcity is manufactured, concealed or used to keep organizations fighting sideways. Groups may be encouraged to exchange knowledge in one room and then compete for the same limited public-service funding in another. When tension follows, institutions can describe the community as fragmented without acknowledging how the funding structure helped produce that fragmentation.

A review of Yonkers’ publicly posted Year 51 approvals shows dozens of community and nonprofit organizations receiving CDBG support through multiple awards. The recipients and amounts appear across Board of Contract and Supply records, including those dated November 18, 2025⁠, December 2, 2025⁠, January 27, 2026⁠, April 7, 2026⁠, May 5, 2026⁠ and August 11, 2026⁠. Many direct-service grants ranged from $3,000 to $15,000, while some facility awards reached six figures.

Those awards may appear on the same recipient list, but they do not provide the same staffing capacity, stability or influence. The most revealing question is not simply who received funding; it is who received enough to build. There is a difference between paying for a temporary activity and investing in the organization responsible for sustaining it.

Yonkers does not lack credible community leadership. Youth workers, organizers, coaches, artists, healers, clergy members, neighborhood elders and credible messengers already understand the city’s emotional geography. They know which families are struggling, which blocks feel abandoned and which young person may be one conversation away from making a different decision.

Institutions often want access to that knowledge without fully investing in the people carrying it. A community leader may attend meetings, explain why the messaging failed, introduce an initiative to residents and repair trust after an institutional misstep, only to be thanked for offering “valuable insight.” If the insight is valuable enough to guide funded work, it is valuable enough to compensate.

The body recognizes when partnership becomes extraction. It remembers the meeting where someone repeated your idea as though it had just entered the room, the proposal containing your language but not your name and the request for your contacts followed by your exclusion from later decisions. That hesitation you feel the next time someone proposes a collaboration is not negativity; it is your nervous system reviewing the minutes from meetings your mind tried to forget.

For many community leaders, this is more than professional frustration. Repeated exposure to crisis, grief and other people’s trauma can produce secondary traumatic stress⁠, while knowing what residents need but being repeatedly prevented from providing it can create moral injury⁠. Every stressful experience is not trauma, but when leaders are expected to absorb community pain, compete for survival funding and remain publicly composed, their exhaustion may reveal not a lack of commitment, but what that commitment has cost them.

This is especially damaging in Black, Latino, immigrant and working-class communities, where institutions may mistake access to residents for ownership of community trust. Trust does not transfer because a respected organization’s logo appears on a flyer. It is earned through consistency, protection and presence long before funding arrives and long after the cameras leave.

Administrative capacity still matters because public money requires financial controls, reporting and compliance. But administrative capacity and community competence are not interchangeable. One organization may know how to manage a million-dollar contract, while another knows how to keep a young person alive; an effective system should know how to connect and invest in both.

That investment should include technical assistance, administrative staff, timely reimbursements and multiyear support. Capacity should be developed instead of used as a permanent gate that protects organizations already funded well enough to demonstrate it. You cannot praise grassroots leadership publicly while starving it structurally.

Community organizations should continue collaborating, but they should do so with clarity. Before pursuing an opportunity together, partners should decide in writing who will lead, how funding and responsibilities will be divided, who owns the work, how public credit will be shared and what happens if the organizations later pursue the same opportunity.

Those conversations do not weaken trust; they prevent confusion from dressing itself up as betrayal. Healthy competitors do not need one another to fail, and healthy collaborators do not require unrestricted access to everything another organization has built.

The next time millions are announced for community development, do not stop at the number in the headline. Ask how much was available for direct services, how much was assigned to administration and facilities, which organizations received enough to build, and whether the money allocated was ultimately spent. Those questions are not accusations; they are how informed communities distinguish investment from announcement.

Community leaders must also recognize that their names, relationships, ideas and reputations are resources. Before lending them to an initiative, clarify the compensation, responsibilities, ownership and authority attached to your participation. A seat at the table means very little when the menu, meal and bill were decided before you arrived.

Your collaborators are your competitors, and that does not make them your enemies. It means collaboration requires honesty, competition requires integrity, and both require boundaries. A strong community ecosystem is not one where everyone pretends to agree; it is one where organizations can compete for resources without sabotaging relationships or losing sight of the people the funding was created to serve.

If this made you reconsider a partnership, reread an award announcement or look differently at the logos on the next community flyer, share it with someone sitting in those rooms. Ask each other who controls the funding, who owns the work, who absorbs the risk and who possesses the authority to change the outcome. Once communities learn to follow those questions, collaboration can no longer be used to decorate decisions they were never empowered to make.

If you felt the tension between partnership and competition, you were not being suspicious. You were recognizing the system while it was operating, and recognition is where discernment begins. If you felt that, you’re not wrong; you were paying attention.

Things that make you go hmmm…

References:

Demographic paragraph

Yonkers is home to approximately 212,603 people. Nearly half of its residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, more than 16 percent identify as Black, one-third were born outside the United States, and half speak a language other than English at home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s QuickFacts profile for Yonkers⁠. Diversity is not a special initiative here; diversity is the city.

Funding-allocation paragraphs

According to the city’s 2025 Annual Action Plan⁠, Yonkers allocated approximately $3.25 million in federal Community Development Block Grant funding. About $1.41 million was designated for public facilities, $649,749 for city administration, $500,000 for economic development, $200,000 for code enforcement and $487,312 for nonprofit public-service programs.

Only 15 percent of the total allocation was designated for organizations providing direct services to young people, seniors, families and people with disabilities. That was not entirely the city’s choice: HUD’s CDBG requirements⁠ generally impose a 15 percent public-service cap and a 20 percent planning and general-administration cap.

Award-review paragraph

A review of Yonkers’ publicly posted Year 51 approvals shows dozens of community and nonprofit organizations receiving CDBG support through multiple awards. The recipients and award amounts appear across several Board of Contract and Supply records, including the agendas dated November 18, 2025⁠, December 2, 2025⁠, January 27, 2026⁠, April 7, 2026⁠, May 5, 2026⁠ and August 11, 2026⁠. Many direct-service grants ranged from $3,000 to $15,000, while some facility awards reached six figures.

Yonkers Has the Village. Now We Have to Move Like One.

Larnez Kinsey
-
0
Yonkers Has the Village. Now We Have to Move Like One.

Project RISE showed me something I haven’t seen enough of in seven years of living in Yonkers: organizations actually moving together. Now we have to make sure the village reaches the whole family, not just the child. By Larnez Kinsey

Yonkers is home to an estimated 212,603 people packed into just 18 square miles. Nearly one in five residents is under 18, meaning more than 40,000 children are growing up here. And while the median household income is $83,549, 13.8% of Yonkers residents live below the poverty line. 

Those numbers tell us something about Yonkers. But they don’t tell us everything. They don’t tell us what it feels like to be 14 years old and already know the sound of gunfire. They don’t tell us what happens inside a family when somebody’s child doesn’t make it home. And they don’t tell us what it means when the children we’re trying to protect are sometimes also the children we’re trying to prevent from pulling the trigger.

That reality was sitting heavy on me when, on Thursday, August 13, 2026, at 5 p.m., I walked into the Yonkers Riverfront Library for the Project RISE Yonkers Community Call to Action. The message was: Our community. Our youth. Our responsibility.

Beautiful words, but everybody loves community until community requires inconvenience. Everybody loves our youth until the youth is angry, grieving, suspended, arrested, traumatized, loud, misunderstood, or already halfway convinced the streets are the only place where they belong. And everybody loves responsibility until it’s time for somebody to actually take some, but that evening, I saw something in Yonkers that gave me hope.

For the first time in the seven years I have lived here, I saw this many community organizations visibly moving around the same mission. Not just logos lined up on a flyer. People working together.

Everybody on That Stage Had a Why

Each organization had a representative on stage speaking about its programs, but they weren’t just giving us the nonprofit elevator pitch. They talked about why. Why they mentor?  Why they coach? Why they create?  Why they intervene? Why they continue showing up when community work can exhaust you?

We heard from parents, people raised in these communities, people who have watched young people they knew become victims of violence, people who have watched friends make choices that changed their lives forever, and people who understand that behind every statistic is somebody’s baby.

There’s a kind of knowledge you learn in training. Then there’s the kind you carry because you know the block. You know the family. You know that mother’s face. You know what it feels like when somebody’s name suddenly ends up on a candle, a hoodie, or a memorial T-shirt. That’s different, and sitting there, I thought: Yonkers already has the village. Now we have to connect it.

The Village Was in the Room

Project RISE, Respond, Invest, Sustain and Empower, invests in community organizations addressing gun violence and the conditions surrounding it. New York State’s current Year 3 funding structure identifies three Yonkers lead organizations: the Police Athletic League of Yonkers Foundation, Yonkers Family YMCA and Westhab Inc. PAL distributes funding to Brother 2 Brother and The Hogue Foundation; the YMCA works with 914United, We Art One and Exquisite Academy of Arts; and Westhab works with One Paso, Project Inspire and Yonkers Arts. 

Different organizations.

Different strengths.

Same children.

And I want to give particular flowers to We Art One, Yonkers Arts, 914United, Project Inspire, Brother 2 Brother, One Paso and the YMCA. Not because they’re the only organizations doing meaningful work. They’re not. I’m highlighting them because I personally keep seeing them. At each other’s events. Sharing resources. Connecting people. Supporting young people. Building relationships across organizational lines.

For seven years, I’ve watched good organizations do good work throughout Yonkers. What felt different on August 13 was seeing pieces of that work actually connecting. Because collaboration isn’t ten logos sitting together at the bottom of a flyer. Collaboration is when the mission becomes more important than whose logo gets the credit. That is what Yonkers needs more of.

Now Widen the Circle

Collaboration cannot become another exclusive club. There are grassroots organizations throughout Yonkers doing meaningful work without large budgets, government contracts, or polished communications departments. Some are working from churches, community rooms, gyms, art spaces, neighborhood spaces and sometimes somebody’s living room. But they may possess something institutions spend years trying to manufacture: Trust.

They know the families. They know which child stopped coming around. They know who’s grieving. They know who just came home. They know who’s angry. They know which mother is overwhelmed. They may know who is one bad night away from making a permanent decision. I believe deeply the people closest to the problems in our communities are often closest to the solutions. Find them. Invite them. Listen to them. And when they’re doing effective work, resource them.

Stop Plucking Children Out of Their Circumstances

This is where our approach to youth violence has to mature. We cannot keep plucking children out of their circumstances, putting them into a six-week or twelve-week program, teaching them coping skills, leadership, and conflict resolution and then dropping them right back into the same conditions without offering meaningful assistance to the parents and caretakers raising them.

You cannot heal a child in isolation. What happens when the workshop ends? What does home look like? Is the rent behind? Is there enough food? Is the caregiver overwhelmed? Does somebody need mental-health support? Does the family need employment assistance? Childcare? Transportation? Housing support? Financial literacy? Therapy?

Sometimes the strongest youth intervention isn’t another youth program. Sometimes it’s helping the person raising that young person breathe. We love saying, Save the children. Okay. Help the people raising them. Children don’t live in programs. They live in ecosystems. Helping the parent helps the child. Supporting the caretaker supports the child. Stabilizing the household supports the child. That is violence prevention too. We cannot keep trying to save children while ignoring what they’re being asked to survive.

Violence Is Moving Through Our Communities

Violence is a disease moving through our communities, and our children are being asked to develop immunity in real time. They’re watching friends die. They’re watching fights become content. They’re watching social-media arguments become street conflicts. They’re carrying grief before they even have language for grief. Some are carrying fear. Some are carrying anger. And some are carrying weapons because somewhere along the way they learned that having a gun meant having protection.

We cannot keep waiting until they’re bleeding, physically or emotionally, to decide prevention matters. They need tools before the crisis. They need language to identify what they’re feeling before those feelings start making decisions for them. They need tools to regulate anger before anger becomes action. They need mental-health resources. They need safe adults. They need opportunity. They need somewhere to belong. They need to know who to call. And they need all of that before somebody puts their face on a candle, hoodie or memorial T-shirt.

We Heal Communities Through Connection

That’s why I kept coming back to one word: Connection.

Connect the child to the mentor. Connect the parent to resources. Connect the school to the grassroots organization. Connect the credible messenger to the family. Connect mental-health providers to the people who need them. Connect the artist to opportunity. Connect the organization with community trust to the institution with resources. Because a village isn’t simply a bunch of people standing near each other. A village is a network of relationships that knows how to move when somebody needs help.

Jordan Mendez Said the Part We Needed to Hear

One of the strongest moments of the evening came from Jordan Mendez. Jordan told the room he was indignant. Not simply angry. Indignant. Angry because what he was witnessing felt like an injustice. And then this young man challenged a room full of adults. If all these organizations exist… If all these programs exist… If all these adults care… why don’t enough young people know about them? There it is. Adults love saying: There are programs out here. Okay! Does the 14-year-old know? Does the mother working two jobs know? Does the grandmother raising grandchildren know? Does the teenager who just came home know?

A resource our families don’t know exists cannot help them. Jordan challenged Yonkers to bring violence-prevention organizations directly into our schools. And that deserves serious consideration. School is one of the few places where we already have access to large numbers of young people, so why are we treating violence prevention like an extracurricular activity when violence isn’t extracurricular in their lives?

Jordan wasn’t simply giving adults his opinion.

He was giving us policy.

Listen to him.

Everybody Doesn’t Need a Basketball

We also heard about free youth programming that includes sports, family engagement, and robotics. The robotics caught my attention because someone acknowledged an obvious truth our youth-development strategies sometimes miss: Every child doesn’t want to play sports. Somebody wants a camera. Somebody wants a computer. Somebody wants to paint. Somebody wants to dance. Somebody wants to build something. Somebody wants to make music. Somebody wants to start a business. And somebody hasn’t discovered what makes them light up yet. Violence prevention cannot become code for: Give Black and brown kids a basketball.

Give them choices. Give them exposure. Give them possibilities. Let them discover who they are before the streets decide who they’re supposed to be.

Presence Is the Beginning. Partnership Is the Assignment.

Government leadership was represented in the room as well.

Among those I observed were Symra Brandon, representing the office of New York State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins; Westchester County Legislator James Nolan, District 15; Yonkers City Council President Lakisha Collins-Bellamy, Esq.; and Yonkers City Councilwoman and Majority Whip Deana R. Norman, representing District 1. I also saw Leslye Oquendo-Thomas, candidate for Westchester County Legislature District 17. Their presence mattered. But presence is the beginning. Partnership is the assignment.

Grassroots organizations have relationships government cannot manufacture. Government has access and resources grassroots organizations often cannot reach. We need both. If elected leaders heard an idea in that room that makes sense, help move it. If organizations need access to schools, help open the door. If a grassroots organization is producing results, help connect it to sustainable resources. Don’t just applaud the work. Build infrastructure around the people already doing it.

Some of the Most Important People Weren’t on the Stage

I also noticed credible messengers from SNUG in the audience. That mattered to me. Sometimes the person who can reach a young person isn’t the person with the biggest title or longest résumé. Sometimes it’s somebody who can look at them and say: “I’ve been where you are.” And the young person knows they’re not performing empathy. They lived it.

I also saw organizers from ELOC (Environmental Leaders of Color) alongside some impressive young advocates. We need those young people in these conversations. Not as decoration. Not for the group photo. Not because somebody’s grant requires “youth voice.” Give them influence. Ask why their friends carry guns. Ask what scares them. Ask why they don’t come to our programs. Ask which adults they trust. Ask what we’re getting wrong. And then do something adults sometimes struggle with: Be quiet and hear them.

No Wrong Door

Here’s what I want this ecosystem and eventually the broader Yonkers community to become: No wrong door. A young person enters through art and needs mental-health support? Connect them. A credible messenger meets somebody who needs employment? Connect them. A family enters through the YMCA and needs another service? Connect them.

Brother 2 Brother or Project Inspire realizes a child is struggling because the parent is drowning? Help the parent too. A teacher notices something changing in a student? They should know who to call before that child reaches crisis. Wherever a child or family enters the village, somebody should know where the next door is. That’s an ecosystem. That’s community. That’s prevention.

Don’t Let August 13th Become Another Meeting

This is my challenge to everybody who was in that room, including me. Don’t let August 13 become another meeting where everybody felt good about the conversation and then went back to their separate corners. Don’t let the photographs become the outcome. Don’t let attendance become the accomplishment. And please don’t let another shooting be the thing that brings everybody back together.

For the first time in seven years of living in Yonkers, I saw enough organizations genuinely moving together to make me believe something bigger is possible. So build on it. Widen the circle. Bring in the grassroots organizations still outside of it. Bring in the schools. Bring in businesses. Bring in mental-health providers. Bring in parents and caretakers. Bring in credible messengers. And put young people at the center, not at the edge.

Because Yonkers doesn’t have to start from scratch. We have programs. We have artists. We have mentors. We have mental-health advocates. We have credible messengers. We have grassroots leaders with community trust. We have elected officials with the ability to open doors. And we have young people intelligent enough to tell us exactly what we’re missing. Yonkers has the village. Now connect it. Because the people closest to our community’s problems are often closest to the solutions.

And because violence is a disease our children are combating in real time, our responsibility is to make sure they and the people raising them have the tools, language, resources and relationships to protect themselves, heal and choose something different.

On August 13, the message was: OUR COMMUNITY. OUR YOUTH. OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Cool.

Now comes the part that counts:

Move like it.

Was There Special Treatment? Questions Surround Tuckahoe Police Response to Former Chief’s Wife

AJ Woodson
-
2
Was There Special Treatment? Questions Surround Tuckahoe Police Response to Former Chief’s Wife

Former Tuckahoe Police Chief’s Wife at Center of Incident Now Under DA Review

An independent investigation is underway into the Tuckahoe Police Department’s handling of an August 14th incident that allegedly began in Yonkers and ended in Tuckahoe. The incident allegedly involved Donna Costanzo, the wife of John Costanzo, the retired Tuckahoe Police Chief who currently serves as Executive Director of the Westchester County Chiefs of Police Association.

Black Westchester has independently learned from sources familiar with the matter that Donna Costanzo was allegedly intoxicated and may have been involved in collisions with two vehicles in Yonkers before striking a third vehicle in Tuckahoe.

Sources also told Black Westchester that, following the incident, Costanzo was allegedly driven home by a member of the Tuckahoe Police Department rather than being taken into custody.

If those accounts are accurate, the circumstances raise serious questions that go well beyond the alleged collisions themselves: Who responded to the incident? Were standard police procedures followed? Why was Costanzo allegedly driven home instead of being taken into custody? And did her relationship to a former Tuckahoe Police Chief influence how she was treated?

The Village of Tuckahoe, the Tuckahoe Police Department, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office have not publicly confirmed those allegations.

After consulting with Mayor Cara Kronen and the Village Administrator, Tuckahoe Police Chief Larry Rotta determined that both the circumstances surrounding the incident and the police response warranted an independent review.

The Village subsequently contacted Westchester County seeking an outside investigation and was referred to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, which is now reviewing the matter.

A spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office confirmed to Black Westchester that while Mrs. Costanzo’s actions are not under investigation, the police actions following the incident are “currently under review by our Public Integrity and Law Enforcement Bureau.”

In an August 20 statement provided to Black Westchester, the Office of Mayor Cara Kronen emphasized the Village’s commitment to transparency, accountability and an independent review:

“The Village of Tuckahoe is aware of questions regarding an incident that occurred on Friday, August 14th, involving a motor vehicle that entered the Village following an earlier incident in the City of Yonkers. We are committed to transparency, accountability, and maintaining the public’s confidence in our Village government and Police Department. To ensure that this matter receives an independent and impartial review, the Tuckahoe Police Chief, in consultation with Mayor Kronen and the Village Administrator, determined that the circumstances surrounding the incident and the subsequent police response should be reviewed by an outside agency. Chief Rotta and Mayor Kronen firmly believe that absolute transparency is paramount in maintaining public trust and upholding the integrity of the Police Dept.”

It is encouraging that the Village of Tuckahoe has taken a proactive approach by referring the matter for an independent and impartial investigation rather than allowing it to be handled solely within the department. Public confidence in law enforcement can quickly erode whenever there is even the appearance that someone with connections to the police may have received preferential treatment. An outside investigation provides an opportunity for the facts to be examined independently, transparently and without favor.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the allegations surrounding Costanzo remain under investigation and have not been established as fact.

Ultimately, the review should answer three fundamental questions: What exactly happened on August 14? Were established procedures followed by responding officers? And did Donna Costanzo receive the same treatment that any other person would have received under the same circumstances?

That last question may ultimately determine whether this was simply an unusual police response—or an example of preferential treatment.

Stay with Black Westchester for the latest updates as more information becomes available.

1...456...195Page 5 of 195