The Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street Homicide Division has named 31-year-old Eric Atkinson as the suspect in the robbery and murder of discount store clerk Martha Sanchez, according to a press release issued by Ninth District Councilman Curren Price’s office.
Sanchez was working as a store clerk at a local Happy Bargain 99 Cents Store on the 7400 block of South Broadway around at 8:50 p.m. on Sept.17 when the robbery and shooting happened. [Read more…]
Photo Credit: Sinduja Rangarajan
Brenda Ramirez and her husband had finished work and were driving home when they saw police and a crowd gathered around a South Los Angeles discount store a block away from their upholstery shop.
Enrique Espino, a high school student, was sitting on his couch watching TV when he heard his neighbors run out of their homes. Eva Alvarez, who was working in her bail bond store, saw an ambulance on her store’s surveillance camera and sprinted towards the shop across the street.
Their neighbor, Martha Sanchez, had been shot. [Read more…]
By Martha Sanchez
It is election time and most people are ready to elect a new representative for the poorest council district of Los Angeles; someone who can fix five powerful regulatory tools: infrastructure, industry, immigration, institutions and identity policies.
And this time the election is not about skin color, it is about universal issues. At least this is what we heard from candidates at the first CD9 Candidate Forum held Saturday, February 16th at Maya Angelou Community High School.
This election is about finding a meaningful leader eager to reduce crime, police abuse and political corruption, infrastructural disinvestment, environmental contamination, ethnic tensions, inadequate education, poverty, job opportunities, homelessness, redevelopment plans and discriminatory ordinances that only benefit certain ethnic groups.
And I’m absolutely right when I say the “poorest district of Los Angeles,” even when we have so many important and valuable assets such as the Augustus Hawkins Natural Park, the Jazz Corridor, the California African American Museum, the Green Meadows Recreational Center, the Mercado La Paloma, a great number of new and well equipped school buildings, the Los Angeles Trade Tech College, great transportation lines like the MTA blue line, Exposition line, well-preserved mansions, historical buildings and landmarks, such as the AAA building and the St Vincent Catholic Church along Figueroa corridor.
Did I miss something? Oh yes, L.A Live, L.A Convention Center, the California Science Center, IMAX Theater, L.A. Memorial Coliseum, Exposition Park, Mary Mount University, the University of Southern California, the newest Lorenzo Housing Project, the Orthopeadic Hospital, available warehouses, great investment opportunities, shipper land, ship labor and why not… its people.
Oh yes, we are the least and the last in almost all candidates’ bucket lists, but we are important too. Let’s not forget that “we are living in a neighborhood steeped in culture and history.” That’s why they need our votes!
As a longtime resident, this is the first time that I see a significant number of young and adult volunteers recruited by current political candidates walking down the streets talking to constituents, attracting young voters and reaching out to skeptical residents, encouraging them to participate in the upcoming election on March 5th.
I’m so fascinated with former and new politicians’ campaigns since ten years ago when I first became an activist in my community. Monica Garcia—my school board representative—who is fighting to keep her seat as well, told me: “Martha we can’t do anything for your community because your people don’t vote, and we don’t want to upset the voters.”
That was a slap on my face, but it didn’t prevent me from reaching my goal to improve my community. Now, the same people that were discouraged by politicians are being reached out to and considered important.
Observing all those campaign volunteers knocking on my neighbors’ doors makes me feel proud and inspired. It seems that we have finally changed the equation. We learned our rights and acquired some political awareness to turn things around. But we still need something equally important: we need jobs, education and economic opportunities. In order to get that, we need to have an honest and committed representative in City Hall.
For those who couldn’t attend the forum I would like to share some personal remarks. First and most importantly, this community has demonstrated that Black and Latino leaders can and want to work together. We had a great turnout and the event organizers deserve to be acknowledged for that. Second, we all wanted to know from all candidates what their connection with CD9 was and what they have done for us in their past. Third, I believe most people just started to understand that we don’t need a candidate that looks like us; we need someone that thinks and acts like us!
Thus, no matter how hard they tried to connect with us by mentioning their Mexican, Salvadoran, African-American, blue, white, red or purple affiliation, it was clear to them that we didn’t want big corporations dictating our lives. We want equitable funding for working class people, better public services and high quality infrastructure, and more power in decision-making process for new developments, housing projects and job opportunities. They might look like us, but if their campaigns are funded by banks, corporations and the so called “philanthropic big brother,” then we don’t want them to represent us.
Although some stressed the fact that since Latino residents are the great majority in CD9, a Latino representative could better suit this community. If it were the case, why is Gil Cedillo, a Mexican-American, running for office in the greatest Central-American district, and why are [Ron] Gochez and [Ana] Cubas, both of Salvadoran descent, persuading Mexican and Black residents to vote for them? Why do Curren Price Jr., David Roberts, and Mike Davis — none of them Mexican-American — think that they could represent CD9 residents better; they should be running for CD8 instead.
Even more outrageous is to hear people concerned with keeping the “black man” in power. This has nothing to do with “black and brown” tensions in South L.A. and it is not about skin color, right? With all due respect, they should know that it was Gilbert Lindsay, a black council member who almost destroyed the pride and character of this former black community. They should go and ask [Eighth District Councilman] Bernard Parks’ constituents how they feel about him too. I believe they feel almost like us when someone mentions Antonio Villaraigosa, Monica Garcia, or Marco Rubio.
My intention is not to divide but to raise awareness that skin color should not be the standard. Those comments really disappoint me in a similar way that others felt discouraged when Cubas and Gochez expressed few remarks in Spanish, though most people — like me — preferred to vocalize issues around education, job training and gentrification. Let’s be honest, a community like mine, holding so many amenities, cultural richness and leisure opportunities is a hidden treasure, a main target of developers and gentrification is already taking place. The rich want our land and they are willing to invest in a physically and mentally disconnected “token” to make it faster.
Please don’t get me wrong, we don’t need a “hometown candidate” that has never been outside of this community and can’t think outside of the box. I don’t believe in a candidate that adjusts his thoughts and manners to please different audiences. How can I trust in a candidate that is taking credit from somebody else’s work to enhance his efforts and commitment, a candidate that was paid to perform some specific tasks under somebody else’s administration, and later feel proud and confident to say “I did it” in a public forum.
Why do we have to use our gender, race, and our humble background to make the statement that we are better. I know rich people that are humble, peaceful and that really care about the poor. I also know poor people who, once they got in a position of power, turned around and became unconscious dictators. I know a lot of female politicians holding important positions of power supporting male agendas and constantly voting against female rights.
I do really want to see change, but change from the grassroots level to the glass ceiling. As a woman, I doubt other women that are successful based on male agendas. As an immigrant, I feel uncertainty around the police department. As minority, I distrust blue eyes. As an educated person, I know how politicians have used and abused this community. As a mother and wife, I need better opportunities for my husband and my kids that Wal-Mart has never provided.
As an activist, I admire Cesar Chavez and Dr. [Martin Luther] King, but what I learned from them is that they never left people behind to run for office and they died fighting for their cause. We don’t need another hero. But if we really want to stop our politicians from being accountable to corporations, then we need to invest in them and work on their campaigns, so they will only be accountable to us… their real constituents. Then, let’s put on our running shoes to walk precincts and make this happen.
By Martha Sánchez
 Tourists taking pictures in front of the White House that it is illuminated pink in honor of cancer victims. Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Herbert. Oct 1, 2012 |
“Think Pink Young Americans” says the electronic message that I received from the White House to commemorate the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to honor all women and men affected by such terrible disease. Through this message, United States President Barack Obama proclaims October as the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, emphasizing that this year “tens of thousands are expected to lose their lives to the disease.” In addition to that, he highlights more than 200,000 women that will be diagnosed with breast cancer the upcoming year. (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Proclamation—National Breast Cancer Awareness Month 2012. October 1, 2012. However, those numbers are just a small representation from the total of people diagnosed with cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, the term “cancer” refers not to one disease but many diseases that are grouped in many categories. (National Cancer Institute. Cancer Trends Progress Report – 2011/2012 Update, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, August 2012) Actually, there are more than one-hundred types of cancer, and despite the significant progress achieved by research institutions, the exact causes of breast cancer remain unknown. For that reason, the Obama Administration stands with the mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and friends affected by such terrible disease. And there is no reason to doubt his words, considering that his mom lost the battle against ovarian cancer.
 Martha Sánchez with her children, Gonzalo and Catherine Romero. |
Although I openly acknowledge his positive remarks and his personal commitment to eradicate this “social epidemic” through his well-known “Affordable Care Act,” in my humble opinion, I truly believe that his plan only addresses one branch of the problem while ignoring its roots. In other words, honoring those who we have lost to cancer, lending our strength and praying for them is never enough and it doesn’t address the roots of the problem. Frankly, educating people and providing psychological intervention programs for cancer victims, only insults my intelligence.
Sincerely, I don’t feel compelled by looking at this picture. In fact, I feel upset with most cancer campaigns. And why I shouldn’t be upset if that picture represents another well-coordinated effort to encourage citizens, governmental agencies, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and all other interested groups to join in activities that will basically increase “awareness” of what Americans can do to prevent breast cancer without addressing the real problem. Technically, what I’m getting from this “Official Pink House” picture is a friendly invitation to comply with the system rules and ignore the external forces that are killing us softly. Through this new campaign, the government wants me to be peaceful and conventional while embracing with honor my predesigned destiny that is always sponsored it by neighborly corporations.
Please don’t get my message wrong: I do officially stand with all cancer victims. In reality, I empathize with them because both of my grandmothers died of cancer. My mom had a hysterectomy several years ago and my educational background is related with such disease. Indeed, I supposed to be working in a lab identifying cancerous cells in Mexico, but greater forces brought me to the United States where my real battle against cancer took place when I moved with my own family to South Los Angeles, the poorest neighborhood of Los Angeles City.
 Palace Plating plant at South San Pedro Street and E. 30th Street. |
In 2003, the Air Quality Management District hosted a public meeting at my children’s school to let us know that Palace Plating, a chrome-plating company located across the street from my children’s elementary school, was using chemicals identified by the State of California as carcinogens. I never thought that there was something wrong until I started learning the stories of those living in our community.
Over the past ten years, I was able to record information about children suffering from mental retardation, autism, birth defects, neurological damage, and many other symptoms such as asthma, abdominal pain, vomiting, dizziness, vision problems, nose hemorrhaging, and more—the list goes on and on. More than ten teachers and former school workers died of cancer and many more are cancer survivors. As I fought for the permanent closure of the company, I was able to collect dozens of people’s testimonies that helped me to prove my claims and to achieve my demands of permanently closing that company last December.
Those personal narratives certainly directed me to the actual responsible of this cancer crisis—the Environmental Protection Agency and the lower rank agencies sheltered under its umbrella. After recording people’s testimonies, I concluded that the war on cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry that makes money not to cure cancer but to address the cost of its treatments. I discovered as well that media have contributed to the problem by turning the “guilty into innocent” and the victim into a “proud survivor.” Ten years of work led me to conclude that the American Cancer Society and its allies—the corporate supporters and politicians helped by the media—have betrayed and exploited the public with their “bogus campaigns against cancer.”
Let me explain why I don’t feel sympathy, not even grateful for having so many generous “cancer supporters.” Through this “Pink House” campaign, President Obama has stated that “the exact causes of breast cancer remain unknown, but understanding its risk factors is essential to prevention.” Certainly there is plenty of evidence against those “huge corporate-sponsors.” Those companies have been targeted by the National Environmental Protection Agency as “toxic polluters” and accused by environmentalists as directly responsible for producing environmental carcinogens. With so much evidence at hand, then why it is that the national regulatory agencies are not doing their part by prosecuting them? Well, they have successfully avoided public responsibility by donating a portion of their sales to the cancer research and by drawing the attention to our “bad health, live and eating habits” instead.
Touching the lives of Americans from every background and in every community throughout the nation is very profitable. Let’s think about the amount of things that we can “Shop for the Cure.” Today, we can do anything to find the cure like running, biking, climbing, jumping, cooking, and even organizing mass events, public demonstrations, and you name it—the sky is the limit! But even more importantly, we can feel good and look better if we join America’s cancer movement by buying teddy bears or wearing amulets, talismans, bracelets, and showing out those popular pink ribbon brooches in public.
Let’s be honest, those fashionable “rosy goodies” have only improved the character of cynical merchants such as Revlon, Avon, Tiffany, Pier 1, Estee Lauder, Ralph Lauren, JC Penny and many more… the same ones that are making their consumers sick! What we really need to do is to stop putting on their cosmetics and consuming their costly “beauty” products. The problem is that we have become masters at fooling ourselves into thinking that we are automatically supporting the treatment for a cancer victim any time that we buy those healthy-looking products.
According to HSP-Online.com, in an article named, Processed Food there are over 6,000 synthetic chemicals used in the processed food industry. This industry has deceived the public and governmental health agencies by ensuring that their products are safe for human consumption. Although most information is available to the public, the material is presented in technical language with scientific notations which most people—including me — find intimidating and difficult to understand.
Therefore, as long as we continue ignoring the real causes of cancer, older women and those that are living in close proximity to industrial facilities, regardless their gender and age, will continue to endure the aggressive and obsolete practice of chemotherapy. I strongly believe that it is time for us to elaborate a real plan and an authentic “anti-cancer campaign.” Incidentally, I came out with a better version for your campaign Mr. President; hopefully you could find it more inclusive.
By Martha Sánchez
Throughout the decades, South Los Angeles has been a victim of racialized spaces and racialized practices in a postindustrial economy, subjected to five aspects of dominance – infrastructure, industry, immigration, institutions and identity policies, as powerful regulatory tools were utilized by local government to carry out redevelopment plans and discriminatory ordinances.
But through it all, South LA residents have struggled to combat crime, corruption, infrastructural disinvestment, environmental contamination, racial and ethnic tensions, inadequate education, poverty and racial discrimination through grass roots organizing efforts.
Though once known as a semi-industrialized community with good jobs, the South Central community in Los Angeles continues entrapped in an era of economic decline, self-destruction, stigmatization and shame. The number of dilapidated buildings, poor infrastructure, substandard housing and environmental damage has forced residents to shout out “Ya basta!” (It’s enough!). People are tired of living in places where “nobody cares” and where racial discrimination is damaging people’s dignity and self-esteem. As a result, most black working and middle class former residents come across the “ghetto boundaries” searching for better opportunities and leaving behind nice Victorian and Craftsman style housing for Latinos.
The place where I live now dates back to the 1800’s. My home is located few blocks away from the historic jazz corridor. I moved to South LA at the end of 1999, seven years after the Rodney King beating. I can speak about the riots as an “outsider,” someone who witnessed the revanchist explosion of oppressed citizens in South LA from my home in Mexico.
At that time, we were constantly bombarded with the idea that “the riots began with the beating of Rodney King.” However, what happened in Los Angeles was the consequence of economic decline, cultural decay and political lethargy in American life, with race being the visible catalyst, not the underlying cause.
Contrary to popular thinking, the historical black community was changing even before the civil unrest. Most immigrants from Mexico and Central America started occupying the places that African-Americans left behind back in the 1960’s, after the community underwent a severe deindustrialization.
During that time, Gilbert W. Lindsay, a former City Hall janitor, became the first black Councilmember. Although Lindsay accomplished many structural changes that improved L.A.’s economy, he almost destroyed the southeast region of his council district by rezoning the historically black district from single-family homes into commercial and industrial zones.
Hundreds of beautiful Victorian and Craftsman homes were demolished to allow the construction of warehouses, commercial and industrial facilities.
Housing ordinances from 1964 helped blacks obtain better housing in suburbs like View Park, Baldwin Hills, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. I would dare to call that housing ordinance the once-in-a life time opportunity for the wealthy and middle class black community, since in most cases, it was handled as an “enclosed land transaction” between home owners and corporate land developers. Consequently, the next generation of Latinos who occupied the historical black neighborhood did so as a result from the economic restructuring and reindustrialization.
Under Lindsay’s administration, powerful city officials, regulators, landowners and profit-driven developers, changed all aspects of community planning. During his term, numerous wrecking yards and industrial facilities were located nearby existing schools, churches, and family homes. Those zoning decisions created even more problems because many of those industrial activities produced toxic fumes threatening the public health of the adjacent community members.
The lack of environmental standards allowed companies to release tons of toxic fumes into the environment through the air, soil and water, at the discretion of the owner. Though it is true that the distress confronted by the Latino community against industrial restructuring, poverty, environmental pollution and degradation is similar to other minorities, it is also well documented that Latinos, compared to African Americans, received less media attention. Ironically, the disproportionate impact of past policies still exists.
Places matter more to very poor people than to those who are better off. That’s evident when you hear people shouting in mass demonstrations “Aquí estamos y no nos vamos” (We’re here and we’re not leaving). There are hundreds of stories to write about survivors, unsung local heroes and unknown community activists.
We need space to signify dozens of testimonies from people involved in defeating a city policy that could allow the construction of a trash-to-energy incineration plant, the same lot that was called the Oasis in a Concrete Desert rented by the South Central Farmers. There are hundreds of public statements, community actions and successful stories surrounding economic development, jobs, affordable housing, rail-of-way connectors, public transportation, school sites, healthy food, liquor stores, and education opportunities before and after the civil unrest.
The South LA community should be better called “the home of the underdogs” always contending, defending, creating or supporting new ideas, policy changes, and economic opportunities.
Martha Sánchez is a community activist and advocate, whose efforts led to the closure of Palace Plating, a toxic polluting plant just feet away from 28th Street Elementary.
By Martha Sánchez
Before getting into the Occupy movement, let me refresh early attempts to mobilize people for a comprehensive reform of the immigration laws in the United States. Such movements marked a historical precedent of mass participation in U.S history.
 May day marches calling for immigration reform started in 2006. Here, people are seen marching in Los Angeles in May of 2010. (Photo courtesy of Nelson A. Castillo) |
Since 2006, thousands of people have walked out from their jobs to participate in non-violent street demonstrations in support of family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors and even to support themselves. The largest demonstration occurred in Los Angeles. The media reported more than 500,000 participants. Most people believe and affirmed that we were over a million.
The message was clear, the people were there, and the media helped to coordinate the voices of the people. The only thing they asked us to do was to put on a white shirt and march peacefully.
We were inspired by powerful social movements led by Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez. We were all Americans!
Some may argue whether the immigration movement has been the largest social movement in U.S. history, but for most community organizers like me, it is. I want to share my personal motivation for participating. I marched in support of my family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. I marched in support of diversity and difference, to stop violence against women, in favor of all genders, cultures and for the reunification of families, and social change.
I’m an immigrant too and I believe in the U.S. Constitution. My children are American citizens and I believe in the power of people.
For the last eight years, I have been very active in politics, advocating for low income communities in all aspects: job opportunities, decent housing, education, affordable health care and after-school programs. The most critical fight has been against the greed of corporations. Here is where the Occupy movement comes in.
After being acknowledged as “community leader” in the poorest South Los Angeles community, I have found it difficult to involve Latinos in the Occupy movement for several reasons.
First, people in the Latino community don’t see themselves represented in this movement. The media is not portraying the Occupy movement as a Social Justice movement. In fact, most people think that “it is a hippie movement, a homeless movement.”
Second, no matter how clear the message of “We are the 99%” is, we don’t think of ourselves as part of the movement. Nobody is encouraging me to put on my white T-shirt and to go out as I was told in the past.
The not-so-new plot of “divide and rule” is convincing immigrant families, fathers and husbands that anyone going out to organizing meetings might be arrested and deported.
What we the 99% should consider is the power of the “immigration movement.” Let me explain why.
Currently, we have two different scenarios ruling political debates “economy and immigration.” While some people want to bring back economic prosperity to their hometowns, others just want to close the borders and get rid of non-welcomed immigrants because they claim immigrants have ruined and exhausted our economic resources.
Beyond those political positions, the one thing that really divides us is that immigrants work in slavery-like conditions, our families are starving and many of us lack of legal papers to hold a fair competition for jobs.
If workers could see that the exodus of manufacturing jobs has forced more people to accept precarious livelihoods. If they could see immigrants as victims as well, they would turn their voices for us not against us, forcing the government to implement reforms that would provide millions of undocumented workers with legal status, and putting all people to work based on their skills, personal talents and education. That’s what I call fair competition for jobs.
So, we are forced to choose between putting on a white T-shirt to go out and chant for immigration reform, risking to be fired, arrested and deported, or to fight against the greed of corporations that no matter what, are still hiring undocumented workers.
Are there more options? I’m asking middle class people, to those involved in the Occupy movement and more affluent members of society that sympathize with this movement to think about the power of bringing a huge number of people aligned to your demands. I’m calling those organizers, leaders and community members to join voices and efforts to go beyond the Occupy movement and to rescue the lost voices from the immigration marches.
We can’t win any battle by perpetuating western tactics of “divide and conquer.” Can I say that we are the 90 of the 99 percent in Los Angeles?
Can you think of putting faces like mine in the Occupy battle by supporting comprehensive immigration reform?
I’m not asking people to “wear the white T-shirt” once again and chant about one single issue. I’m asking people to “put on a sweater” to shelter themselves against the cold decisions of Wall Street. I’m calling on the 99 percent to stop pushing my demands to the bottom of the list.
The Occupy movement is a global movement. We are willing to rebuild this country, just give us the opportunity to respond to our family needs as well. “We are the 99 percent.”
Martha Sanchez is a community activist and a member of the South Central Neighborhood Council.
By Martha Sanchez, a parent and community organizer at 28th St. Elementary School
Twenty-Eighth Street Elementary School is one of the most overcrowded schools in the LAUSD. The school was built in 1800s to accommodate a maximum of 800 students. In 2003, it housed over 2,300 students turning the school calendar in to a multi-track system with four tracks. In 2007, the LAUSD facilities department invited me to participate in the process of selecting two sites for the construction of two new elementary schools to relieve overpopulation. Since then, I have participated in all phases of the construction, including site selection, cleaning of soil, and architectural design.
Historically our community has been victim to stereotyping and lack of support. Since 2004, I have been organizing at the grass-root level parents, teachers and community members to improve education, bring economic resources to the area and sustain the environment. After years and years of struggle I was relieved to know that we would finally have new schools and could return to a traditional calendar.
However, it appears that once again we have been left behind.
Since the approval of the School Choice Resolution, our community has requested that the LAUSD allow us to participate in the process by giving us access to accurate information in a timely manner. The LAUSD called on us to choose a plan for the new building at site #18 that would take our overflow. But apparently, as was soon revealed, the LAUSD has not yet finished the design of the new school boundaries. “We cannot tell you who will be attending the new school until the process is completed,” LAUSD officials said.
But we were missing vital information. Who can vote? Who are the affected families? What alternatives do parents have if the new school turns into charter and they don’t want that option? What if parents want their children to stay in a regular school system instead? A community meeting was held at John Adams Middle School but no answers were given by the LAUSD. The translation services were so poor that many of our Spanish-speaking parents no idea what was being said. Everyone left disappointed.
Therefore we decided to organize a grass-roots effort to involve most of parents at 28th St. School. On January 22, 2010, I began a campaign to organize and obtain the authentic opinion and desires from parents about who they want to control school site #18.
For that reason, we organized a survey to ask parents to choose among the options that they felt could best improve their children’s education. Out of 900 surveys, 739 parents voted for the Local District 5 Plan. Just 9 voted for the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools to take over.
So, on Monday, a group of parents headed for the LAUSD head quarters to deliver the surveys, and try to encourage the board members to support the community voice. As a result, the board not only ignored the advisory vote (566 votes) but the surveys as well (788 votes) that favored the Local District 5 Plan. Parents and teachers are astonished at the LAUSD decision to support the Partnership for L.A. Schools instead.
But we won’t give up.
We will re-organize to make clear what we expect from the partnership in the following days. We will not let our schools fail again in hands of people that haven’t showed results in our community.
The South Los Angeles Report will be publishing regular updates from Martha Sanchez as her organizing effort continues.
Copyright © 2024 USC Annenberg. All rights reserved. USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, 3502 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 · Log in
