politics

This is more than just the police union wanting this. They want to build these things everywhere, and there's bipartisan support for them.

I'm afraid to tell you because this would happen to me. (I'm not even exaggerating about that: I live in Atlanta and am genuinely afraid to do so much as put a yard sign up opposing Cop City.)

Revolution.

a man’s rights rest in three boxes; the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.

Take a look at how much the Fraternal Order of Police gives them for their campaigns.

In the USA, most politicians don't seem to feel like they are really elected by their voters. They pretend that they do, when they are at the podium addressing crowds during election season, but they really don't feel that way. Thanks to gerrymandering, most state and local elections lean strongly towards one party or the other. Because of that, the candidates really win the game when they win the primary, not the general. The general election is often a foregone conclusion. The candidates suck up to their donors, not making promises of course, because that would be illegal if it's too blatant, but strongly suggesting to those donors how they will vote if elected. The donors, for their part, strongly suggest the results they would like should the candidate win, with everyone carefully avoiding making anything looking too quid pro quo. If they suck up enough and they get the bulk of the donor's they get a very large edge in the primary.

By the time the general election rolls around, the candidate is only running against a foe from the other party who is already at a disadvantage because of that. If the district/state/whatever leans red and their opponent is blue, then they are fighting an uphill battle. If they're an incumbent, then they have another big advantage. Finally, those donors are back again paying for everything they legally can, and probably a few less-than-legal things too. When they have advantage because of party, name recognition, and money, they are very likely to win unless there is some big wedge issue that upends things.

Because of this, most politicians think voters are people that they just have to appease, or at least just avoid pissing off, because if they can do that bare minimum they are probably going to get (re)elected. Other than doing that, they don't need to worry much about the voters. What they really have to work on is keeping the donors happy. Candidates nowadays are not out shaking hands and kissing babies, other than during the occasional staged promotional appearance set up to make it look like that's what they are out doing. What they are really doing is spending the vast majority of their time meeting with donors and lobbyists and shaking their hands and kissing their asses. When you are the right party, have name recognition, and are the incumbent, money is the only variable. That's what they generally need to do to win, appease the donors not the voters.

In this case, I have to assume that the politicians feel that they have all the advantages. They are clearly not worried about pissing off the voters. It's not like they are going to vote for the other party in enough numbers to matter. They are only concerned with pleasing their donors who must have a very huge stake in Cop City for some reason or another.

First of all, Atlanta has a "strong Mayor, weak Council" system. With the Mayor apparently having come out as a vehement card-carrying fascist (despite giving basically zero hint of such before the election, by the way), there are a lot of tricks he could use to push this shit through even against the opposition of Council.

Second, the Council basically has three factions: the rich white people from Buckhead, the mostly-poor (but not entirely poor -- a point I'll come back to) black people from Bankhead (more southwest Atlanta, but I liked the symmetry), and the and the middle-class progressives from the east side.

• The Buckhead people are perfectly happy to support Cop City -- and its location as far away from themselves as possible, along the dividing line between the progressives and the poor blacks -- because of course they are.

• The poor black people are (perhaps surprisingly) often also inclined to support it because they're so beaten-down by both crime and institutional racism that they think more police presence + "development" (even shitty development) will help them. Moreover, Atlanta is called "the city too busy to hate" for a reason, and that reason is because of the long-standing alliance between the black leadership of the city (centered on HBCUs like Morehouse, plus the black churches) and the Buckhead business community.

• So, the east side progressives are the pretty much the only faction in strong opposition (in part because it's a fascist training camp, but also because the location for it is close to some of the east side neighborhoods).

In other words -- and less charitably, but accurate -- too many poor black people in Atlanta are class traitors.