August 20, 2025 • 38 mins
Charles T. Brown, author of "Arrested Mobility," discusses why mobility is not afforded in the same way to everyone – and the dire cost of this inequity.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Straw hut media.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
If we just re move the highway or we cap
the highway, but we don't consider sort of restorative or
reparative investment in returning what was taken from people. And
what we do is we risk sort of replacing one
form of harm with another.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
This is Lucas Grinley from Next City, a show about
change makers and their stories. Truth is, there are solutions
to the problems of pressing people in cities. If you're listening,
I hope it's because you want to spread good ideas
from one city to the next city. All of us
deserve the ability to connect to our communities. For Black
American that freedom of movement has long been curtailed, whether
by laws that literally criminalized walking or biking, or with
(00:54):
traffic stops that disproportionately target black drivers, or with highways
built right through once thrivinghoods. The list goes on. And
that's why we're lucky to be joined today by the
author of Arrested Mobility. Overcoming the Threat to Black Movement,
Charles T. Brown, documents how policies and practices, from city
planning to policing have systematically restricted the movement of Black
(01:15):
Americans in this episode, Charles, who also leads the firm
Equitable Cities, joins Next City's editorial director Deanna Anderson to
discuss why approaches that claim to be race neutral often
reinforce inequality. They also talk about solutions from redesigning infrastructure
to shifting political power, and what it will take to
achieve a level of mobility that truly means freedom for everyone.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
I feel like we should define what arrested mobility is.
I feel like throughout the book there's like several definitions,
but for folks who may not have read the book yet,
can you just define that briefly?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, So, what arestum mobility is. It is a diagnoses,
and that diagnoses is to describe the systemic restrictions of
movement for Black Americans, and not just physically or socially
or economically, but looking at it in terms of over
policing disinvestment, I would say exclusionary planning and also discriminatory policy.
(02:19):
And I would probably say that policy when it's discriminatory
is best sort of described as when it's intentional, because
you can have disproportionate outcomes that are not intentional. But
I'm speaking to more directly the intentional nature of discriminatory policies.
And so the way that arrested mobility shows up in
(02:40):
terms of the mobility aspect of it is when you consider,
you know, when someone is being stopped while biking while black,
when they're being stopped while or profile while driving while black,
or even if their community is undiserved by transit and
other you know, pedestrion and mobile sort of accommodations. And
(03:04):
I bring this up because Black people have long faced
barriers to safe free movement that other groups often take
for granted. And the context here is that historically, for us,
the mobility to move freely has always been political. It
has also been policed. And that includes from you know,
(03:26):
when you consider slave patrols to Jim Crow laws, from
redlining to freeway construction, which is a big topic today.
And so we see this legacy in street level enforcement.
We see it in the fatalities. You look at where
fatalities are happening, there's a strong correlation with minorities, and
(03:47):
of course blacks are a racial minority. And then broadly speaking,
just overall lack of access to opportunity, and so many
of my colleagues in transportation and in planning you know,
we're championing safe streets for all. I'm a champion of
that as well as well as Vision zero. But in
(04:07):
this sort of age of that, we can't talk about
mobility without talking about who gets to move and who doesn't.
And that's the idea behind arrest the mobility to show
you historically as well as in contemporary times, that has
not been equal for black people.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Yeah, I mean, I have to say, something I really
appreciated about your book is like the first three chapters
really dig into the history and like set the stage
for like how we go to where we currently are.
And I yeah, I think that is super helpful for
everyone who wants to make sure that mobility is equitable
(04:45):
for all people, including black people, because you also mentioned that,
like when you unarrest mobility for black people, it has
actually good effects for everyone.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, I mean it's it's very similar to
I have friends a good friend, Gill Pinalosa. He started
a foundation in Canada called eight eighty Cities, and the
concept behind that was if we designed our cities for
those eight to eighty year olds, we designed it safely
(05:17):
for everyone. If you can design for eight year old
and an eighty year old. You're designing safely for everyone,
given you know how disproportionately black and brown people lose
their lives on our streets. If we designed the streets
for them, we does make them safe for everyone. So
the same concept, the difference being race is the variable
(05:38):
here as opposed to age.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
You mentioned in the book that society has created barriers
to mobility through the four p's. So you mentioned policy, planning, policing.
You also mentioned polity. Can you describe what that is
and how that kind of is related to arrested mobility.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yeah, thank you for bringing that up up. So I
tried to make the discussion because it could seem like
a lot for a lot of people, and so in
order to pinpoint exactly how it shows up in the
different structures I present, arrest the mobility through these overlapping
structures of control that I call the four p's. The
(06:20):
first P is polity, and what polity speaks to is power,
who has it, how it's distributed, and how decisions are made.
I bring that up because black people have been systematically
excluded from political processes, and when this happens, this leaves
their mobility needs unheard and unmet, and of course the
(06:43):
result of that being, as we talked about recently, you know,
disproportionate amounts of fatalities in our communities and among that population.
The second piece moving on from polity is policy, And
when you think about hower, it is sort of centering
in polity. Policy is the codified version or expression of
(07:08):
those power dynamics, and there are policies that continue to
criminalize black and brown bodies as pedestrians, as cyclists. One
example of that may be a cyclist without a helmet,
and how that can easily be policed when it should
be one's right whether or not to use a helmet,
(07:29):
because the infrastructure should be so safe that it isn't required.
And I can get into how can you sell a
bicycle without including a light, a front and rear one
as well as a helmet When you can't sell a
car that is not in adherence to law, but you
could sell a bike that isn't. And the point that
I'm making there is the moment you buy a bicycle,
(07:51):
if you're not cognizant of the local estate laws, if
you were to ride that bicycle out of Walmart, let's say,
or your local bicycle shop, you could be arrested because
it doesn't come with right away a helmet, a front
or real tail light or any of the other things
that are required by law. And then you know, lastly,
(08:11):
something like loatering. There's a lot of no loitering signs
in black and brown communities, and what those are is
that they have real consequences for freedom of movement, freedom
of community, freedom of cultural expressions. Then we move into planning,
and I've been in planning for the majority of my career.
(08:32):
I couldn't be happier having selected planning as a profession.
But when it's taught, it's usually seen as a neutral
position or profession, and it's far from it. When we
look at planning historically, decisions have been made. You know,
when you combine planning and engineers to route highways through
black and brown and low income communities, what this has
(08:53):
done is strip people from access to green spaces. But
it has also sort of reinforced segregation through zoning. So
that's how planning shows up. And the last one is policing.
Most people think the book is strictly about policing, but
it's not. It's also about the other three p's that
I mentioned. I can go on and on how policing,
(09:15):
you know, disproportionately targets black people in public space. But
one of the things that I want to remind people
of is that increasingly, and as this book discussed, policing
isn't just carried out by law enforcement. We're seeing a
rise of self deputized citizens as well. And self deputized
(09:35):
citizens are you know, the neighbors none black neighbors who
call the police on black people for existing in public space,
for delivering a door order or uber eats, and you know,
from bird watching to delivering you know, the packages for Amazon,
or if they're just simply waiting at a bus stop
(09:56):
at a time or in a place where they're expected
not to exist. And so when you think about this deputization,
it extends and maintains the reach of the state, and
this disproportionately affect black and brown people.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Thank you for that thoughtful explanation. Something I kind of
want to double back to is you mentioned the laws
around like biking, and I know that your firm did
like some research around like the laws for like jaywalking
and biking and other forms of mobility and communities, and
like how I think one hundred percent of states have
(10:38):
like jaywalking rules or something like that. You can check me.
But I'm curious about, like if it's important to like
abolish those rules or reform them or something, because not
a lot of people are aware of the laws that exist.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, So we did a study, an Arrested Mobility report
that people can find on Arrestedmobility dot com. In that study,
we took a look at the mobility laws in all
We looked at fifty states and then also the two
most populous cities in each state, and we were looking
(11:19):
for and we have a criteria. Some of it I remember,
some I don't, But in there, we were looking at
laws that you couldn't justify from a safety perspective that
they should still be a law, or they were confusing
to interpret by law enforcement or by us. And we
found some of the craziest things I think you'll ever
(11:39):
see as laws. For instance, there are some places where
if you have a bicycle and it's not kept up
to standards in terms of if it's dirty, you could
be pulled over. There was one if you were bouncing
a ball on a sidewalk it was an issue. Some
discuss how you exit a road as a cyclist going
(12:01):
into another road, and of course jaywalking is it was
just throughout as you mentioned, most of the states. And
the reason why jaywalking is an issue is because from
a policing standpoint, and this was another criteria I'm remembering
that now, is that it is very difficult to police equitably,
(12:22):
meaning no matter where you go, someone jaywalks, and no
matter where you go, there is some law enforcement that
is misinterpreting the jaywalking law. This was excused predominantly because
it was a way or means to search for items
(12:43):
on black bodies, and those items may have been you know, weapons, drugs,
so on and so forth. So that was really why
I think it in addition to the history behind the
automobile industry having power asking for it as well retain
making away space from pedestrians, so you know, I'll save
people the long story. But in there we point to
(13:06):
a number of laws that should be removed, including jaywalking,
And what I want people to take away from that
discussion is do that analysis at your local level and
see which laws should be repealed, which laws should be decriminalized,
because I don't think it's you know, all should be removed.
(13:26):
Some just should be decriminalized to be fair. And so
that's the takeaway there and thanks for bringing that out.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
After the break, Charles shares what it would look like
to step away from traditional traffic enforcement and why when
it comes to safety, investing in infrastructure might matter more
than policing. Welcome back. Before the break, Charles C. Brown
(13:53):
laid out the concept of arrested mobility, including the four
p's that restrict black movement, policy, planning, and policing. Now
he explains what alternatives to policing could look like and
why redesigning our streets may be the key to unarresting mobility.
Here again is our editorial director, Deanna Anderson.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
What would you say will be the alternative? What would
it look like to not have policing involved in that
kind of enforcement?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, well, what sort of clarification on that is? Because
I don't want people to walk away thinking that I
am not for law enforcement number one, and then number
two that there isn't a role for law enforcement in mobility.
There is. I think the place for law enforcement their
(14:49):
physical presence is around monitoring speeding absent speeding cameras in
the like. But I think the violent actions that take
place when you have crashes, particularly severe crashes, things that
need to be analyzed and mitigated on site, that's when
(15:11):
you need, I think, for the most part, police presence.
But we have a multitude of technologies now that can
monitor speed and other things that don't require the physical
presence of traffic enforcers. And I say that because in
an ideal world, you would have everyone treated equally when
(15:32):
stopped by law enforcement. But we've seen too many cases,
and I don't mean to overly simplify or generalize this,
but we've seen too many cases where that presence between
those that black body and that white body turns out
more violent for us. And so that's the reason why
we want to seriously consider the role in which law
(15:54):
enforcement is playing in traffic enforcement now. The alternatives been
looked at in places like La, places like Berkeley where
I've done studies, and it may include traffic safety ambassadors,
it could be community lab programs like Equaticities Mobility Justice
Initiative in Chicago, which I highlight in the book. But
(16:15):
we we've seen other models that lead to the de escalation,
the mutual aid and neighborhood navigation, navigation without involving police
and so anything that is critical, I think they should
be involved. If it's not like typical traffic UH infractions,
they should not. There's a lot of conversation about policing
(16:37):
and traffic enforcement, when the conversation should be on investing
in infrastructure in those communities and designing our streets and
ways in which you don't even need enforcement because they're
designed in a way infrastructure over enforcement that makes it
safer and easier for everyone to adhere to the law.
So I think it's dising genuous to lead with enforcement
(16:59):
when oftentimes we led within disinvestment or lack of infrastructure
in these communities that see a disproportionate amount of policing.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
One of the other things that I appreciated about your
book is that I was able to get like a
refresher on all the different types of racism, from individual
to institutionalized to structural. And one of the things that
you know is that in order to undo the harm
(17:33):
that policies that have been implemented that have harmed black communities,
in order to like actually really undo the harm of
those policies, like there has to be a approach that
has a racial justice lends to it, Like the laws
that are implemented to improve cities can't be race neutral.
(17:55):
And can you share a little bit about why that
is important to take that specific approach.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Well, the reason why people want to improve cities can't
do that is because the outcome of race neutral policies
are never a race neutral When you look at it,
sort of race neutrality assumes that we all started from
the same place. And what it does is it ignores
the layered history of harm that has been inflicted on
(18:23):
you know, black communities I discussed earlier, you know, rent lining,
the highway construction, and the underinvestment. So if you treat
unequal situations equally, what happens is that you reinforce the inequality.
And so I'm about justice, and justice requires us acknowledging
(18:45):
this history, naming race specifically, and repairing the harm that
was done to black and brown people. And I say
this because as a researcher, I often see you know,
people saying, well, couldn't we just use income as a
proxy for race? Can we use age? Can we use
ability a disability? And the truth is there is no
(19:08):
justified proxy for race because of the history, because of
the political context in which we find ourselves in and again,
if you were to not include or not consider race,
you're normalizing the experiences of black and brown people, and
that too is unfair. So one example of that is
(19:28):
take bicycle infrastructure, for example. So I've been part of
I've investigated where cities have decided to roll out by
sharing programs using these race neutral criteria, and sort of
the way that that shows up is they're prioritizing high
ridership potential or proximity to jobs. So they're saying, let's
(19:50):
not consider race, let's just prioritize high ridership potential or
one's proximity to jobs job centers. But if you look closer,
those metrics often exclude black neighborhoods that were historically disinvested.
They have lower existing bicycle usage also due to the
(20:11):
safety concerns or the lack of protected lanes. So even
though the policy claims to treat everyone equally, what ends
up happening is that they expand mobility into more affluent
white neighborhoods while once again leaving black residents behind. So
and when you do discuss alternative modes to transportation in
(20:34):
carcentric places, it is met with resistance and then culturally
people feel like it's not a win for their communities.
I can tell you that's what I've seen anecdotically, but
that's not what I see from a research perspective, meaning
when you do engage the majority of not the majority,
(20:55):
but when you do engage people in a research way,
a scientific way, like I did here in New Jersey.
I asked black brown for wealthy income people alike, what
they want a bicycle lane on their street, and I
believe in that study eighty five percent of them said yes.
The issue is that we're hearing from the fifteen percent
(21:17):
who say no and who are concerned about this new
investment leading to gentrification and displacement. So what happens is
we then deem white bike lanes as white lanes, as
my friend wrote in her book, And not all people
feel that way, right. We're not a monolith in the
(21:37):
black community. There are many people like myself would like
to see more investments in bicycling pedestrian infrastructure. But I
think the squeaky will gets the attention in this case,
and that's the fifteen percent who are justified in having
some concern, But it doesn't hold true for the majority.
Of community.
Speaker 4 (22:00):
I'm curious if there's like any programs or cities that
you've seen implement policies well with a racial justice lens
that you can point to as maybe a model for
other people. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
So there are a number of places. And I always
caution everyone when I answer this question, because of course
it's subjective, right, and then there's still a lot of
work to be done. But we also don't want to
paint the picture, and I don't do a restumability that
all is lost. I wrote this book because I still
(22:37):
have hope in America. I have a hope in cities
and states, in our neighbors as well. But when you
look at some of the positive examples, I don't want
to give the full book away, but I start with
a critique of Portland, the city of Portland, Oregon, being
probably the widest largest city in America. I believe Portland
(22:59):
has that distinction, and I talk about how that came
to be through law, through policy, because of black, brown
bodies being denied even the ability to move by law
into the state of Oregon. And so that's why you
get a place like Portland in an America as diverse
as it is, which is predominantly overwhelmingly white. You know,
(23:22):
anyone that's a statistician knows that if you have a
handful of colored marbles, marbles and you throw them in
the air, probably one out of a trillion times, you
won't get all blue marbles representing a place like Portland
that is white. You're going to continue to have a
degree of diversity within those marbles without the system itself
(23:44):
injecting itself and choosing only whiteness. And that's what happens
when you have law. So I talk about Portland and
what they've been able to do. I think in East Portland,
which is predominantly black and brown and low income, they've
been very intentional about fight share access, pedestrian improvements and
complete streets and also to trails and bike ways as well.
(24:07):
So Portland is a place I pick on, but Portland
is also a place I celebrate. You can look at
the Rondo community in Saint Paul. I ninety four devastated
that community, but Roundo residents organized, they documented their history
and now they are advancing proposals to cap that highway
(24:30):
and reconnect their communities. Another place out east is Buffalo,
and I think in Buffalo, I could be mistaken, but
I know it was land by black people. Well, some
of the leaders were black and also black women, and
they successfully pushed to secure funding for the removal of
the Kniston Expressway, and they were successful in terms of,
(24:53):
you know, getting the funding. However, when you look at
these stories, it's much more complex than and getting the win.
Because I just read recently the Baltimore Banner reported that
that project now has a risk of repeating pass harms
because it's being led in a top down way without
(25:15):
full transparency, and it may prioritize aesthetics over justice. So
I want to caution what I say who's been successful,
because sometimes success looks like the win, but if you
don't continue to have an equitable and inclusive process following
that way, status quo will remain.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
After the Break, Charles talks about highway removal efforts across
the country, from New Orleans to Buffalo, and why what
some called radical solutions are in fact about justice and repair.
Welcome back Before the Break, Charles challenged the idea of
(25:58):
race neutral policy, showing how treating unequal situations equally only
deepens inequality. He also pointed to cities trying new approaches
from Portland to Saint Paul. Here's Deanna picking up the
conversation as Charles reflects on Highway of removal efforts, including
stories he shared on his Arrested Mobility podcast.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
This also reminds me of one of your podcast episodes
where you go I don't think. I don't know if
he went to New Orleans, but you spoke to some
folks in New Orleans about removing the Claiborne Expressway, And
one of the things that I thought was interesting was
there was a woman who is very much dedicated to
(26:38):
trying to get that expressway removed and has been for
a long time because she grew up around it, and
so she applied for the Reconnecting Communities grant, but also
the city and state applied for the Reconnected Communities grants,
and their visions or how to address the harms done
(26:59):
by the highway were very different, and hers were a
little bit more radical than the state of the city.
I'm curious about, like what you think will take for
those more radical things to be done on projects like those,
and also just like I generally want to know what
you think about the reconnecting Communities effort.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, I mean I'm a huge, huge fan of the
reconnecting communities efforts. In one of my earlier classes at
Rutgers University at the Planning School there, I remember project
here in Jersey where some of my students when we
were re envisioning the community through a complete streets lens,
(27:41):
one of the projects they did in the Oranges Orange
or East Orange or both, they proposed a cap over
a highway to reconnect the reconnect the community. And this
was a long time ago, probably five or six years ago.
And so I've always been a fan of highway removal
or capping projects. But if I'm using a sort of
(28:04):
critical leans in terms of what more is needed, I
know they're necessary, but they can be insufficient if it
doesn't return what was stolen. And that's where restorative justice
comes in in terms of when you look at the
homes that were stolen, the amount of generational wealthel was taken,
and I would say just as important cultural cohesion, because
(28:27):
these if we don't if we just re move the
highway or we cap the highway, but we don't consider
sort of restorative or reparative investment and returning what was
taken from people, then what we do is we risk
sort of replacing one form of harm with another. And
(28:47):
so in the case of New Orleans, firstly, I'm from Mississippi,
so New Orleans is like home, and it was an
honor to do that episode with not only that champion,
but me. We need champions in New Orleans. She's not
the only one. She's tremendous, but she's not the only one.
And one of the things I would like to change
(29:08):
briefly is not referring to what they were proposing as radical,
because you know some people have like, oh, that's a
negative connotation. I think what the States, what some cities
have been doing to arrest the mobility of black and
brown people and low income people has been radical. I
think that the ways that we mitigate this radical approach
(29:32):
to the harm that it is done in communities is
advocating for more political courage and also redefining what success
looks like. Because I could tell you someone that has
been in the transportation and planning field my entire career.
Oftentimes things are measured by traffic blow or cost efficiency.
(29:52):
We need new measures or metrics. We need to look
at you illing, cultural restoration, community ownership, and we also
need bottom up processes instead of top down. So, yes,
it may be viewed as radical when you're asking for
these things and a context that historically looks for the
(30:12):
autocentric metrics. But what I think is if we look
at it from a bottom up perspective, we would start
to see traffic flow measures, cost efficiency measures as more
radical than the visioning, the planning, and the stewardship of
community as being So thank.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
You for reframing that, because I think that is that
feels very vital and language is important, and I feel
like what a lot of people are asking for is
justice and like to actually just do the right thing,
which should not be Yeah, should not be thought of
as radical for sure. So we've talked a little bit
(30:55):
about solutions, but I feel like I want to talk
a little bit more about them. You talk about feeling
like optimistic because there are solutions that are like within
our grass. Are there any like solutions that you can
point to that feel like low hanging fruit for people
to just like be able to implement now or like
(31:15):
within the next year. I know that planning and all
that stuff it takes time to get through the system,
but like, what is what is something easy for people
to do.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
You know what, I applaud you for that question, because
that's a real important question, like what can I do now,
which is what a lot of people, you know want
to get to. I do want to caution people, though,
to move so quickly to the action relative to what
I feel like is not enough understanding. First, The first
(31:50):
action is you know, being here, being in other conversations
where you get a real account of what has taken place,
what continues to take place in our communities. Because one
of the conversations I was having with you prior to
this is, you know, I'm a lover of all people.
I'm not a race bader. I'm not anti law enforcement.
(32:12):
I'm not anti military, I'm not anti white people. I'm
not anti rich people. What I'm forced justice, okay, and
I love people, but I'm not I'm not apologetic about
calling out a spade when it's a spade, Right, I'm
gonna call a spade a spade, as we say, in
(32:33):
a black community. One of the things that people could do,
all right, once you have an understanding, one of the
most important things you could do, particularly if you're white,
is build trust in these communities, because that's going to
be the elephant in the room. And once you build
that trust, it's important that you operationalize that trust and
(32:53):
what does that look like. That means shifting power to
communities in these planning and budgeting decisions. It means shopping
in these communities. It could mean getting your hair cut
or done in these communities. It could mean mentorship in
these communities. But anything you want to ensure that you
represent a city or an agency that does some sort
(33:16):
of business or service in the community, that you're there
in addition to providing a service, but you're there to
genuinely connect with people. In the transportation context, it could
be participatory budgeting for transportation dollars, continue to engage people
to see how they would spend the money versus how
you spent it historically. If you're an advocate, it could
(33:39):
mean slowing down to kind of build coalitions with residents
or the ones that actually center residence complaints. Because I
can tell you someone who's worked in transportation, too often
public outreach and engagement is just a formality. It's not
done with enough time, with enough resources, and it has
(34:01):
not been done with enough intentionality around centering the voice
of the people. Most harmed. And so those are the
things that I think one could do right away. Is
low hanging fruit, which is focus on building trust. Transportation,
as we're discussing it here today, is not mentioned enough
(34:23):
on the national news. We're not having enough conversations around
what we are experiencing. And my twenty plus year career
beyond the New York Times, you know, Washington Post and
all of that, a television appearance has only been once
and that was with Al Sharpton, excuse me, MSNBC. Otherwise
(34:44):
it's not getting covered. And when you talk to the
elected officials, many of them rightly so want to talk
about redevelopment or development projects. They too, are not discussing
enough the importance of transportation and mobility. When it comes
to the vitality of cities. It's a chicken or the
end conversation. And for me, I think it starts with mobility.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
I feel like in our last moments, I'm just curious
if there's anything we haven't discussed that you think is
important for people to know when it comes to unresting mobility.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
So, you know, again, not to give away all of
the book, but I've said in other conversations I don't
have any tattoos, and I don't judge people who do
have tattoos, because I plan to give my first tattoo,
all right, and if it's not you know, my wife
and children's names, it will be birds born in a cage.
(35:46):
I think flying is an illness, but I say fly anyway.
That is important. Not just for the people who designed
that cage. That's important, not for the people who have
been victimized for that cage, or both. That is important
because we all have a role in freeing those birds
(36:09):
that think flying is an illness, because once you have
experienced freedom, you know there is no substitute. And so
I'm here today because I was once a bird in
that cage. But I am free, and I plan to
spend the rest of my life freeing other birds. And
(36:29):
I know that that means challenging at times the system
that design that cauge, the system that continues to maintain
that cauge, because anything less than freedom is unassumed.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
And I feel like that is the perfect note to
end on. Thank you so much, Charles for your time today.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
We hope you enjoyed this episode of Next City show
about change makers and their stories. Together we can spread
good ideas from one city to the next city. Thank
you for listening this week. Thank you to our guest
Charles T. Brown, founder of Equitable Cities and the author
of Arrested Mobility Overcoming the Threat to Black Movement. Thank
you to Deanna Anderson, Next City's editorial director for leading
this conversation. Today's episode was adapted from a webinar. To
(37:26):
watch the whole conversation, visit nextcity dot org slash webinars.
Our audio producer is Silvan Alcala. Our show producers Maggie Bowles,
Our executive producers Ryan Tillotson, and I'm Lucas Grimley, executive
director for Next City. By the way, Next City is
a news organization with a nonprofit model. If you like
what we're doing here, please consider pitching in to support
our work. Visit nextcity dot org slash membership to make
(37:47):
a donation. We'd love to hear any feedback from our listeners.
Please feel free to email us at info at nextcity
dot org and if you haven't already subscribed to the
show on Apple, Spotify, good Pods, or anywhere you listen
to your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
The Second ass
Speaker 2 (38:05):
S S
Straw hut media.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
If we just re move the highway or we cap
the highway, but we don't consider sort of restorative or
reparative investment in returning what was taken from people. And
what we do is we risk sort of replacing one
form of harm with another.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
This is Lucas Grinley from Next City, a show about
change makers and their stories. Truth is, there are solutions
to the problems of pressing people in cities. If you're listening,
I hope it's because you want to spread good ideas
from one city to the next city. All of us
deserve the ability to connect to our communities. For Black
American that freedom of movement has long been curtailed, whether
by laws that literally criminalized walking or biking, or with
(00:54):
traffic stops that disproportionately target black drivers, or with highways
built right through once thrivinghoods. The list goes on. And
that's why we're lucky to be joined today by the
author of Arrested Mobility. Overcoming the Threat to Black Movement,
Charles T. Brown, documents how policies and practices, from city
planning to policing have systematically restricted the movement of Black
(01:15):
Americans in this episode, Charles, who also leads the firm
Equitable Cities, joins Next City's editorial director Deanna Anderson to
discuss why approaches that claim to be race neutral often
reinforce inequality. They also talk about solutions from redesigning infrastructure
to shifting political power, and what it will take to
achieve a level of mobility that truly means freedom for everyone.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
I feel like we should define what arrested mobility is.
I feel like throughout the book there's like several definitions,
but for folks who may not have read the book yet,
can you just define that briefly?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, So, what arestum mobility is. It is a diagnoses,
and that diagnoses is to describe the systemic restrictions of
movement for Black Americans, and not just physically or socially
or economically, but looking at it in terms of over
policing disinvestment, I would say exclusionary planning and also discriminatory policy.
(02:19):
And I would probably say that policy when it's discriminatory
is best sort of described as when it's intentional, because
you can have disproportionate outcomes that are not intentional. But
I'm speaking to more directly the intentional nature of discriminatory policies.
And so the way that arrested mobility shows up in
(02:40):
terms of the mobility aspect of it is when you consider,
you know, when someone is being stopped while biking while black,
when they're being stopped while or profile while driving while black,
or even if their community is undiserved by transit and
other you know, pedestrion and mobile sort of accommodations. And
(03:04):
I bring this up because Black people have long faced
barriers to safe free movement that other groups often take
for granted. And the context here is that historically, for us,
the mobility to move freely has always been political. It
has also been policed. And that includes from you know,
(03:26):
when you consider slave patrols to Jim Crow laws, from
redlining to freeway construction, which is a big topic today.
And so we see this legacy in street level enforcement.
We see it in the fatalities. You look at where
fatalities are happening, there's a strong correlation with minorities, and
(03:47):
of course blacks are a racial minority. And then broadly speaking,
just overall lack of access to opportunity, and so many
of my colleagues in transportation and in planning you know,
we're championing safe streets for all. I'm a champion of
that as well as well as Vision zero. But in
(04:07):
this sort of age of that, we can't talk about
mobility without talking about who gets to move and who doesn't.
And that's the idea behind arrest the mobility to show
you historically as well as in contemporary times, that has
not been equal for black people.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Yeah, I mean, I have to say, something I really
appreciated about your book is like the first three chapters
really dig into the history and like set the stage
for like how we go to where we currently are.
And I yeah, I think that is super helpful for
everyone who wants to make sure that mobility is equitable
(04:45):
for all people, including black people, because you also mentioned that,
like when you unarrest mobility for black people, it has
actually good effects for everyone.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, I mean it's it's very similar to
I have friends a good friend, Gill Pinalosa. He started
a foundation in Canada called eight eighty Cities, and the
concept behind that was if we designed our cities for
those eight to eighty year olds, we designed it safely
(05:17):
for everyone. If you can design for eight year old
and an eighty year old. You're designing safely for everyone,
given you know how disproportionately black and brown people lose
their lives on our streets. If we designed the streets
for them, we does make them safe for everyone. So
the same concept, the difference being race is the variable
(05:38):
here as opposed to age.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
You mentioned in the book that society has created barriers
to mobility through the four p's. So you mentioned policy, planning, policing.
You also mentioned polity. Can you describe what that is
and how that kind of is related to arrested mobility.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yeah, thank you for bringing that up up. So I
tried to make the discussion because it could seem like
a lot for a lot of people, and so in
order to pinpoint exactly how it shows up in the
different structures I present, arrest the mobility through these overlapping
structures of control that I call the four p's. The
(06:20):
first P is polity, and what polity speaks to is power,
who has it, how it's distributed, and how decisions are made.
I bring that up because black people have been systematically
excluded from political processes, and when this happens, this leaves
their mobility needs unheard and unmet, and of course the
(06:43):
result of that being, as we talked about recently, you know,
disproportionate amounts of fatalities in our communities and among that population.
The second piece moving on from polity is policy, And
when you think about hower, it is sort of centering
in polity. Policy is the codified version or expression of
(07:08):
those power dynamics, and there are policies that continue to
criminalize black and brown bodies as pedestrians, as cyclists. One
example of that may be a cyclist without a helmet,
and how that can easily be policed when it should
be one's right whether or not to use a helmet,
(07:29):
because the infrastructure should be so safe that it isn't required.
And I can get into how can you sell a
bicycle without including a light, a front and rear one
as well as a helmet When you can't sell a
car that is not in adherence to law, but you
could sell a bike that isn't. And the point that
I'm making there is the moment you buy a bicycle,
(07:51):
if you're not cognizant of the local estate laws, if
you were to ride that bicycle out of Walmart, let's say,
or your local bicycle shop, you could be arrested because
it doesn't come with right away a helmet, a front
or real tail light or any of the other things
that are required by law. And then you know, lastly,
(08:11):
something like loatering. There's a lot of no loitering signs
in black and brown communities, and what those are is
that they have real consequences for freedom of movement, freedom
of community, freedom of cultural expressions. Then we move into planning,
and I've been in planning for the majority of my career.
(08:32):
I couldn't be happier having selected planning as a profession.
But when it's taught, it's usually seen as a neutral
position or profession, and it's far from it. When we
look at planning historically, decisions have been made. You know,
when you combine planning and engineers to route highways through
black and brown and low income communities, what this has
(08:53):
done is strip people from access to green spaces. But
it has also sort of reinforced segregation through zoning. So
that's how planning shows up. And the last one is policing.
Most people think the book is strictly about policing, but
it's not. It's also about the other three p's that
I mentioned. I can go on and on how policing,
(09:15):
you know, disproportionately targets black people in public space. But
one of the things that I want to remind people
of is that increasingly, and as this book discussed, policing
isn't just carried out by law enforcement. We're seeing a
rise of self deputized citizens as well. And self deputized
(09:35):
citizens are you know, the neighbors none black neighbors who
call the police on black people for existing in public space,
for delivering a door order or uber eats, and you know,
from bird watching to delivering you know, the packages for Amazon,
or if they're just simply waiting at a bus stop
(09:56):
at a time or in a place where they're expected
not to exist. And so when you think about this deputization,
it extends and maintains the reach of the state, and
this disproportionately affect black and brown people.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Thank you for that thoughtful explanation. Something I kind of
want to double back to is you mentioned the laws
around like biking, and I know that your firm did
like some research around like the laws for like jaywalking
and biking and other forms of mobility and communities, and
like how I think one hundred percent of states have
(10:38):
like jaywalking rules or something like that. You can check me.
But I'm curious about, like if it's important to like
abolish those rules or reform them or something, because not
a lot of people are aware of the laws that exist.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, So we did a study, an Arrested Mobility report
that people can find on Arrestedmobility dot com. In that study,
we took a look at the mobility laws in all
We looked at fifty states and then also the two
most populous cities in each state, and we were looking
(11:19):
for and we have a criteria. Some of it I remember,
some I don't, But in there, we were looking at
laws that you couldn't justify from a safety perspective that
they should still be a law, or they were confusing
to interpret by law enforcement or by us. And we
found some of the craziest things I think you'll ever
(11:39):
see as laws. For instance, there are some places where
if you have a bicycle and it's not kept up
to standards in terms of if it's dirty, you could
be pulled over. There was one if you were bouncing
a ball on a sidewalk it was an issue. Some
discuss how you exit a road as a cyclist going
(12:01):
into another road, and of course jaywalking is it was
just throughout as you mentioned, most of the states. And
the reason why jaywalking is an issue is because from
a policing standpoint, and this was another criteria I'm remembering
that now, is that it is very difficult to police equitably,
(12:22):
meaning no matter where you go, someone jaywalks, and no
matter where you go, there is some law enforcement that
is misinterpreting the jaywalking law. This was excused predominantly because
it was a way or means to search for items
(12:43):
on black bodies, and those items may have been you know, weapons, drugs,
so on and so forth. So that was really why
I think it in addition to the history behind the
automobile industry having power asking for it as well retain
making away space from pedestrians, so you know, I'll save
people the long story. But in there we point to
(13:06):
a number of laws that should be removed, including jaywalking,
And what I want people to take away from that
discussion is do that analysis at your local level and
see which laws should be repealed, which laws should be decriminalized,
because I don't think it's you know, all should be removed.
(13:26):
Some just should be decriminalized to be fair. And so
that's the takeaway there and thanks for bringing that out.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
After the break, Charles shares what it would look like
to step away from traditional traffic enforcement and why when
it comes to safety, investing in infrastructure might matter more
than policing. Welcome back. Before the break, Charles C. Brown
(13:53):
laid out the concept of arrested mobility, including the four
p's that restrict black movement, policy, planning, and policing. Now
he explains what alternatives to policing could look like and
why redesigning our streets may be the key to unarresting mobility.
Here again is our editorial director, Deanna Anderson.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
What would you say will be the alternative? What would
it look like to not have policing involved in that
kind of enforcement?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, well, what sort of clarification on that is? Because
I don't want people to walk away thinking that I
am not for law enforcement number one, and then number
two that there isn't a role for law enforcement in mobility.
There is. I think the place for law enforcement their
(14:49):
physical presence is around monitoring speeding absent speeding cameras in
the like. But I think the violent actions that take
place when you have crashes, particularly severe crashes, things that
need to be analyzed and mitigated on site, that's when
(15:11):
you need, I think, for the most part, police presence.
But we have a multitude of technologies now that can
monitor speed and other things that don't require the physical
presence of traffic enforcers. And I say that because in
an ideal world, you would have everyone treated equally when
(15:32):
stopped by law enforcement. But we've seen too many cases,
and I don't mean to overly simplify or generalize this,
but we've seen too many cases where that presence between
those that black body and that white body turns out
more violent for us. And so that's the reason why
we want to seriously consider the role in which law
(15:54):
enforcement is playing in traffic enforcement now. The alternatives been
looked at in places like La, places like Berkeley where
I've done studies, and it may include traffic safety ambassadors,
it could be community lab programs like Equaticities Mobility Justice
Initiative in Chicago, which I highlight in the book. But
(16:15):
we we've seen other models that lead to the de escalation,
the mutual aid and neighborhood navigation, navigation without involving police
and so anything that is critical, I think they should
be involved. If it's not like typical traffic UH infractions,
they should not. There's a lot of conversation about policing
(16:37):
and traffic enforcement, when the conversation should be on investing
in infrastructure in those communities and designing our streets and
ways in which you don't even need enforcement because they're
designed in a way infrastructure over enforcement that makes it
safer and easier for everyone to adhere to the law.
So I think it's dising genuous to lead with enforcement
(16:59):
when oftentimes we led within disinvestment or lack of infrastructure
in these communities that see a disproportionate amount of policing.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
One of the other things that I appreciated about your
book is that I was able to get like a
refresher on all the different types of racism, from individual
to institutionalized to structural. And one of the things that
you know is that in order to undo the harm
(17:33):
that policies that have been implemented that have harmed black communities,
in order to like actually really undo the harm of
those policies, like there has to be a approach that
has a racial justice lends to it, Like the laws
that are implemented to improve cities can't be race neutral.
(17:55):
And can you share a little bit about why that
is important to take that specific approach.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Well, the reason why people want to improve cities can't
do that is because the outcome of race neutral policies
are never a race neutral When you look at it,
sort of race neutrality assumes that we all started from
the same place. And what it does is it ignores
the layered history of harm that has been inflicted on
(18:23):
you know, black communities I discussed earlier, you know, rent lining,
the highway construction, and the underinvestment. So if you treat
unequal situations equally, what happens is that you reinforce the inequality.
And so I'm about justice, and justice requires us acknowledging
(18:45):
this history, naming race specifically, and repairing the harm that
was done to black and brown people. And I say
this because as a researcher, I often see you know,
people saying, well, couldn't we just use income as a
proxy for race? Can we use age? Can we use
ability a disability? And the truth is there is no
(19:08):
justified proxy for race because of the history, because of
the political context in which we find ourselves in and again,
if you were to not include or not consider race,
you're normalizing the experiences of black and brown people, and
that too is unfair. So one example of that is
(19:28):
take bicycle infrastructure, for example. So I've been part of
I've investigated where cities have decided to roll out by
sharing programs using these race neutral criteria, and sort of
the way that that shows up is they're prioritizing high
ridership potential or proximity to jobs. So they're saying, let's
(19:50):
not consider race, let's just prioritize high ridership potential or
one's proximity to jobs job centers. But if you look closer,
those metrics often exclude black neighborhoods that were historically disinvested.
They have lower existing bicycle usage also due to the
(20:11):
safety concerns or the lack of protected lanes. So even
though the policy claims to treat everyone equally, what ends
up happening is that they expand mobility into more affluent
white neighborhoods while once again leaving black residents behind. So
and when you do discuss alternative modes to transportation in
(20:34):
carcentric places, it is met with resistance and then culturally
people feel like it's not a win for their communities.
I can tell you that's what I've seen anecdotically, but
that's not what I see from a research perspective, meaning
when you do engage the majority of not the majority,
(20:55):
but when you do engage people in a research way,
a scientific way, like I did here in New Jersey.
I asked black brown for wealthy income people alike, what
they want a bicycle lane on their street, and I
believe in that study eighty five percent of them said yes.
The issue is that we're hearing from the fifteen percent
(21:17):
who say no and who are concerned about this new
investment leading to gentrification and displacement. So what happens is
we then deem white bike lanes as white lanes, as
my friend wrote in her book, And not all people
feel that way, right. We're not a monolith in the
(21:37):
black community. There are many people like myself would like
to see more investments in bicycling pedestrian infrastructure. But I
think the squeaky will gets the attention in this case,
and that's the fifteen percent who are justified in having
some concern, But it doesn't hold true for the majority.
Of community.
Speaker 4 (22:00):
I'm curious if there's like any programs or cities that
you've seen implement policies well with a racial justice lens
that you can point to as maybe a model for
other people. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
So there are a number of places. And I always
caution everyone when I answer this question, because of course
it's subjective, right, and then there's still a lot of
work to be done. But we also don't want to
paint the picture, and I don't do a restumability that
all is lost. I wrote this book because I still
(22:37):
have hope in America. I have a hope in cities
and states, in our neighbors as well. But when you
look at some of the positive examples, I don't want
to give the full book away, but I start with
a critique of Portland, the city of Portland, Oregon, being
probably the widest largest city in America. I believe Portland
(22:59):
has that distinction, and I talk about how that came
to be through law, through policy, because of black, brown
bodies being denied even the ability to move by law
into the state of Oregon. And so that's why you
get a place like Portland in an America as diverse
as it is, which is predominantly overwhelmingly white. You know,
(23:22):
anyone that's a statistician knows that if you have a
handful of colored marbles, marbles and you throw them in
the air, probably one out of a trillion times, you
won't get all blue marbles representing a place like Portland
that is white. You're going to continue to have a
degree of diversity within those marbles without the system itself
(23:44):
injecting itself and choosing only whiteness. And that's what happens
when you have law. So I talk about Portland and
what they've been able to do. I think in East Portland,
which is predominantly black and brown and low income, they've
been very intentional about fight share access, pedestrian improvements and
complete streets and also to trails and bike ways as well.
(24:07):
So Portland is a place I pick on, but Portland
is also a place I celebrate. You can look at
the Rondo community in Saint Paul. I ninety four devastated
that community, but Roundo residents organized, they documented their history
and now they are advancing proposals to cap that highway
(24:30):
and reconnect their communities. Another place out east is Buffalo,
and I think in Buffalo, I could be mistaken, but
I know it was land by black people. Well, some
of the leaders were black and also black women, and
they successfully pushed to secure funding for the removal of
the Kniston Expressway, and they were successful in terms of,
(24:53):
you know, getting the funding. However, when you look at
these stories, it's much more complex than and getting the win.
Because I just read recently the Baltimore Banner reported that
that project now has a risk of repeating pass harms
because it's being led in a top down way without
(25:15):
full transparency, and it may prioritize aesthetics over justice. So
I want to caution what I say who's been successful,
because sometimes success looks like the win, but if you
don't continue to have an equitable and inclusive process following
that way, status quo will remain.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
After the Break, Charles talks about highway removal efforts across
the country, from New Orleans to Buffalo, and why what
some called radical solutions are in fact about justice and repair.
Welcome back Before the Break, Charles challenged the idea of
(25:58):
race neutral policy, showing how treating unequal situations equally only
deepens inequality. He also pointed to cities trying new approaches
from Portland to Saint Paul. Here's Deanna picking up the
conversation as Charles reflects on Highway of removal efforts, including
stories he shared on his Arrested Mobility podcast.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
This also reminds me of one of your podcast episodes
where you go I don't think. I don't know if
he went to New Orleans, but you spoke to some
folks in New Orleans about removing the Claiborne Expressway, And
one of the things that I thought was interesting was
there was a woman who is very much dedicated to
(26:38):
trying to get that expressway removed and has been for
a long time because she grew up around it, and
so she applied for the Reconnecting Communities grant, but also
the city and state applied for the Reconnected Communities grants,
and their visions or how to address the harms done
(26:59):
by the highway were very different, and hers were a
little bit more radical than the state of the city.
I'm curious about, like what you think will take for
those more radical things to be done on projects like those,
and also just like I generally want to know what
you think about the reconnecting Communities effort.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, I mean I'm a huge, huge fan of the
reconnecting communities efforts. In one of my earlier classes at
Rutgers University at the Planning School there, I remember project
here in Jersey where some of my students when we
were re envisioning the community through a complete streets lens,
(27:41):
one of the projects they did in the Oranges Orange
or East Orange or both, they proposed a cap over
a highway to reconnect the reconnect the community. And this
was a long time ago, probably five or six years ago.
And so I've always been a fan of highway removal
or capping projects. But if I'm using a sort of
(28:04):
critical leans in terms of what more is needed, I
know they're necessary, but they can be insufficient if it
doesn't return what was stolen. And that's where restorative justice
comes in in terms of when you look at the
homes that were stolen, the amount of generational wealthel was taken,
and I would say just as important cultural cohesion, because
(28:27):
these if we don't if we just re move the
highway or we cap the highway, but we don't consider
sort of restorative or reparative investment and returning what was
taken from people, then what we do is we risk
sort of replacing one form of harm with another. And
(28:47):
so in the case of New Orleans, firstly, I'm from Mississippi,
so New Orleans is like home, and it was an
honor to do that episode with not only that champion,
but me. We need champions in New Orleans. She's not
the only one. She's tremendous, but she's not the only one.
And one of the things I would like to change
(29:08):
briefly is not referring to what they were proposing as radical,
because you know some people have like, oh, that's a
negative connotation. I think what the States, what some cities
have been doing to arrest the mobility of black and
brown people and low income people has been radical. I
think that the ways that we mitigate this radical approach
(29:32):
to the harm that it is done in communities is
advocating for more political courage and also redefining what success
looks like. Because I could tell you someone that has
been in the transportation and planning field my entire career.
Oftentimes things are measured by traffic blow or cost efficiency.
(29:52):
We need new measures or metrics. We need to look
at you illing, cultural restoration, community ownership, and we also
need bottom up processes instead of top down. So, yes,
it may be viewed as radical when you're asking for
these things and a context that historically looks for the
(30:12):
autocentric metrics. But what I think is if we look
at it from a bottom up perspective, we would start
to see traffic flow measures, cost efficiency measures as more
radical than the visioning, the planning, and the stewardship of
community as being So thank.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
You for reframing that, because I think that is that
feels very vital and language is important, and I feel
like what a lot of people are asking for is
justice and like to actually just do the right thing,
which should not be Yeah, should not be thought of
as radical for sure. So we've talked a little bit
(30:55):
about solutions, but I feel like I want to talk
a little bit more about them. You talk about feeling
like optimistic because there are solutions that are like within
our grass. Are there any like solutions that you can
point to that feel like low hanging fruit for people
to just like be able to implement now or like
(31:15):
within the next year. I know that planning and all
that stuff it takes time to get through the system,
but like, what is what is something easy for people
to do.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
You know what, I applaud you for that question, because
that's a real important question, like what can I do now,
which is what a lot of people, you know want
to get to. I do want to caution people, though,
to move so quickly to the action relative to what
I feel like is not enough understanding. First, The first
(31:50):
action is you know, being here, being in other conversations
where you get a real account of what has taken place,
what continues to take place in our communities. Because one
of the conversations I was having with you prior to
this is, you know, I'm a lover of all people.
I'm not a race bader. I'm not anti law enforcement.
(32:12):
I'm not anti military, I'm not anti white people. I'm
not anti rich people. What I'm forced justice, okay, and
I love people, but I'm not I'm not apologetic about
calling out a spade when it's a spade, Right, I'm
gonna call a spade a spade, as we say, in
(32:33):
a black community. One of the things that people could do,
all right, once you have an understanding, one of the
most important things you could do, particularly if you're white,
is build trust in these communities, because that's going to
be the elephant in the room. And once you build
that trust, it's important that you operationalize that trust and
(32:53):
what does that look like. That means shifting power to
communities in these planning and budgeting decisions. It means shopping
in these communities. It could mean getting your hair cut
or done in these communities. It could mean mentorship in
these communities. But anything you want to ensure that you
represent a city or an agency that does some sort
(33:16):
of business or service in the community, that you're there
in addition to providing a service, but you're there to
genuinely connect with people. In the transportation context, it could
be participatory budgeting for transportation dollars, continue to engage people
to see how they would spend the money versus how
you spent it historically. If you're an advocate, it could
(33:39):
mean slowing down to kind of build coalitions with residents
or the ones that actually center residence complaints. Because I
can tell you someone who's worked in transportation, too often
public outreach and engagement is just a formality. It's not
done with enough time, with enough resources, and it has
(34:01):
not been done with enough intentionality around centering the voice
of the people. Most harmed. And so those are the
things that I think one could do right away. Is
low hanging fruit, which is focus on building trust. Transportation,
as we're discussing it here today, is not mentioned enough
(34:23):
on the national news. We're not having enough conversations around
what we are experiencing. And my twenty plus year career
beyond the New York Times, you know, Washington Post and
all of that, a television appearance has only been once
and that was with Al Sharpton, excuse me, MSNBC. Otherwise
(34:44):
it's not getting covered. And when you talk to the
elected officials, many of them rightly so want to talk
about redevelopment or development projects. They too, are not discussing
enough the importance of transportation and mobility. When it comes
to the vitality of cities. It's a chicken or the
end conversation. And for me, I think it starts with mobility.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
I feel like in our last moments, I'm just curious
if there's anything we haven't discussed that you think is
important for people to know when it comes to unresting mobility.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
So, you know, again, not to give away all of
the book, but I've said in other conversations I don't
have any tattoos, and I don't judge people who do
have tattoos, because I plan to give my first tattoo,
all right, and if it's not you know, my wife
and children's names, it will be birds born in a cage.
(35:46):
I think flying is an illness, but I say fly anyway.
That is important. Not just for the people who designed
that cage. That's important, not for the people who have
been victimized for that cage, or both. That is important
because we all have a role in freeing those birds
(36:09):
that think flying is an illness, because once you have
experienced freedom, you know there is no substitute. And so
I'm here today because I was once a bird in
that cage. But I am free, and I plan to
spend the rest of my life freeing other birds. And
(36:29):
I know that that means challenging at times the system
that design that cauge, the system that continues to maintain
that cauge, because anything less than freedom is unassumed.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
And I feel like that is the perfect note to
end on. Thank you so much, Charles for your time today.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
We hope you enjoyed this episode of Next City show
about change makers and their stories. Together we can spread
good ideas from one city to the next city. Thank
you for listening this week. Thank you to our guest
Charles T. Brown, founder of Equitable Cities and the author
of Arrested Mobility Overcoming the Threat to Black Movement. Thank
you to Deanna Anderson, Next City's editorial director for leading
this conversation. Today's episode was adapted from a webinar. To
(37:26):
watch the whole conversation, visit nextcity dot org slash webinars.
Our audio producer is Silvan Alcala. Our show producers Maggie Bowles,
Our executive producers Ryan Tillotson, and I'm Lucas Grimley, executive
director for Next City. By the way, Next City is
a news organization with a nonprofit model. If you like
what we're doing here, please consider pitching in to support
our work. Visit nextcity dot org slash membership to make
(37:47):
a donation. We'd love to hear any feedback from our listeners.
Please feel free to email us at info at nextcity
dot org and if you haven't already subscribed to the
show on Apple, Spotify, good Pods, or anywhere you listen
to your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
The Second ass
Speaker 2 (38:05):
S S
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.