In Cape Elizabeth, Mortgage-Backed Securities are People Too
Why did Dan wait so long to privately accuse me of hate speech?
Because he can’t publicly win the argument about the local housing referendum on the merits, in my opinion, but others could argue it’s because he inadvertently is a sexist pig.
Let me explain.
The speech in question is what was said at a public forum on October 13, 2022 in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where a mortgage-backed security posing as affordable housing is on the ballot thanks to the certification of a citizen petition I drafted a year ago. The question is whether to approve major zoning amendments passed at the request of The Szanton Company, a for-profit corporation, to build a gigantic apartment building of low-income one-bedroom apartments smack in the middle of our beautiful coastal town of less than 10,000 people with a median income of $127K.
The forum was open to all and took place at the town hall and was broadcast live on CETV, our local public access channel. A recording of the forum is available on demand.
Watch for yourself and count the infractions. See if you can spot my inadvertent “hate speech.”
Dan watched the forum on CETV and ten minutes before it ended posted a 226 word statement on a local gossipy Facebook Group page with 2.4K members on why he is voting “yes” that generated 60 comments over several hours including several comments by and directed at me.
Not one of Dan’s hundreds of words on the topic that night suggested anything about “hate speech.”
Dan says he supports the referendum because he’s for affordable housing and has his finger on the pulse of righteousness. I say I’m opposed to the referendum because I support affordable housing and the zoning amendments are for papering a financial transaction for investors and leave citizens out to dry.
For instance, at 8:52 PM on the night of the forum, I wrote:
“I’m voting ‘no’ because a) the amendments invite multiple for-profit low-income Section 8 housing projects that exclude kids, families and the Cape Elizabeth workforce b) the public cost (project is 100% tax dollars! $13.5 Million plus tax breaks) far outweighs any public good, c) it’s contrary to the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, and d) its not fair to other landowners in the same zone who have to play by different rules. I am supportive of an”affordable housing development “ as defined in the new state law and Community Housing, I.e. affordable housing for families on town owned land.”
And so it went - back and forth - and my arguments against the proposed zoning amendments were then what they are now and have always been. The zoning amendments are drafted for stocks and bonds, not families and kids who need housing.
Late the next day after the forum I got a private message from Dan that he says was for my own good but others in today’s zeitgeist could argue was more about his manhood and unconscious bias against women.
Here is the conversation edited slightly for clarity.
DAN “Cynthia- I watched your forum last night, and lost track of how many times your referred to potential developers as a “cabal”, or “a cabal of ultra-rich developers” and similar terms. You have consistently referred to Nathan Szanton, who is Jewish, in this way, indicating he is rich, greedy, etc. You may not know this (I sincerely hope you don’t), but cabal is an anti-Semitic term when used in this way, especially combined with these other references. There is enough emotion over this issue without venturing into this territory, so I hope I can convince you to stop using these phrases. Please read the attached reference for more information. Dan”
With Dan’s message was a link to an American Jewish Committee website article on when the term “cabal” is considered antisemitic with a hashtag #translatehate.
(I should note here that not once did I refer to potential developers as a “cabal” or a “cabal of ultra-rich developers,” and I have never referred to Nathan Szanton in any way at all, let alone “rich, greedy, etc.” )
ME “Dan, the developer is a corporation that does not have ethnicity and your sanctimony is insulting. And I’m not doing a back-and-forth with you.”
DAN “Cynthia- I sent this to you privately to both ask you to stop doing something that is hurtful, and to help you understand. But I see you don’t care how you come across on this issue, which is good to know.”
ME “Why don’t you stick to the issue of the zoning amendments and the facts. I don’t need a lecture from you in public or in private about what to say. You don’t like me, fine. Don’t listen to what I have to say.”
DAN “I would want to know if I inadvertently was saying something that others might consider to be hate-speech.”
ME “Hate speech? Please.”
Dunham Court is a mortgage-backed security, not affordable housing. That has been my argument from day one against the large-scale low-income multifamily project that would exclude more than 90% of citizens who live in the town and will pay for it. The model is a “Wall Street heist dressed up as a progressive cause,” I’m quoted saying.
Dan says, “I would want to know,” because he believes he’s better than me and inadvertently knows what’s best because he is a man, others might consider.
Others might consider that if Dan truly believed what I said during the public forum was “hate speech,” he would have sounded the alarm before or during the back-and-forth debate on the Facebook Group page. A debate he lost, others might consider.
Not me, but others might consider it stunning that Dan didn’t re-watch the public forum since he “lost count” of the times I allegedly engaged in hate speech before he made made such offensive and unsubstantiated “private” accusations. Because they are complete fiction.
Twice “the developer” is specifically identified as “The Szanton Company” and not once is there reference to “Nathan Szanton.”
My use of the word “cabal” twice during the public forum on Cape Elizabeth’s “Town Center and Affordable Housing Zoning Ordinance Amendments Referendum” was perfectly appropriate and not me but others might construe Dan’s message about what he wants me to say and not say is his way of putting me down. They might find his comments paternalistic and pedantic.
What I said was, “setting aside this obsession that the urban planners and the housing cabal have for multifamily housing - and the bankers and the real estate developers - because they are hot and they make a lot of money and because they, I think, suggest falsely there is a moral component”
The “they” in that sentence is multifamily housing. Bankers and developers are not part of the cabal, they are in addition to it - the group of planners and consultants and lobbyists working feverishly to bundle mortgages and trade them on Wall Street.
Later on during the forum I said, “what we as a town could really do -- instead of this drumbeat by the planner and by what I call lovingly the housing cabal -- is we can focus on ways LD 2003 can help Cape residents.”
Dan may believe he’s morally superior and therefore in a position to regulate how I use the English language, but others would construe his behavior as old fashioned sexism - nothing more than a power move when he had no more cards to play and wanted to have the last word and for me to apologize.
Others might, but not me. I will keep fighting for affordable housing for families and kids.