Thursday, June 29, 2006

FOREIGN CONTROL OF U.S. INTERSTATES ENCOURAGED BY FEDS

By Diane M. Grassi


50 years ago President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the 1956 National Federal-Aid Highway Act and since 1990 referred to as the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. He authorized the connectivity of 41, 000 miles of high quality highways across the United States. It would be financed by a combination of the Highway Trust Fund, federally imposed user fees on motor fuels and state user fees.

Eisenhower was prompted to persuade the nation’s people to build the interstate highway system, as a matter of national security. Although not at war at the time, he believed it was imperative the interstate be designed for mass evacuation of cities in the event of a nuclear attack, in the era of the Cold War. The Act dictated that one out of every five miles must be straight, in order to use as airstrips in times of war or other catastrophic emergencies. And to that end, the success of national defense was dependent upon the navigability of large numbers of military personnel and their equipment during such a crisis. And even today, 75% of the interstate highway system represents the Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STAHNET) utilized by the U.S. military.

And while in 1956 there was the fear of nuclear threat from the then Soviet Union, today’s national security, often referred to as homeland security, remains similarly threatened in an era where the threat of terrorism looms. Yet, at such time that it would appear imperative that U.S. strategic infrastructure such as the interstate highway system remain under American control, it is but one more public asset available for sale under the guise of Public-Private Partnerships. Unlike domestic privatization, however, states throughout the country are negotiating contracts solely with foreign corporations and conglomerates, primarily in Europe, Australia and Asia, in order to finance the maintenance, modernizing and extension of U.S. interstates.

As funding from federal gas taxes and state user fees have fallen behind the inflated costs associated with road construction and maintenance, more and more state governors and lawmakers no longer see the operation of roads solely as a public responsibility. However, the reason states initially took over handling roads at the beginning of the 19th century was because many roads, bridges and canals had previously fallen to bankruptcy in the hands of private owners.

According to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Norman Mineta, “We are like a poker game. We are inviting people to the table and saying, ‘Bring money when you come.’” And Mineta believes, “A big part of the answer is to involve the private sector more fully – not just as a contractor or vendor, not merely as a financier, but as a partner in the funding, management and expansion of our transportation infrastructure.” Yet when those partners are exclusively foreign entities, a whole new dimension is added to the management of the U.S. interstate highway system. It is unprecedented.

The deal which started a flurry of more than 18 proposed foreign financed interstate highway projects across the nation over the past year in amounts of over $25 billion was in Chicago, IL in December 2004. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley proposed an agreement to lease the Chicago Skyway for $1.83 billion dollars to Cintra-Macquarie Consortium, a Spanish-Australian conglomerate, doing business as State Mobility Partners in the U.S. The deal, finalized in January 2005, gave Cintra-Maquarie a 99-year lease for which it is responsible for the maintenance and structural quality of the 8-mile elevated structure.

In exchange for its upfront payment, Cintra-Macquarie will collect and keep all money from tolls from the Skyway and will be able to raise tolls as incorporated under the terms of the agreement. The company is modernizing toll collection with an electronic transponder system. Until the technology is fully operable, toll collectors have been newly but temporarily recruited. But instead of earning an average hourly wage of $20.00 as their predecessors did, they are paid a $10.00 to $12.00 hourly wage. And as contracted, the Skyway offers the buyer an asset without having to deal with improvements or debt.

Following the situation in Chicago, Indiana Governor and former Office of Management and Budget Director for President Bush in his first term, Mitch Daniels, explored a similar arrangement for Indiana’s $2.8 billion shortfall in its transportation budget over the next ten years. Daniels was able to get his highly contested proposal through the state legislature as well as the courts where it was challenged by a citizen advocacy organization.

A bid was accepted by the state of Indiana in the amount of $3.8 billion and an agreement was arrived at with Cintra-Macquarie, the same operator of the Chicago Skyway. The lease agreement will provide for the operation and maintenance of the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road, a part of the interstate highway system, for a period of 75 years. The deal is expected to close on June 30, 2006. The Indiana Toll Road will also have an upgraded electronic toll system installed, eventually ending the need for toll workers.

Here are just a few of the many other projects either approved or proposed across the country. In Virginia, the rights to manage, operate and maintain the Pocahontas Parkway, an 8.8-mile toll road outside of Richmond, were bought for $611 million by the Transburban Group, also an Australian entity in its first foray into U.S. road management. A lawmaker in New Jersey has proposed selling a 49% interest in the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to a private investor.

In August 2005, the same Macquarie Infrastructure Group took over operations of the Dulles Greenway Toll Road which operates between suburban Virginia and Washington, D.C., for the amount of $533 million. And the anticipated widening and extension of the Trans-Texas Corridor which runs 316 miles and parallel to I-35 in Texas, is slated to be built by Cintra, the Spanish company, and Zachry Construction, out of San Antonio, TX, who plan to invest $7.2 billion.

But windfall upfront payments while attractive to states to reinvest in other transportation projects, have their limitations and pitfalls too. States will need to learn how to enforce and write explicit contracts. And the proceeds from the sale or lease of roads should be earmarked for specific projects. Non-compete clauses are often inserted in such contracts such as inducing lower speed limits on parallel free roads to drive traffic to the toll road. Others fear that operators will only maintain those parts of the route which remain profitable.

Other issues which are arising more often after the fact is the increasing worry that the public will have less and less input over the use of its public assets. Such is the case in Colorado and California where the enforcement of maintenance matters have already become problematic. Immediate increases in tolls and applied on a perennial basis, with higher tolls applied at rush hours have not sat well with commuters.

However, questions will continue to arise in a process still in its in infancy. Yet states must have the ability to learn from mistakes made in doing business in this brand new way. Will a private firm maintain the roadways as well as the U.S. government? Will a foreign corporation care about the needs of the American people? And will selling off public assets to pay debts now be regrettable down the road? One would think that Eisenhower would have thought so.

Copyright 2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Sunday, June 25, 2006

CASE OF EMINENT DOMAIN RESONATES YEAR AFTER SUPREME DECISION

By Diane M. Grassi

On June 23, 2005 the United States Supreme Court handed down its controversial 5-4 decision on Kelo v. City of New London, CT., concerning the issue of eminent domain. The court’s ruling not only impacted the City of New London, CT and seven property owners contesting the 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, it sent a chill across local communities and states throughout the U.S. And although the takings of private land belonging to homeowners and small businesses under the guise of eminent domain have been argued repeatedly and primarily over the past half century, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision came closest to heightening the blurring of legitimate use of such takings for public use.

Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian Washington D.C. based advocacy organization, tried the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2005, representing seven families collectively owning 15 properties in the city of New London, CT, with a population of 25,000. In question was whether the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for the taking of privately owned homes strictly for economic development. The court, however, merely stated that it was leaving it up to the states, their legislatures and local municipalities to decide what constitutes eminent domain. But too, the states have the right to restrict eminent domain seizures.

Disconcerting was that the decision of the court went beyond prior precedent by virtually allowing the taking of well-maintained homes or small businesses by real estate developers and local governments seeking to create more tax-based revenue and the possibility of more jobs. The court therefore redefined the meaning of “public purpose” as well as “blight” which were previously used as barometers for targeting properties for urban revitalization.

Essentially, the ambiguity of the Supreme Court’s decision has created the impression of a lower threshold in order to establish a taking. It has therefore led to 22 states to pass laws since June 2005 in order to clarify land takings. Yet some states’ laws remain inexplicit concerning the term “blight” and it thus serves as a loophole. Very few laws are straightforward, such as in the state of Florida, which expressly states that “the preservation or enhancement of the tax base is not public use.”

The high court concluded that blight was not necessary for condemnation in order to create economic development for public purpose, thus leaving such up to local governments and politicians and corporations. And as such, the court’s decision has also led to an increase in takings activity since June 2005. Many proposed developments were put on hold until the high court’s decision and more than 30 nationwide have since been reactivated and given the green light.

The Kelo case, named after Susette Kelo, one of the seven homeowners who held out to fight to keep her home, started in 1998. Pfizer, Inc., the world’s largest research-pharmaceutical company bought some land in New London and built a corporate park in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Due to a decline in industrial jobs which supported the U.S. Navy which has since pared down its operations there, 50% of the tax base as well as its population have eroded over the years. So New London and Pfizer worked out a deal for Pfizer to expand its facilities.

In the name of economic development, New London chose to raze the land of 15 homes and small businesses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in order to build a 200-room waterfront hotel, convention center, 80 condominiums and some retail space to be utilized primarily by Pfizer, its researchers and employees. A Coast Guard Museum was also promised by New London. The prospect of 2,000 jobs, however, for a facility which relies on recruiting employees from all over the world has since dwindled and the museum will not generate any tax revenue.

And since the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the New London City Council moved in September 2005 to evict the remaining seven property owners giving them 90 days to do so. Along with the eviction notices they were billed for $600.00 a month for rent plus taxes retroactive to 2000.The reasoning was that since the city won its case, the homeowners were living on city property as the condemnation procedures began in 2000. Connecticut Governor, Jodi Rell interceded, asking the City Council for a moratorium on eviction proceedings granted by the New London Development Corp. appointed by the City Council to evict the property owners. The Governor had hoped during that time to allow the state legislature a chance to review the court case.

On June 5, 2006, however, the New London City Council got tired of waiting on the state and voted 5-2 to take over the remaining two properties belonging to Susette Kelo and Michael Cristafaro, along with their families. They had gotten five of the seven holdouts to settle. The city was on record as only offering the fair market value of their homes for the year 2000. However, real estate in 2006, especially waterfront property, has greatly appreciated since 2000. The city supposedly forgave the back-rent and taxes for the five other holdouts but did not appreciate the fair market value or their properties to that of 2006.

Since Ms. Kelo’s property was never near the proposed development and since there was only one other house being contested, Governor Rell suggested that the Cristafaro home be moved to the same parcel of land proximate to Kelo’s home. Then the deeds could be returned to them and the city would have right of first refusal should they decide to sell in the future. But the City Council not only refused the Governor’s suggestion but reportedly resented her interference.

Attorney Scott Bullock said, “The residents still had a few possible responses to the city’s vote and hope to appeal to the state to reconsider whether state money should be spent on the development at all. Kelo and Cristaforo will also challenge any back taxes, rent or fees. The evictions presently are set for the end of August 2006 at which time both parties will also consider civil disobedience to protect their homes.

In writing the dissenting opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stipulated that “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

If Susette Kelo should not prevail, she will owe over $60,000.00 to the City of New London for back-rent alone. The registered nurse will have to leave New London homeless, without any equity in her home nor the funds she put out for its remodeling. Certainly, this could not have been what the court had in mind. Certainly, eminent domain abuse must be revisited as the result of this case’s outcome. According to Susette Kelo, “This really isn’t about me anymore. It’s about every American across the country.”

Copyright 2006 Diane M. Grassi
contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

BREACH OF TRUST UNDERMINES ACTIVE & RETIRED MILITARY

By Diane M. Grassi


On the 62nd anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944, when the United States Armed Forces as part of the Allied Forces including Britain and Canada, landed on the beaches of Normandy, France and helped free France and much of Europe from the strongholds of Nazi Germany, there is no better time than to remember the sacrifices of all U.S. military members and their families. And such sacrifice should serve as a reminder that it is the absolute obligation of the U.S. government and its people to not only honor their memories, but to assure them the security of their most vital information, either while still serving in the armed forces or as retired military.

However, all U.S. veterans discharged after 1975 learned just prior to Memorial Day 2006 that their most crucial personal information from the Department of Veterans Affairs had been stolen and still remains in the public domain. Since the revelation, announced by Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs, R. James Nicholson, on May 22, 2006, that names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, including phone numbers and addresses had been stolen on as many 26.5 million service members and some of their spouses, such information did not even include the total amount of information or number of other service members’ information that has since been discovered.

It all started when on May 3, 2006 a 30-year career senior-level information technology specialist in the Office of Policy of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) was in violation of security procedure. He took home a laptop computer, which belonged to the VA. He had been working on an annual study about veterans’ demographics. It was also revealed that unbeknownst to his supervisors that he had been doing such for three years, including downloading unencrypted information from his home.

The laptop contained a hard drive with the information and he also took home computer disks and a flash memory stick. The employee reported the purported break-in of his Aspen Hill, MD home to the local Montgomery County police in addition to Michael H. McLendon, VA Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy of the theft shortly after it occurred. Law enforcement considers the theft to be a random burglary, but its ramifications of the theft represent the largest personal identification breach which includes Social Security numbers, in U.S. history, in either the public or private sectors.

Also, the timeline of those in the chain of command at the VA has only added to increased criticism of the questionable and lax fundamental security at the VA, documented for at least five years. On May 5, 2006, Dennis M. Duffy, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy Planning and Preparedness was told of the theft. On May 9, 2006 Duffy then informed VA Chief of Staff Thomas Bowman, and suggested that senior management notify veterans that security on their information had been compromised. But Bowman waited until May 10, 2006 to inform Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield, the VA’s No.2 official. Neither Duffy nor Mansfield advised Secretary Nicholson until May 16, 2006.

VA Inspector General, George Opfer, testified on May 25, 2006 before the House of Representatives Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, the Senate Veteran’s Affairs Committee as well as the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, stating that “while attending a routine meeting at the VA’s Central Office, heard another Information Security Officer that a VA employee’s home had been burglarized and that VA electronic records may have been stolen.” Obviously IG Opfer was spared the information as well.

IG Opfer put in motion a criminal investigation on May 12, 2006 within the VA and the employee was interviewed on May 15, 2006. The local police had been investigating the theft since May 3, 2006 but the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was not apprised until May 17, 2006, the day after Nicholson was advised. Nicholson then briefed U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Deborah Platt Majoras, along with co-chairs of the President’s Identity Theft Task Force. And lastly, the U.S. Congress was advised on May 22, 2006 when the public announcement was made.

Now the details of this timeline may seem like more information than one need know, however it is indicative of the dysfunction of information oversight and security controls including the chain of command which exists within the culture of the VA and its 235,000 employees. Since the initial speculation of missing information, it has been learned that additional identifications of numerous other veterans as well as active-duty personnel is also missing. The data includes personnel discharged prior to 1975 who put in claims to the VA for any number of services, disabled veterans discharged prior to 1975 who receive healthcare through the VA, over 6,700 records of World War II veterans who participated in chemical testing programs for mustard gas and biological weaponry, along with diagnostic codes pertaining to an unidentified number of disabled veterans.

The active-duty personnel information considered missing as of June 6, 2006 now includes more than 1 million National Guard and Army Reserve members, which includes at least 55,000 serving at least their second active-duty tours in Iraq and at least 30,000 active-duty Navy personnel who completed their first enlistment terms prior to 1991. But now it is confirmed that as many as 1.1 million active-duty troops from all of the armed forces are at risk of identity theft.

Since the theft findings, the data analyst has been fired with full benefits and severance pay, Deputy Assistant Secretary McLendon resigned from his post, and Acting Assistant Secretary Duffy, acting head of the Division for Policy Planning and Preparedness was put on administrative leave. Secretary Nicholson, serving as Secretary of the VA since 2005, has also hired Rick Romley as his new advisor for information security who will assist Nicholson with reforming the VA’s policies and procedures on information security for a minimum period of three months. Romley is a former Maricopa County, AZ attorney, Vietnam Veteran and high profile former Republican National Party Chairman in the state of Arizona.

The long history of security flaws within the VA does not come as news to many within the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or within the VA’s Office of the Inspector General. And for that reason, it makes it even more difficult for lawmakers to fathom. “The chronology that you gave us is absolutely baffling. It’s just inconceivable that there were such long delays.” Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government al Affairs, stated such during IG Opfer’s May 25th testimony before the committee.

Senator Collins’ remarks are all the more remarkable given other occasions over the past year when she and her committee have reiterated such phraseology concerning other bureaucratic missteps which took place by the former Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Michael Brown, during his testimony on Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts and during hearings regarding the Committee of Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) and its approval of the government of Dubai’s purchase of several U.S. ports’ operations without considering its full ramifications or advising members of Congress.

The VA was among eight agencies given a failing grade for computer security practices in 2005 by the GAO. But since 2001 the VA Inspector General’s Office has advised the VA that its information access controls are materially weak, creating substantial risk and serious vulnerabilities which remain uncorrected.

Such vulnerabilities are far simpler to correct than one might think as the failure to encrypt files sent electronically or placed on disks and the allowance of access to information by unauthorized personnel are among the VA’s security violations. And although federal privacy security policies are based upon the Privacy Act of 1974 and the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act, along with further legislation pending, it remains up to employees to adhere to policies and procedures, no matter how many more are put in place.

Due to the interconnectivity of massive federal agencies it becomes even more necessary for diligence in protecting data and computer systems. In fact, had not the employee who took the laptop reported the theft, there would have been no way for the VA to have known of the breach of information. Yet, given each agency’s own policies in place concerning data protection the differences in practice are wide ranging. The Senate is looking to centralize such data protections not only within an agency but federally, as well as requiring notifications to those whose information has been breached. Such notification presently is only required by a handful of states and with respect to the financial industry or data credit brokers only.

It is however important to note other cases of security breaches within the VA over the past few years. In April 2006 military computers containing personnel records were found being sold at a bazaar outside a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. In September 2005, thieves stole personnel information on deployed soldiers from Fort Carson, CO. Records on more than 560,000 troops, veterans and dependents was stolen in December of 2002 from computers at a healthcare provider located in Arizona. All such data was in unencrypted databases. In addition, military personnel’s physical papers and ID’s have been stolen from military personnel outside of as well as within the VA.

The costs of setting up systems to notify military personnel, help military personnel access credit reports, and the potential help they will need in becoming whole again should identity theft become an issue and damage credit and loss of identity, is initially estimated to cost between $25 million and $100 million. And unfortunately, the funding will be coming out of the Veteran’s Affairs budget, when over the next five years the 2007 pending legislation will call for over $8 billion less in allocations, needed to build hospitals and new clinics now. With nearly 20,000 wounded already from the War in Iraq, it is inconceivable to be cutting budgets at this time at the VA.

The severity of the VA breach is much clearer when compared with a stolen credit card number. Usually the victim need only cancel the credit card account. But with the loss of a birth date combined with a Social Security number the thief has access to not only one’s assets but can continue to borrow funds, take out a mortgage and establish additional credit card accounts. Additionally, legal status for those not legally in the U.S. can be assumed by the theft of one’s Social Security number.

Secretary Nicholson has since directed all VA employees to complete the annual VA Cyber Security Awareness Training Course and the General Employee Privacy Awareness Course by June 30, 2006. He has ordered all VA staff to annually sign an Employee Statement of Commitment and Understanding that will also describe non-compliance consequences and has directed that the VA immediately conduct an inventory and review of all current positions requiring access to sensitive VA data and require those who need access to sensitive information to perform their duties to undergo updated background investigations.

Sadly, these measures were meant to have been followed all along. And now, is of little consolation at this late date, for our present and fallen heroes.



Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

WHY AMERICA'S PASTIME IS LOSING ITS IDENTITY

By Diane M. Grassi


On May 28, 2006 Barry Bonds succeeded in hitting his 715th home run to pass Babe Ruth’s homerun record and now second to Hank Aaron’s Major League Baseball (MLB) all-time home run record of 755, it is representative in a number of ways of the present state of MLB. Specifically, the state of the game’s future in the African-American community comes to mind. And it might be an appropriate time to reexamine the decline of participation of the black athlete in baseball, which is a far more multi-faceted problem than commonly expressed.

While there is a dearth of interest among young boys and teenagers in the black community participating in organized baseball, the reasons most often provided are shortsighted and often too easy to come by. Without an honest discourse between the leaders of the black communities throughout the United States, as well as some candor coming from the offices of MLB, what seems an insurmountable problem to attract blacks to baseball, will forever remain.

And although it is simply too easy to blame any one entity for all of the fall-off of black players in baseball, the primary beneficiary, of ignoring players from the U.S. including white players, remains MLB. And it must be held accountable, regardless of myriad cultural reasons attributed to children’s lack of interest in baseball, predominantly in the inner city neighborhoods, for its lack of investment in them.

On February 28, 2006, MLB opened its first Urban Youth Academy in the U.S. At a cost of $3 million which took three years to complete, with the idea shopped around for six, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig clucked, “This is the first of what I hope is a series of academies all over America.” The facility is located at the campus of Compton Community College on 10 acres of land in Compton, CA, south of Los Angeles. It includes two regulation size baseball diamonds, a youth field and one for girl’s softball and a 12,000 square foot clubhouse with locker room, weight room and other training facilities. It is expected to be a prototype for other U.S. facilities, through the Urban Youth Initiative, which will serve not only as a catalyst for reviving baseball but a place for inner-city youth to enjoy each summer and after school.

Starting in June 2006, 125 children each day are expected to participate and to be given instruction by professional level coaches on playing the game. The monetary investment however was not solely supplied by MLB. $70,000.00 was collectively donated by Enos Cabell, Jr. and Tim Purpura, GM of the Houston Astros for batting cages and $500,000.00 was donated by L.A.’s Anaheim Angels. Access to classrooms and computers are being made available by Compton Community College. Compton was picked primarily as so many African-Americans from MLB’s past arose from Compton, but also because the college donated a number of its facilities. It takes on average three years to build a Major League stadium. It is stunning how long it took to put in four ball fields and a clubhouse with so little financial investment from MLB and whose idea largely came to the Commissioner’s Office as a grass roots effort.

In 1989, former Major League player, John Young, developed a program called RBI or Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities in South Central Los Angeles for children ages 12-18. In 1991, MLB got involved and assumed its administration. MLB then teamed with the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association from 1993-1996 in providing grants to various cities demonstrating financial need. After five years, Young went national and by 1997 RBI collaborated with various chapters of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. However, MLB and its individual teams have only provided $15 million for RBI since 1991.

The RBI program now includes both boys and girls and its objective is to also include nurturing children’s interest in school along with baseball as the main component. It claims that it has helped more than 150,000 children in more than 200 cities worldwide play baseball. And its Quick SMART! Program addresses the issues of alcohol, tobacco and other harmful drugs with city youth. Says Roberto Clemente, Jr., who founded the RBI program in Pittsburgh, “RBI keeps kids out of trouble and off the streets, while at the same time teaching them to stay in school. The educational components help them realize their potential and worth in receiving college scholarships based not only on athletics, but academics.” But one can question the program’s expansion worldwide before the job is done in the U.S.

“Campos Las Palmas has set the standard for what a baseball academy should be and we’re extremely proud of the work done here, not only on the field, but in the community as well.” No, this is not another baseball academy planned for the U.S. but a quote from Frank McCourt, owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, upon his visit to the Dodger’s Dominican Republic baseball complex, in celebrating its 20th year anniversary, earlier in 2006. And while no one can find fault with the individual efforts of the RBI program nor with the idea of Urban Youth Academies in the U.S., it is necessary to contrast those programs with over the $60 million dollars each year which MLB and its individual teams pour into Latin American countries for player development.

Most MLB teams have more than one such facility in Latin America with the most located in the Dominican Republic, followed by Venezuela. When Camp Las Palmas opened in the 1987 season, it was the first facility of its kind and became the universal prototype for all MLB teams in Latin America. It sits on 75 acres of land, equipped with two full and two half baseball fields, a dining room, kitchen, recreation room and two two-story dormitories accommodating 100 players. In addition, it provides lessons in adapting to American culture, classes in English, and nutritional counseling.

Players stay up to 30 days at a time and can be signed at age 16 unlike players in the U.S. where players must at least complete high school or be 18 years of age. If they are enrolled in college, U.S. players must wait until the age of 21 to be signed. But then they go into the draft, which clubs claim deters them from investing in any development of U.S. players, as another club could end up as the beneficiary of such efforts. Also, Latin America does not face competition from the sports of basketball and football as baseball does in the U.S., therefore giving MLB many more prospects to choose from.

It is crucial to understand that offshoring of Latin American baseball players is arguably directly proportional to the loss of African Americans being developed in MLB. Black players were at their peak of their composition in MLB in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s or roughly 27% of all players. Today that total hovers around 10%. However, it is the combination of other factors which make the Latin American factor even more decimating to the black athlete’s chances of ever making it to the Major Leagues.

Ideologies include the increased incarceration of young black males, the lack of positive role models and the lack of two parent families as contributing factors. They, however, cannot necessarily be declared the primary determinants of the lack of blacks’ participation in baseball. It is argued that expense is a factor, as it supposedly takes $100,000.00 to build a baseball field and that even if there are baseball fields available, maintenance costs are necessary too. But urban and rural African-Americans played baseball on sandlots and played street stickball for generations, long before pristine $100,000.00 fields were considered a prerequisite to playing baseball.

Others argue that the National Basketball Association (NBA) has done a far better job at marketing to black youth, who rarely ever go to MLB games. And making the National Football League (NFL) is far more attractive than an arduous and lengthy learning process on the way to earning a MLB contract. Both the NBA and the NFL although now require at least a year of college play, are a fast track on the way to fast bucks for those lucky enough to make it. Still, the family fabric not only in the inner city, but more pronounced there, has destroyed the learning curve necessary to build a baseball following. Baseball requires a father or father figure such as a youth leader or mentor to have an impact upon, what used to be considered the National Pastime, the inner-city child. And if they are not hooked by age 13 or 14, it’s hard to get them interested later.

Requisite hand-eye coordination skills do not come to children naturally and must be learned, unlike the immediate impact of shooting a basketball or running with a football. It takes patience and fortitude for those skills that must be nurtured. Historically, such nurturers were fathers. But also absent today is the presence of present MLB players who do not involve themselves with the community like Hall of Famers, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson and Reggie Jackson did. The black MLB player today must step up even more so, especially because of the lack of male role models in the black community.

The dissolution of the once three-sport player has also added to the demise of baseball in the inner city. Many public schools only field a football team or basketball team and have dropped baseball altogether. Intramural programs, the victim of budget cuts, only heightens the chances that black youth will be absorbed into gangs, due to lack of organized programs for them.

And for college baseball players, scouting is limited and even more so for the black baseball athlete who rarely competes in baseball in college due to the small scholarships awarded for baseball. Even Howard University has dropped its baseball program, which one would think is a no-brainer for the development of African American baseball players, given its vast appreciation of black history. The National Collegiate Athletic Association only allows for 11.7 baseball scholarships at any given time for a team of 30 players on a roster. Full scholarships are rare. Football, however, is allowed up to 85 scholarships and basketball gets 13 for a roster half the size of baseball’s. Both programs are provided far more full scholarships.

Frank Robinson, now 70, and presently the Manager of the Washington Nationals after holding several positions within MLB, became part of the first generation of great black players who followed Jackie Robinson’s breaking the color barrier in 1947. And Frank Robinson holds today’s players accountable. “People don’t see minorities attached to the community or going home and giving something back. Now the stars and the top players, they hide. They don’t go into the community. They don’t go back into the inner city or where their roots were. Baseball is now third, maybe fourth in the [inner-city] household.”

Yet, the baseball draft instilled in 1965, with stricter age limits, combined with MLB’s vastly increased development in Latin America over the past 20 years, remain the biggest impediments, along with the lack of MLB’s moral will, in increasing the African-American presence in MLB. Much like the ill-fated acceptance of the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs by U.S. multi-national corporations, MLB has enjoyed the same misguided regime, regardless if it ultimately hurts the American athlete.

Commissioner Selig stated after the 2005 season that gate receipts, merchandising revenue, team revenue- sharing and acquired broadcast rights revenue were at all-time highs in MLB. He likes the public to know that, given his abysmal management in other areas such allowing steroids in baseball over the years, the 1994 strike, the handling of the sale of the Montreal Expos, including his lack of involvement with the black community. However, while baseball enjoys such “good times,” like its multi-national counterparts, MLB does not reinvest in the U.S.

Much like cheap labor overseas appears to be a required component of U.S. industry, similarly the benefits of signing and investing in baseball players has been relegated to Latin American players and more recently in Asia, where the rules of the U.S. do not apply. So instead, MLB has found new ways to circumvent its problems by merely skipping over U.S. players. And while the African-American community has seen the starkest decline in participation, the white community is also losing ground to foreign players. More than 40% of major and minor league players are born outside of the U.S., with nearly 30% comprising the major leagues. It is predicted that by 2007 over 50% of all major and minor league players will be Latin Americans.

Prior to 1965, teams could contract with any high school graduate that scouts identified. Since it was believed that this advantaged only the wealthier teams, MLB imposed the draft. U.S. citizens could no longer be signed immediately, starting the cycle of lack of development investment by particular clubs. Along with supposedly eliminating the exploitation of underage players, the age restrictions followed. However, a player can be signed to a MLB contract at age 16 in Latin America with the clubs spending several years developing those players far earlier. By the time a U.S. player reaches 18 or 21 if they are in college, they are years behind Latin American players. Secondly, the contracts offered the Latin American undeveloped players are far less than those offered drafted U.S. prospects. And prior to 1984 there was no age limit on signing Latin American players who were signed as young as 12 or 14.

Since developing players is a big expense, MLB simply went after the “cheap and unregulated labor.” Sound familiar? And for foreign and U.S. players of similar talent levels the expected recompense for U.S. players is much lower given the lack of property rights in developing him and what is expected to be a shorter career. If it is a choice between two players of equal talent in the U.S. or Latin America, the MLB club invariably chooses the foreign or Latin American player.

While white players who are affluent or have a family willing to invest resources to have their sons join available teams outside the inner city, the road still remains a gamble due to the outright scouting delays of Americans, given the preference of the cheaper talent. Unless a draft choice is truly bankable, the chances of that prospect succeeding are contingent upon his former training either from college or paid for opportunities from family. And U.S. baseball players do not have the benefit of competing at academies like those in Latin America, often run like baseball boarding schools with seemingly unlimited budgets.

In conclusion, much like the U.S. watches its industries and institutions being sold bit by bit to foreign entities, it will take the will of the community, not just the black community or the white community, but the American community, to fight for our young people and to show them that America is worth fighting for. We can no longer afford to isolate ourselves from each other regardless of our color or ethnicity. For this fight is far more than the one between basketball and baseball. It is symbolic of the erosion of that which once identified America and was a staple of the family and by extension our neighborhoods. And contrary to popular belief, the hijacking of America’s National Pastime is not unimportant, but is indicative of a dangerous trend in the U.S. And we owe it to ourselves as Americans to not only save our children in the process but in turn to save our country.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net