Up to now, the discussion about the changes in cities over the past 40 years and the challenges moving forward hasn't touched on what one participant referred to as "the 800 pound gorilla in room" - race relations.
Mr. John Sower, President of the Chesapeake Business Finance Corp, a Washington-based SBA, started this conversation of race by talking about white attitudes in the 40s and 50s which came into view as a result of the riots of the 1960s when it the conditions of cities and the "white flight" that had occurred over the previous 20 years came to light. Mr. Sower was seconded on this point by Mr. Michael Montgomery who offered that the discussion of economic development needs to include the urban superintendents of schools, for obvious reasons.
The conversation is turning to the mayors of big cities and other city management professionals and how they didn't understand the implications of many federal urban programs for their cities. Economic development policy didn't have a place near the center of power in cities for several years and has only recently been given a place at the table.
Comments (5)
I agree a lack of - nothing in between - and unusual temperatures of Federal Urban Program Implication Conditions , were down shifts in economic developments that were meant to be maximizing experience.
Going beyond redactions and a place at the table.
Discussions deserve more than qualified quotes and a exercising market far from being up to par.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | October 8, 2007 11:55 AM
You only have to walk around Philly and know your neighborhood's owners to know that the federally funded owners are the worst.
PHA, RDA, PAID, I could regale you with acronyms of local constipated agencies.
The worst offenders in my zip code, 19146, are the owners who either got property from one of these agencies and the agency just ignores the redevelopment agreement timeline, or are the agency.
There is only a back room, closed door means of "distributing" what is owned by the public, for the benefit of the public.
When are local Democrats going to stand up and admit this is wrong? And the press too?
Kenny Gamble's Universal still has not done hardly anything useful with the Royal Theater on South St. It's still vacant ten years and millions of dollars on. Universal even defaulted on the loan that was given them for the project by the Reinvestment Fund. The Reinvestment Fund will have to pursue foreclosure if Universal can't get it done.
This is the kind of thing that gives all federally funded, locally controlled monies a bad name. At night, that section of South St. in front of the Royal is scary. Meanwhile, in the private market, there are new shops, cafes, restaurants, and a lively street scene that is enjoyable.
Far from empowering the predominantly black communities where these operate, it has succeeded in completely demoralizing the people who worked so hard to own their homes and keep the neighborhoods together where there are houses that no one worked for, no one takes care of, and no one wants to do anything about for fear of the entrenched political extremes.
Posted by Anonymous | October 10, 2007 6:07 PM
For economic development to continue in neighborhoods where race is a concern, the papers have to start being brave enough to criticize the AA developers that Street's people spin as good for the areas.
I beg the papers to interview some people who are in the local community groups about the track record of Universal in Hawthorne, Southwark, Point Breeze and South of South St. in SWCC.
You've got two different council people overseeing this stuff. You've got four different or more community groups being railroaded by the pols into accepting these projects that when they don't even break ground, you have no recourse but to get mealy-mouthed responses from the affordable developers, agencies, and staff of the politicians.
And the press just drools over Kenny Gamble and Universal without a single molecule of shoe leather expended.
OK, if you won't walk around, just look on Hallwatch.org under "Universal" so you can see what Uni-Penn I, II, III, IV, and etc have done with what they were actually given.
When is there going to be some objective accountability?
Sure, knuckleheads are going to write and say Gamble and Universal are the muslim saviors of the race. And those with eyeballs are going to say when are they going to start the projects they promised years ago or have that property opened up to all builders who want a chance to move forward?
It's pretty obvious that there's another agenda going on here, and it's not economic or housing development.
There's no reason for it to take more than 16 months tops to build a house or building of conventional size. Any property that has taken longer than that should revert right to reconfiscation or sheriff sale after being assessed at full market value.
When houses are selling for $500K and plus, there's no reason to hold up diversity creating development that decreases crime and brings in taxes for schools.
Posted by You gotta start being honest about Street's pals and their "development" | October 10, 2007 6:17 PM
Plus, when will the paper do an honest, objective overview of PHA?
Sure the new stuff great. Award winning. Exemplary.
But what about the scattered site housing? It's so bad it kills equity right and left.
There is no money for its upkeep. PHA has stated this many times.
So why does the city try to hold on to so much scattered site PHA housing that there is no budget to maintain?
Why can't PHA be enjoined by anyone to liquidate that part of its stock that is too expensive for it to renovate, too small for it to be practically used for PHA purposes, or just at a location where there is ongoing drug/crime issues?
Why can't the public simply request in writing or online that PHA's Board consider liquidating problem addresses? If the public could submit a photo, get copies of the PHA police reports online, and get copies of PPD reports online in number of police responses to an address, we can easily make the case that a property is problem.
Right now, you can go and get L&I reports of problems at an address, but you have to do it in person. Why not online?
This is a fair way to respect all incomes, races, and members of a community.
But the press is terrified to even go there.
Posted by Anonymous | October 10, 2007 6:22 PM
If the press keeps treating any criticism of any federally funded agency working in anything remotely racially related, then there's going to be blowback on these agencies.
You already see it in federal funding cuts now.
If the wider perception at the state level and beyond is that these programs are sacred cows above any press investigation that does more than parrot the press release, than there's going to be continued dissociation by the public from even the mandate of such programs.
It's OK to ask, gee, how did this program do? How much did it cost, where did the money go? What did the little guy get per what was promised?
This is the only city I've lived in where this is never ever in the press in all the years I've lived here, it's rare to see.
Posted by Anonymous | October 10, 2007 6:32 PM