Great Expectations

The well-moderated round-table conversations dealt primarily with the question: How do we harness the strength in individual communities and neighborhoods to build a vision for our whole city?

At the afternoon Q&A, invited guest Michael Nutter, echoing threads of the round-table discussions that had taken place earlier in the AM expressed it well: Some issues are larger than a particular neighborhood. These are issues that ALL neighborhoods need to address.

In the small-group discussions, several participants pointed to the differences that exist in each neighborhood, and the importance of using this forum to talk openly about them. The gap between the haves and have nots -- not unlike other major cities in this country -- is an issue in Philadelphia, and we need to address it openly. One participant expressed this issue without a hint of ambiguity: Some neighborhoods are made up largely of residents who have the means to pay privately for certain services. Maybe that’s all well and good… but what about neighborhoods with residents who don’t have the means to do this? Are they any less worthy? Are their needs for those services any less pressing? This participant stressed that basic city services should be the same for ALL Philadelphia residents, and should be made available on an equitable basis on the principle that everyone who contributes to city revenues (at whatever level he/she can afford) should have access to the same set of services. Well said. But making this a reality – and most participants agreed that we should – is going to require that we pull together, as neighborhoods and civic organizations, and envision a commonly shared future for the entire city.

Some differences should be viewed as strengths, like the growth in diversity in our city. Skip Voluntad, Public Affairs Director of Pacific Rim Resource Center of Philadelphia, articulated this issue well: Rather than being considered a strength, the existence and growth of new populations (including, Asian, Latino, and African immigrants) has been overlooked or left unmentioned. New populations are often not made to feel welcome. Written materials of all kinds – from health-care resources to license and inspection documents – are not translated into other languages. Elected or aspiring officials may make the rounds of ethnic communities before an election, but then never return. Voluntad wants to see a city office created that reaches out to new populations.

(The feeling of being ignored by elected officials is not restricted to new populations – it was echoed by several representatives of neighborhood-based organizations. Moreover, these community leaders also voiced the feeling that communities are often characterized in the media in a way that isolates and creates barriers – rather than bridges – between them.)

Taking stock of our own strengths in diversity might lead us to look a little ways up the northeast corridor at the experience of New Haven. True, as a city of 130,000 – less than one-tenth the size of Philadelphia - it’s bound to have its differences. But New Haven’s growth in new populations – especially compared to the decrease in the city population as a whole - in many ways mirrors our own. A 2005 study by community-based organizations, with help from Yale U’s Community Lawyering Clinic, showed that although the overall population of New Haven decreased by 5.2% from 1990 to 2000, the Latino community grew by 53.4%. Their study also recommended the creation of a city Office of Immigrant Affairs (similar to Voluntad’s idea). New Haven has been proactive in addressing the issue of welcoming immigrants. This past spring, the city unveiled a new “municipal ID” the objective of which is “to create a way for those who currently don't have proof of ID, or don't have a debit card, to be civically engaged in the city.” And on Oct. 20, as reported in The New Haven Independent, New Haven’s Gateway Community College was scheduled to host a talk, "By The People: a Civic Dialogue on Immigration” co-sponsored by United Way, the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, and the Yale Institute for Social and Policy Studies.

One breakout group grappled with the issue of coalition building, conceptualizing an organizational form that would unite neighborhood organizations around certain principles. Like building healthy communities, for example. One participant reminded the group that we already know what makes healthy communities. It’s true: We’ve known it at least since 2001, when the Department of Health & Human Services issued Healthy People in Healthy Communities. The DHHS defined a healthy community as one that is safe, provides access to health-care services, and “includes those elements that enable people to maintain a high quality of life and productivity” – for example, one that “has roads, schools, playgrounds, and other services to meet the needs of the people in that community.”

An interesting question was raised in one of the round tables: Does recognition of, and support for, meeting community and neighborhood needs have to be at odds with support for progressive measures like “Wi-Fi”, or stopping neighborhood unfriendly waterfront development? Should civic-minded Philadelphians be opposed to beneficial measures, because those measures are introduced without concurrent progress in basic city services, preventing violence, and improving schools? Does it have to be one or the other? Or, do we need to adjust that mindset to embrace all progressive measures, while advocating for changes that benefit residents in the most essential ways. Is it possible that the latter approach may succeed in getting us closer to the goal of truly becoming the next great city?

For many participants, needed change came down to a single issue: Accountability. One participant summed up the problem by stating that the general perception by residents at the neighborhood level is that the only way to access “city hall” is through the neighborhood leaders – whether they represent influential institutions or civic organizations.

When it came to talking about “what is good”, some participants talked about the new city task force on vacant properties, and the fact that they have been making progress in many areas. Others noticeably left the city out when talking about “what is good” – listing, for example, positive outcomes resulting from successful partnerships between neighborhood organizations and non-profit, educational, or health-care institutions.

One thing is undeniable: based on Saturday’s meeting, there’s certainly a will. A couple of steps in the right direction would include what one participant suggested: an Office of Neighborhoods – an office that would know what’s happening in the neighborhoods and would meet with each and every member of the group and build an agenda. The other step: a program to address the needs of new populations and work to encourage linkages between ethnic communities and other civic groups across the city.

Lucky for the participants, one school-age attendee (a representative of the generation that stands to benefit from this process for most of their lifetime) had little difficulty expressing her vision for the city. Sitting in on one of the round-table discussions, she used crayons that had been placed at each table to encourage adult “doodling,” to contribute her own thoughts to the conversation. Her series of written messages had a clear theme: “Feed the Poor”; “City of Brotherly Love”; “We Love Philly.”