 |
| (華埠土地信託會提供） |
 |
| (華埠土地信託會提供） |
 |
| 華埠土地信託會主任駱理德。(華埠土地信託會提供） |
 |
| (華埠土地信託會提供） |
有“戰士母親(Warrior)”稱號，現年已84歲的Sin Wah Lee還記得，發生2名來自香港的青少年移民被控謀殺一名查理士城白人女生事情後，華裔家長們擔心他們的小孩會受到族裔因素觸發的攻擊，於是寫信給學校高層。然而這信發出去後，有如石沈大海，沒有回音，於是華裔家長們決定採取更多行動。
 |
| (華埠土地信託會提供） |
在司法部門人員和家長們晤談，除了聘用更多華裔老師和助教得由教師工會決定之外，同意其他要求後，華裔家長們才停止了杯葛。
 |
| (華埠土地信託會提供） |
昆士小學前校長李素影，在種族隔離時期還是一名老師，曾經在那些華裔母親組織杯葛，抗議行動時，為他們做翻譯。她說，不會說英語，只是打工仔，都沒關係，他們做到了讓自己的聲音被聽見。(更新版，新增圖片，華埠土地信託會提供）
(華埠土地信託會提供）
 |
| 麻州州長Maura Healey恭喜Teddie Peanut Butter公司成立100週年。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| Teddie Peanut Butter公司成立100週年。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| Everett市長Carlo DeMaria(中）笑談和Hintlian家族公司合作。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| Hintlian家族第四代從2020年起加入行政行列。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| 第三代的Mark Hintlian於2007年接任公司董事長，一年半前退休。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| Hintlian兄弟 （左）接待麻州州長Maura Healey和副州長Kim Driscoll。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| Everett市長和麻州州長都為Teddie花生醬這百年老公司 送上祝賀牌和表揚狀。（周菊子攝） |
Coalition of Over 80 Asian American Advocacy Organizations Sign On to Reject the House Appropriation Subcommittee’s Bill Proposing Re-establishment of ‘China Initiative’
Washington, D.C. — On Tuesday, the House Appropriations committee marked up the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2026. The bill’s accompanying report contained concerning language that directs the Department of Justice to effectively re-establish the now-defunct ‘China Initiative,’ reviving the discriminatory profiling of Asian American scholars. In response, 82 civil rights and Asian American advocacy organizations nationwide signed onto a letter led by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), Stop AAPI Hate, and Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) calling for the removal of this provision from the bill.
Leaders of Advancing Justice – AAJC, AASF, Stop AAPI Hate and CAA expressed their disappointment for the language’s inclusion in a previous press release urging the House Committee to reject the reinstatement of the ‘China Initiative.’ Today, along with their allied partners, they stand by their calls.
“It is disheartening to see the return of language proposing the reinstatement of the now-defunct China Initiative after we successfully countered efforts to include it in last year’s appropriations package,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC. “This language once again threatens to reverse the progress we have made and target Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists, researchers, and scholars under the guise of national security. Let’s be clear: the first iteration of this program did not address national security. Instead, it fueled division, upended lives and curbed our country’s global competitiveness. We urge lawmakers not to repeat history and to reject these attacks on racial justice and equity by removing language in the report that targets Asian American communities.”
“Reinstating the China Initiative would revive a failed and shortsighted policy that hurt the workforce of scientists and innovators that our country depends on to stay globally competitive,” said Gisela Perez Kusakawa, Executive Director of the Asian American Scholar Forum. “We’ve already seen how this program undermined American innovation by wrongfully targeting scientists of Chinese descent, derailing careers, stoking fear, and deterring brilliant minds from contributing to U.S. research and development. In a global race for talent, we cannot afford to lose the very people driving advances in medicine, energy, artificial intelligence, and other critical fields that impact all Americans. Reviving this program would send a chilling message to the world’s top minds: that the U.S. values suspicion over science. We must not repeat a chapter that not only ruined so many lives, but also weakened our innovation ecosystem and compromised our national interest.”
“To bring back the China Initiative in any way, shape, or form would be a dangerous mistake,” said Cynthia Choi, Co-Founder of Stop AAPI Hate and Co-Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action. “It was built on racial bias, not national security – and fueled the wrongful targeting of Asian American scientists and scholars, often without evidence or due process. It shattered lives, violated civil liberties, and chilled academic freedom, all while weakening America’s global leadership. At a time when anti-Asian hate remains a serious threat, the China Initiative would put our communities into even greater danger — and legitimize the racist notion that Asian Americans can’t be trusted in their own country.”
The letter and the full list of signatories can be read here.
 |
| 波士頓市長參選人Josh Kraft。 （檔案照片，周菊子攝） |
Josh Kraft此舉等同波士頓市現任市長吳弭，將繼續再當4年市長。
 |
| 吳弭陣營發聲明，尊重Josh Kraft的決定。 |
Josh Kraf透過發公開信給支持者，在IG，臉書等社交媒體上發消息，以及接受WCVB-TV訪問方式，宣佈了他的這一決定。
 |
| Josh Kraft發給支持者的公開信。 |
Josh Kraft列舉的退選理由包括初選失票太多，儘管花了比吳弭市長多幾百萬元的經費來競選，得票率卻僅23%，遠遠落後於吳弭市長的72%。
他也強調，希望避免所謂的「更多政治誹謗」和「有害的言論或惡意攻擊性廣告」。他表示，他希望推動波士頓人在人們關心的問題上對話，繼續競選只會加劇分裂。
Josh Kraft宣佈，將從競選經費中撥出300萬美元，另加其他額外資本，用於慈善事業。他也特別提到「美沙酮英里（Mass & Cass）」一帶，指流浪漢和吸毒者對地方人民安全形成的危機，必須解決。他還支持重新培訓曾服刑人員，給這些人機會重返職場，過回正常人生活。
另一個導致Josh Kraft決定退出波士頓市長大位選戰的原因是，他迄今未能贏得大多數選民的共鳴感。他的動用大筆個人資金來支持自己的選戰，受到很多人批評。他的競爭對手吳弭市長以“波士頓市不出售”，來形容他的參選，更是讓選民一下就記在了心裏。.jpg)
Josh Kraft發給支持者的公開信，第2頁。
波士頓市長吳弭的競選陣營獲悉Josh Kraft退選後，立即在晚上8點多時，以電子郵件等媒介，發表了一份聲明，稱尊重josh Kraft的決定，也感謝他關心波士頓市的心意強烈到要參選來讓這個城市更好。未來2個月，以及以後，她都將繼續就大家面前的重要工作，和社區民眾保持互動，一起致力使波士頓成為一個安全，歡迎每一個人的城市。
 |
| 鍾承泰（右起），楊定凱和中華公所主席雷國輝（左二）， 張重華教授（左一），一起送泰雅族繪本給波士頓市長吳弭 （中）。（雷國輝提供，Cary Chin攝） |
楊定凱和鍾承祐，楊允禾，鍾宜縈，鍾宜臻，鍾承泰等6人都在美國唸書，今年暑假回台灣桃園市時，結合各方資源，以及桃園企業金蘭食品的贊助，製作出泰雅族語和英語的雙語故事繪本「小米的一生」、「奶奶的農作物」。8月25日出版當天，他們還在桃園市政府辦了新書發表會。
 |
| 鍾承泰（左），楊定凱（右）帶著泰雅族雙語故事繪本「小米的一生」、 「奶奶的農作物」，等著送給波士頓市長吳弭。（周菊子攝） |
 |
| 楊定凱（右）這晚還向麻州眾議員Aaron Michlewitz(左） 介紹了這2本泰雅族繪本。（周菊子攝（ |
在康州就讀的共同發起人鍾承祐則強調，他們的夢想是要打造台灣與美國、與世界溝通的橋樑。將來他們會繼續努力，一方面策劃陸續出版其他15個原住民族裔的雙語繪本，一方面安排把書寄贈給美國，以及歐洲英語系國家的各大學相關系所與圖書館，並安排在美國亞馬遜購書通路上架。
9月9日晚，藉著紐英崙中華公所主席雷國輝，紐英崙中華專業人員協會前董事長張重華協助，楊定凱和目前在牛頓市The Fessenden School就讀的鍾承泰得到機會，在波士頓市長吳弭競選連任的慶祝初選大勝派對上，向吳弭市長做介紹他們的計劃，並送上2本繪本，為他們在美國推動「介紹台灣原住民文化」，讓世界看見台灣的理想，踏出門檻頗高的第一步。
MAYOR WU ANNOUNCES 2025 - 2026 SPARK BOSTON COUNCIL |
|
BOSTON - Thursday, September 11, 2025 - Mayor Michelle Wu today announced the newly-selected 2025-2026 SPARK Boston Council. The 38-member group will spend the next year working to connect young adults to leaders in local government, City services, and one another. The SPARK Boston Council advises Mayor Wu on City policies and programs affecting 20- to 35-year-olds in the City of Boston. “SPARK Council continues to inspire our young people to be engaged with city government and contribute to building a vibrant, exciting future for our next generation of leaders,” said Mayor Michelle Wu. “As we welcome both our new and returning SPARK Council members, I’m excited to hear their ideas and new perspectives. Their experiences and creativity will be invaluable additions to the City, leaving a lasting impact on neighborhoods across Boston.” SPARK Boston is housed in the Mayor’s Community Engagement Cabinet. This office is responsible for advising Mayor Wu on issues affecting millennial and Gen-Z residents and working with City departments and community stakeholders to create innovative solutions. The Council meets monthly with City Hall leaders and creates free programming for their peers including voter resources, events highlighting the City’s initiatives, and professional and social networking opportunities across Boston’s neighborhoods. This year’s Council members come from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds including public service, higher education, and scientific research. Sixteen SPARK Boston council members are multilingual and the Council represents almost all of Boston’s neighborhoods. SPARK Boston is directed by Aidan McDonough, a former council member. In his first year, McDonough has created an inspiring space for Gen Z and millennial residents to engage in meaningful conversations and develop programs that drive change in their neighborhoods. SPARK council members have led essential programming free for residents, including Neighborhood Socials hosted at local businesses and SPARK Chats featuring City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune, District 1 City Councilor Gabriela Coletta, and Boston Housing Authority Administrator Kenzie Bok, among others. “SPARK Boston received a record number of applications this year,” said SPARK Boston Director Aidan McDonough. “More than 450 individuals applied to enhance their civic engagement and utilize their talents and passions to serve our city. We had a successful year, with activities ranging from hosting a Civic Spin class at The Handle Bar in the South End, featuring José Massó, the Chief of Human Services, to conducting SPARK Chats with local civic leaders, many of whom are alumni to SPARK Boston. I am excited to see what the next cohort of council members will bring to the table this year and build on the momentum our outgoing council has created.” The 2024-2025 SPARK Boston Council members had the opportunity to host Neighborhood Socials, inviting residents, community leaders, and elected officials to network with Boston’s 20-35-year-old constituency. SPARK Boston held multiple Chief Chats, informal speaking engagements with members of Mayor Wu’s cabinet, to learn more about the work being done to uplift Boston residents. The council held a Credit Building Workshop in partnership with the Mayor’s Center for Working Families to provide residents with better access to financial literacy resources. Additionally, they volunteered to distribute backpacks in Orchard Garden during New Edition Day, hosted a Black History Month mixer, and an event with the American Pakistan Foundation, among other events. "Last year’s SPARK Boston council members hosted engaging programs, including SPARK walks that encouraged residents to explore the stories of Boston's Black writers, led a Bike Brigade clean-up, and held SPARK Chats featuring civic leaders," said Chief of Community Engagement Brianna Millor. "I am excited to collaborate with our newest cohort of council members to ensure that Boston continues to be the place for young adults to live, work and enjoy all the opportunities our city has to offer." “SPARK was such a rich experience as a young professional in the city, both personally and professionally,” said Chelsea Lauder, North End, 2024-2025 SPARK Boston Council member. “I was able to build relationships with peers who have similar interests and goals, while gaining a deeper understanding of how city government works with residents to create spaces and make decisions that benefit the whole city.” “The SPARK Boston Council actively collaborated with several of the City’s departments. One of my favorite memories from this experience was working with the Mayor’s Office of Civic Organizing during the Be the Change Civic Summit,” said Tanesha Beckford, Roxbury, 2024-2025 SPARK Boston Council member. “Participating in the event as a SPARK member demonstrated how the summit aligned with our core values of transforming our neighborhoods and encouraging others to do the same.” The 2025-2026 Council includes: Allston/Brighton Taylor Robinson Gregory Horne Chanell Rodriguez Matthew Landry Erin Pecci Calder McCay Jasmin Norford Back Bay/ Beacon Hill Cesar Monarrez Jenna Mu Amy Zhou Danielle Bianco Chinatown/Downtown Wendy Chu Dorchester Mateo Rull Garza Tariq Meyers Elvira Figueroa Devon Thompson East Boston Bradley Xaltipa Stephanie Campos Catherine Ballali Fenway/Kenmore Sandra Kim Hyde Park Kenisha Lamarre Jamaica Plain Sophia Day Olivia Arnold Marcus Christian II Margaret Daramola Mattapan Amundam Mancho North End Andrew Kil Roxbury Justine Morgan Kirsten Keels Adrian Gonzalez Cerrillo Bryanne Leeming Roslindale Elizabeth Shaw Morgan Ellis South Boston Ginny Jablonski South End Haley Knox Justine Gray West End Taalin RaoShah West Roxbury Haeyoung Koh “As a new member of the SPARK Boston Council, I’m excited to collaborate with fellow young leaders to advance the City’s progress on critical issues—from environmental justice to affordability—through innovative initiatives,” said Taalin RaoShah, West End, 2025-2026 SPARK Boston Council member. “This Council reflects Boston’s forward-thinking spirit and commitment to its young people, and I’m eager to build on those values to help shape the future of our great city.” For more information on SPARK Boston programming and initiatives, please visit boston.gov/sparkboston. |
讀者投書
1974 年波士頓校巴強載事件
華埠信土地信託會會員陳炳鑑（前昆士小學副校長）撰文
波士頓公立學校強制執行聯邦法院的反種族分隔政策，由於社會反對聲音巨大，已推遲了一年才實施。不過，少數族裔社區如黑人聚居的洛斯保里及華人聚居的唐人街，在抗議聲中，也勉強接受校巴強載的安排。在心不甘情不願的情況下，接受現實，把子女送往白人社區學校就讀。但是，白人社區如南波士頓，東波士頓及查理斯鎮，反抗甚為激烈。那裏的家長不但拒絕讓子女離開自己的社區，更拒絕回校上課，而且在學校外聚集，阻止校巴送來的黑人學生進校上課。在抗議的過程中，還揮動棒球棍及向校巴投擲石塊，並散播謠言說有白人學生在黑人社區學校遇害。
社區瀰漫著動盪不安的氣氛，激動的群眾更用帶有種族歧視的言詞，指罵由校巴送來的有色人種學生，散播種族仇恨不滿情緒，破壞原來已十分脆弱的種族關係，增加了雙方的不信任，互相仇視的態度。華埠唐人社區卻引發出另一種抗議的行動，華人家長教師及社區活躍分子組織起來，耐心地向家長解釋聯邦法例的裁決及波士頓公立學校的政策，教師及家長每天早上護送子女到查理斯鎮學校上課，並向不明事理的居民解釋事情的真相，結果華裔子女到白人社區學校上課，並沒有遭受到太大的困擾。態度頑強的反對人士及一些守舊的白人家長，堅決拒絕送子女入學，有經濟能力的入讀其他私立及教會學校，甚至遷往市郊白種人聚居的市鎮。無法支付學費的，在社區內由志願團體開辦的學校上課，有的則接受現實，到公立學校安排的學校上課。
五十年已經過去了，人們應吸取歷史的教訓。波士頓公立學校送學生到不同種族聚居社區上課，應該用一項逐步和分階段實行的政策。由於在短時期強制執行，激發矛盾，製造了不必要的種族衝突，顯然是事先沒有經過週詳的考慮。不幸的是這事件，適逢是波士頓市長選年，來自學校委員會女候選人，是反對校巴強載的。另一候選人則主張強制執行反種族分隔政策，在選舉政治的氛圍下，令情況變得更壞。
而當年護送華裔學生到查理斯鎮上學的教師，家長及社區活躍分子，現在已是長者及退休人士，他們仍活躍於社區，繼續為華人子女作出貢獻，受人敬重。回顧五十年前這段歷史，讓年青一代能夠珍惜上一代人為社區，奉獻出的心力是難能可貴的。現在人們享受的權益及平等機會，是前人犧牲個人的生命與自由，得來不易。對於新移民來說，認識過往的歷史，是增長了生活的經驗，為年幼子女面對未來，掃除了不少人生的障礙，期望大家能積極參與社會，成為有貢獻的一員，有着豐盛的人生。
MAYOR WU’S PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN BOSTON FAILS OUR CITY
An Open Letter to Mayor Wu
Dear Honorable Mayor Wu,
PLAN: Downtown was meant to reimagine the heart of Boston. Instead, your proposed plan reveals a striking lack of creativity, perspective, and vision and will not work.
Your campaign promised to give a greater voice to communities in determining the planning and zoning that would impact their neighborhoods. Yet in the end, the zoning proposal for Downtown that you and Planning Chief Kairos Shen have proposed ignores nearly all feedback and input from community leaders, residents, and an Advisory Group appointed to help guide a process that began 7 years ago. The proposed zoning amendment your administration is rushing to seek BPDA Board approval for on September 18th severely fails in accomplishing at least three key goals stated in PLAN: Downtown: enhancing access to more affordable housing to address a growing crisis, preserving historic fabric and cultural histories of Boston’s Downtown neighborhood, and fostering an improved environment for Boston’s legacy small businesses to thrive. In squandering this multi-generational opportunity, the uncompromising approach you and Chief Shen are taking caters to a handful of developers at the expense of the broader community.
Downtown is not monolithic but is comprised of two areas that are distinct in character. The Financial District east of Washington Street has a large concentration of high-rise office buildings, and we have enthusiastically supported zoning that encourages more ambitious, taller development there. Our concern is with the increasingly residential Ladder Blocks and Park Plaza neighborhoods west of Washington and adjacent to Boston Common. In particular, the historically striking Ladder Blocks between Washington Street and Tremont Street boasts no fewer than 29 local and national landmark buildings and the greatest concentration of 18th century national treasures (e.g., Old State House, Old South Meeting House, King’s Chapel, Old Corner Bookstore) in all of Boston. This area is synonymous with the birth of our nation, and it is our city’s responsibility to be the ultimate caretaker of that history.
Chief Shen’s rush to implement an untested and unproven zoning scheme begins with a gerrymandered map in the aforementioned neighborhoods that radically departs from customary and critical uniform height and density controls. He cherry picks the sites of favored developers and offers excessive zoning relief to 500 feet in height – more than 200% above the current zoning of 155 feet. Some of these same sites have been left to decay, and coupled with unreasonable lease terms have led to many storefronts being vacant for years. The transfer of value from this upzoning also comes with minimal requirements of those developers. There is no strict on-site requirement for affordable housing, nor protection for adjacent historic buildings. Moreover, Chief Shen appears not to have done or shared with the community any detailed renderings or rigorous analysis of the proposed zoning’s dramatic impact on housing, traffic, shadow, and infrastructure. Curiously, Chief Shen has stated in our meetings that this zoning plan may not even work, and that further incentives for developers may have to be given, casting self-doubt on a plan he seems all too eager to adopt prematurely.
Once this untested zoning is put in place, there will be no way to recapture the value given away to developers for the benefit of the city’s finances, livability, or history. What will likely result is wanton building demolition, unpredictable development timelines, and unknown housing productivity. History suggests it will most likely lead to vertical, gated condominiums for the wealthy rather than the on-site affordable, workforce, or middle-income housing the city truly needs.
Moreover, your plan will irreparably change this area, producing additional negative ripple effects to tourism throughout the neighborhood, including the Freedom Trail, which experiences 4 million visitors per year that are responsible for $1 billion in annual spending. The Downtown area draws a comparison to Back Bay, which Bostonians have come to understand is not monolithic, but accommodates healthy development growth throughout one area (south of Boylston Street, where the John Hancock Tower is) while preserving the uniform, historic fabric that still exists north of Boylston (e.g., Newbury Street). Downtown Boston is much the same.
Aiming for a more agreeable solution, leaders from numerous civic associations and other concerned organizations presented the City with a set of creative approaches that would more successfully accomplish all of PLAN: Downtown’s goals, including setting the table for future development across Downtown. They included additional tax incentives and financing support in transferring economic value within Downtown so that projects that perform in achieving your goals are economically viable. All of these policies have either been deployed successfully in other cities around the country or are already implemented in Boston itself. Yet, our ideas were dismissed with minimal consideration to accommodate an inexplicable giveaway of height and value.
Our asks are simple, reasonable, and feasible:
Set clean, common-sense, full-block boundaries for the historically sensitive SKY-LOW zone that offers a natural, rational distinction between the Financial District east of Washington Street (i.e., the SKY zone) and the Ladder Blocks and Park Plaza to the west (SKY-LOW).
Maintain a baseline height limit in SKY-LOW of 155 feet, with a generous additional allowance of nearly 100% (up to a maximum of 300 feet) for certain development sites.
Develop local shadow regulations that prevent future projects from violating the intent of the state shadow law to protect the parks.
This current planning effort was offered by the city as a conciliatory response to the gross exception to the state shadow laws protecting Boston Common and the Public Garden made in 2017 to accommodate a single towering project (Winthrop Center) by a single developer. We find it ironic that this plan, intended to codify future protection in the more historically sensitive area of Downtown, does just the opposite now.
Even more perplexing is that you’ve abandoned the principled stance you expressed then in a Boston Globe editorial on April 24, 2017: “Amid pressures facing each generation to grow our tax base and our constricted housing stock, the protection of open space for future residents rests on the government’s willingness to take stewardship seriously and to consider more than short-term financial gain. History tells us that developers will be back with big projects arguing that just one more lifting of height restrictions won’t make that much difference. We don’t have enough information to know if this proposed compromise is the best solution; we have to get the process right first. Let’s understand the true trade-offs between height and civic benefit with an open process in which stakeholders can engage in meaningful discussions on the future of an evolving residential neighborhood and city.”
We could not agree more, Mayor. Boston would be better off without this destructive plan. You committed to us at our January meeting that we would take the necessary time to get this plan right and that the Downtown zoning effort should be a model for planning for the rest of the city, and that if we cannot get this right for Downtown, it does not bode well. On behalf of current and future generations of Bostonians, we implore you to make the straightforward changes that we have suggested. There is a better outcome to be had - please, let’s work together to make that happen.
Sincerely,
Coalition of Stakeholders
Bay Village Neighborhood Association | Beacon Hill Civic Association | Downtown Boston Neighborhood Association | Freedom Trail Foundation | Friends of the Public Garden | Individual Community Stakeholders & Leaders | Neighborhood Association of Back Bay | Revolutionary Spaces | 45 Province Residents | Millennium Place Residents | Millennium Tower Residents | One Charles Residents
