|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING IN REVITALIZATION EFFORTS: A CASE STUDY OF EAST GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By ALLISON JANE ABBOTT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008
2 2008 Allison Jane Abbott
3 To Patrick, my friends and family, EGDC, and Fern
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During m y study, I came to depend on and highly regard the opinions and advice of certain people. I would first like to thank Dr. Kristin La rsen for advising me in this project and helping me create a work that I can truly be proud of. I would also like to thank Drs. Dawn Jourdan and marilyn thomas-houston for their patience exhibi ted in reading and meticulously critiquing my work while providing sage advice. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the rest of the University of Florida Urban and Regional Pl anning Department that has had a hand in my academic development within the discipline. I could not have completed this work wit hout the support and love of my friends and family. To both Patrick and my family, your neve r-ending support is always appreciated. To my colleagues in Dr. Larsens thesis group, thank yo u for your advice and suggestions. In particular, I would like to acknowledge La uren Simmons for our long h ours in the library and her suggestions that helped me in the formation of this work. Most importantly, I would like to extend my gr atitude to the East Gainesville Development Corporation and larger Eastside community, in particular, Nona Jones, who welcomed my involvement and provided me open access to th e goings on the community. Their openness in interviews and interactions was greatly apprec iated and I am ever indebted to them. The following is the conclusion of your work as well as mine.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 11ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12CHAPTER 1 PLANNING REVITALIZATION: OVERVI E W OF CURRENT SITUATIONS IN DISTRESSED NEIGHBORHOODS.....................................................................................14Collaborative Approaches to Planning Redevelopment......................................................... 15East Gainesville as a Case Study............................................................................................ 16Study Progression...................................................................................................................172 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: NAVIGATING THE INTRICATE WEB OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY DEVE LOPMENT AND GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES..... 19Planning and Inner City Disparity and Reform......................................................................19Planning Paradigm Development: The Cyclic al Nature of Progr essive Movements and its Influence on Government-Planning-Resident Relationships........................... 20Progressive roots to modern ist intervention and back............................................. 23Post-modern planning practice................................................................................. 25Race and Planning...........................................................................................................28Post-Civil Rights Maintenan ce of Inner City Poverty............................................. 29Current Planning Efforts to Fix Urban Inequality....................................................31Critiques of Current Planning Efforts for Black, Urban, Poor Communities.......... 33Informing Methods: Communicative Pl anning, Community Development, Empowerment and Social Capital as Keys to Revitalization.............................................. 34Communicative Planning as a Solution to Racial Inequities in Distressed Communities................................................................................................................34Community Development............................................................................................... 37Defining community and the histor y of community development.......................... 37Basics of community development: practice and theory......................................... 38Community Empowerment............................................................................................. 41Social Capital...................................................................................................................45The Stew Pot of Planning History, Empowerme nt, Development, and Social Capital in Inner Cities: The CDC........................................................................................................49Impetus and Evolution of Community Development Corporations (CDCs)..................49
6 Community Development Corporations (CDC s): A Solution to the Pligh t of the Inner City..................................................................................................................... 513 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 57Empowerment Structuration Model: Met hodological Basis for EGDC Evaluation.............. 57Does Social Capital Exist in the Community and How is it Distributed?.............................. 60Are Social Capital Resources and Partners hips Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions?............................................................................................. 61How Does the Distribution of Social Capita l Resources and Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment Efforts?................................................................................... 64Data Collection Sources for the Eastside Case Study............................................................ 65Eastside Plan Review......................................................................................................65Archival Newspaper Research........................................................................................ 66Interviews with Primary Stakeholders............................................................................. 67Participant Observation and the Influence of the Researcher......................................... 684 TEN YEARS OF PLANNING IN EASTSIDE...................................................................... 72Eastsides Development: A Broad Overview.........................................................................72Community Approach: East Gainesville Development Action Plan (EGDAP) and Creation of EGDC in November 1997................................................................................ 74The EGDAP Findings......................................................................................................75Practical Improvements: 2001 CRA East Gainesville Rede velopment Plan (EGRP)............77East Gainesville CRA Projects: Cultivating Unity and Cultural Identity....................... 78A Regional Approach: 2003 Plan East Gainesville (PEG)..................................................... 78Development vs. Conser vation in Eastside..................................................................... 80Current Dilemmas of PEG: Wal-Mart, Hatchett Creek, and Activity Centers...............81Wal-Mart: A catalyst for community empowerment-driven growth?...................... 82Hatchet Creek: conservati on-development imbalance.............................................83Eastside activity center: PEG follows through......................................................... 86A Targeted Approach: 2007 Southeast Gain esville Renaissance Initiative (SEGRI)............ 87Evaluation of Ten Years of Ea stside Planning and Visioning................................................88Broad Comparisons: Geography, Problems and Solutions............................................. 89Evaluation of Eastside Plan s 1997-2007: Comprehensive, Co llaborative, Implemented?.... 915 THE EGDC AND COMMUNICATION IN EA STSIDE RE DEVELOPMENT................ 110The EGDCs Early Years as a Mobilizing Non-Profit Corporation.....................................110Eastside Community Group Explosion.........................................................................111Limited Interaction: Continuing Economic Development with Outside Leadership........... 113Program Focus under BCN........................................................................................... 114Lost Amongst the Crowd: Eastside Group Confusion.................................................. 115Renewal of EGDC under a New Leader: Id entity as an Economic Development Resource-Provider.............................................................................................................116Projects and Partnerships............................................................................................... 118The John Curtis Project and attempts to build an Eastside consortium................. 119
7 Fragmentation and Empowerment in Eastside Communications......................................... 122Does Social Capital Exist in the Community and How is it Distributed?..................... 122Are Social Capital Resources and Part nerships Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions?.......................................................................124How Does the Distribution of Social Cap ital Resources and Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment in Revitalization Efforts?......................................... 124The EGDC as a Vehicle for Existing Social Capital Partnerships ......................... 125Recommendations for Improved Revitalization in Eastside................................................ 126Step 1: Re-Unify Vision................................................................................................127Step 2: Incorporate Community Vi sion into Government-Adopted Plan.....................127Step 3: Revisit Underlying Issues.................................................................................. 128Step 4: Maintain Communication Channels.................................................................. 1286 NECESSITY OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACH IN REVITALIZATION OF DISTRESSED COMM UNITIES......................................................................................... 132The Reality of Empowerment: EGDC Conclusions............................................................. 132Integrating Involved, Distressed Commun ities into the Established Literature................... 134Does Social Capital Exist in the Comm unity and How is it Being Distributed?.......... 134Are Social Capital Resources and Part nerships Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions?.......................................................................135How Does the Distribution of Social Cap ital Resources and Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment in Revitalization Efforts?......................................... 135Policy Implications and Future Research............................................................................. 136APPENDIX INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD CONSENT FORM ........................................................ 140BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................143BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................150
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 The 1997 East Gainesville Development Task Force Action Plan.................................... 954-2 The 2001 East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan (EGRP).................................................964-3 The 2003 Plan East Gainesville (PEG).............................................................................. 974-4 The 2007 Southeast Gainesville Renaissance Initiative (SEGRI)..................................... 984-5 The General Comparison of Ea st Gainesville Plans 1997-2007........................................ 994-6 The Evaluation of Eastside Plans from 1997 to 2007......................................................1005-1 The EGDC Communication E fforts between 1997 and 2008......................................... 1295-2 Evaluation of Temkin and Rohes (1998) Social Capital Indicators for Eastside Institutional Infrastructure............................................................................................... 1305-3 Evaluation of Temkin and Rohes Social Capital Indicators for Eastside Sociocultural Milieu.........................................................................................................130
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Campbells Model for Sustainable Devel opm ent (Reprinted with Permission from Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Campbell, 2003, p. 437)......................................................... 532-2 Giddens' Structuration Model: The Link to Social Change at the Macro and Micro Levels (Reprinted with permission from The Journal of the Community Development Society. Huste dde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 12)............................................ 542-3 Narayans Community Empowerment Mode l (Reprinted with permission from the World Bank. Narayan, 2005, p. 7).................................................................................... 552-4 Petesch and Colleagues (2005, p. 42) Caus al Framework for Empowerment in StateSociety Context. (Reprinted with permission from the World Bank.)..............................563-1 Empowerment Structuration Model (Author).................................................................... 703-2 Healeys (2003) Meth odological Tasks for Comm unicative Planning-Based Consensus Building (Reprinted with permissi on from Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. p. 252)................................................................................................................................714-1 The EGDAP Boundary Area (Based on City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997)................................................................................................... 1014-2 Existing Gainesville Neighborhood Associations and Groups (Reprinted with permission from City of Gainesville, 2008).................................................................... 1024-3 Eastside CRA Boundary Area (Based on Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001)..................................................................................................................1034-4 Plan Boundary Overlay with Critical Landmarks (Based on City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Pl anning et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al, 2007).......................................................................................................................1044-5 The SEGRI Master Plan (Based on WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007.).............................. 1054-6 Plan East Gainesville Boundary Area (B ased on Renaissance Pl anning et al., 2003)..... 1064-7 Master Plan Vision for Pl an East Gainesville (Repri nted with permission from Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, Appendix A, p.7)...................................................... 1074-8 Southeast Gainesville Renaissan ce Initiative Boundary Area (Based on WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007)........................................................................................ 108
10 4-9 Eastside Plan Boundary Overlay Master Map (Based on City of Gainesville Econom ic Development Department et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Pl anning et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al, 2007).......................................................................................................................1095-1 Eastside Empowerment St ructuration Model (Author)................................................... 131
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4As African-American Accountability Alliance BSRC Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation CAP Community Action Program CBO Community-Based Organization CDBG Community Development Block Grant CDC Community Development Corporation CHN Cleveland Housing Network CRA Community Redevelopment Agency EGDAP East Gainesville Development Action Plan EGDC East Gainesville Development Corporation EGRP East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan EGDTF East Gainesville Development Task Force HUD Housing and Urban Development Department HUDC Harlem Urban Development Corporation MTPO Metropolitan Transporta tion Planning Organization NCFRPC North Central Florida Regional Planning Council PEG Plan East Gainesville SEGRI Southeast Gainesville Renaissance Initiative SIP Special Impact Program
12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING IN REVITALI ZATION EFFORTS: A CASE STUDY OF EAST GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By Allison Abbott May 2008 Chair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Revitalization efforts in economically dist ressed communities involve a diverse group of stakeholders including resident s, non-profit agencies and govern ment officials. Communication between resident and government actors can determine the ability for a neighborhood to effectively utilize existing resources. Scholars identify harnessing social capitalexisting social networks and contactsas a crit ical asset in redevelopment. My study evaluated how social capital partnerships influence community em powerment and development strategies in a minority-majority, distressed neighbor hood in Gainesville, Florida. Qualitative and quantitative methodological to ols measure the neighborhoods ability to mobilize resident empowerment through communi cation with stakeholders and government actors. An analysis of adopted Eastside plan s, newspaper articles, and interviews with community development leaders suggests that underlying, and perhaps competing, interests between government institutions and resident social groups continue to be overlooked. Participant observation and interviews with representatives from the East Gainesville Development Corporation (EGDC), a non-profit or ganization based on the communitys initial action plan for resident empowerment, assess th e role of communicative planning and influence social capital networking has on Eastsides redevelopment.
13 Attempts to harness social capital networks in Eastside illustrate the negative effect proliferation of disparate community groups can have on empowerment programs. Over ten years, adoption of more than five development plans for Eastside and competition of non-profit groups for survival have caused a division am ong area residents regard ing the neighborhoods vision for development. The EGDCs recent campa ign to create a consortium of stakeholder groups offers a means to re-unify East Gainesville to encourage resident decision-making power in redevelopment plans. Before empowerment is accomplished, stakeholder groups must set aside their vested interests in order to comb ine their resources to create a sustainable revitalization plan for Eastside. These findings suggest that harnessing so cial capital alone does not garner successful revitalization and empowerment of distressed communities. Rather, communities should continually work in a cons ortium of stakeholder groups, including both resident and government representatives, to maintain the momentum needed for effective revitalization.
14 CHAPTER 1 PLANNING REVITALIZATION: OVERVI E W OF CURRENT SITUATIONS IN DISTRESSED NEIGHBORHOODS Inner cities and inner ring suburbs acro ss the nation face issues of urban decay and distress as suburban areas conti nue to dominate economic devel opment projects. For example, Washington D.C., the capital of the United Stat es, is known for its national monuments and museums, but struggles with hi gh levels of crime and impoverishment. Government employees choose to live in neighboring suburbs such as Alexandria, Virginia or Bethesda, Maryland, leaving a majority of low-income residents in city neighborhoods. Urban planners, government officials, and community activists are currently working to reverse the negative perceptions of urban centers through innovative community development programs. Recent community development programs emph asize empowerment as a goal or mission for their efforts. Community empowerment e ngages residents in creating development and investment in their neighborhood. Typical commun ity development efforts include the interests of the following parties: city and county regional governments, grassroots community groups, local religious groups (churches), schools, business owners, and fina lly, the residents themselves. The ability to incorporate the objectives of each stakeholder group into a unified vision can be difficult. Harnessing social capital in planning efforts brings stakehol ders together in an effort to facilitate effective collective action in communities. As community development groups have become more prevalent since th e 1960s, utilizing social capit al networks has become an imperative aspect of community development (Green & Haines, 2002). Community empowerment must incorporate stakeholder-focuse d consensus building approaches. This thesis evaluates how social capital partnerships influence community empowerment and development strategies in distressed communities. Social capital partnerships are mutually beneficial relationships between multi-sector groups or individuals that colle ct untapped resources in order
15 to achieve each partys goals through consensusbased initiatives. The investigation of social capital partnerships addresses th ree critical research questions: Does social capital exist in the community and how is it distributed? Are social capital resources and partnershi ps balanced between community groups and government institutions? How does the distribution of social capital resources and partnerships influence the outcome of empowerment in revitalization efforts? Analysis of these research questions focuses on th e partnerships that exis t between groups rather than individuals. While individuals can lead revitalization efforts, scholars argue community groups such as community development corpora tions (CDCs) are better agents of collecting, forging, and maintaining social capital partnershi ps between government institutions (which are group-based rather than indivi dual based) and residents. Collaborative Approaches to Planning Redevelopment Planning scholars cite evaluati on of past planning program s, empowerment realization, and harnessing social capital as in tegral to collaborative redevelopment (West, 2006; Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002; Narayan, 2005; Wiewel & Gill s, 1995; Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005; Green & Haines, 2002). Successful communication is in herent to productive collaboration between diverse stakeholder interests. Communicative planning provides tac tics for planners to reconcile diverse interests among stakeholders with the inte nt to ensure both discussions and outcomes are clearly documented for planning purposes. Fu rther, communicative planning provides a means for developing consensus among stakeholders to adopt a unified vision (Healey, 2003). Using the Empowerment Structuration model derived from a combination of community and international development scholars (as outlined in Chapter 3), empowerment is measured by the mediation between structural and institutional climates (opportunity structure) and social capital
16 assets (community agency). In the following ca se study, past plans for East Gainesville (also known as Eastside) along with primary source data provide a context for the evaluation of the East Gainesville Development Corporations (E GDCs) current mediation efforts as a non-profit group. East Gainesville as a Case Study In Gainesville, Flor ida, East Gainesville is a historically segregated, economically depressed neighborhood that is th e current focus of economic de velopment in the region. Ten years ago, the East Gainesville Development Corporation (EGDC), a grassroots community group, was commissioned to spearhe ad Eastsides economic growth as a facili tator between government and other community groups.1 This study examines the communication and mediation efforts of EGDC as a measure of achieve ment against one of its primary goals to serve as a leader of community empowerment. By examining EGDC, a meaningful evaluation of issues involved in coordinating community development efforts between grassroots groups and government officials provides insight for othe r communities invested in revitalizing their distressed neighborhoods. Floridas population is projected to increas e more than 17 million to almost 36 million by 2060 (Zwick & Carr, 2006, p. 2). Gainesville, established in 1854, and the surrounding area of Alachua County in north central Florida, compri se a fast growing comm unity with a population that increased 3.1 percent from 1990 to 2000 (U.S Census Bureau, 2000). Santa Fe Community College is located near the city s northwest boundary, and the Univ ersity of Florida is located directly west of downtown. Santa Fe Community College also has a satellite campus in East 1 When initially given this responsibility in 1997, the name of the group was the East Gainesville Development Task Force, but upon the groups incorporation as a non-profit, it changed its title to the East Gainesville Development Corporation. More about this group is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
17 Gainesville. As a bustling community with a tr ansitory student population, the Alachua CountyGainesville region attempts to encourage long-t erm sustainable developm ent while also serving short-term residents through servic es and other initiativ es such as increased public transportation near education centers. East Gainesville includes roughly 20 pe rcent of Gainesvilles population and 16 percent of Alachua Countys population (R enaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 3). Due to the areas history, current focu s on revitalization, a nd presence of highly involved community actors, Eastside provides an ideal contex t for a study on communication among stakeholder groups. Study Progression The following chapters address the factors involved in revitaliza tion of distressed neighborhoods that contribute to or impede community em powerment. Chapter 2 provides a broad literature review of historical forces th at shaped center cities and adjacent neighborhoods along with a description of co mmunicative planning, community development, empowerment, and social capital. The methodology used in th e case study of EGDCs pa rtnership strategies with government and community stakeholders is outlined in Chapter 3. The Empowerment Structuration model is a hybrid model that comb ines the frameworks proposed by sociologist, Anthony Giddens (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002) and international developm ent scholars Deepa Narayan (2005) and Patti Petesch, Catalina Sm ulovitz and Michael Walton (2005). Measuring empowerment entails participant observation, in terviews, and knowledge of the structural climate of community development in Eastsi de provided through arch ival research of newspapers as well as past and present adopted plans. Chapter 4 evaluates East Gainesville redevelopment plans adopted by Gainesville, Alachua County a nd the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency. In addition, grassroots resident programs are described along with resident commentaries on development in Eastside. Mediation efforts of EGDC as a facilitator
18 of revitalization are evaluated in Chapter 5. Information drawn from public and group meetings as well as stakeholder interviews documents the diverse attitudes towards collaboration and assesses whether a unified vision for East Gainesv ille currently exists. Concluding arguments in Chapter 6 incorporate the findings from the Eastside case study into the la rger picture of inner city collaborative re development. Assessing community development initiatives requires an understa nding of community history, politics, and existing so cial networks. Scholars have applied multiple methods and theories to gauge these factors influence on collaborative development. The following chapter reviews academic and practitioner findings relate d to inner city development and the elements involved in effec tive revitalization.
19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: NAVIGATING THE INTRICATE WEB OF PLANNING, COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT AND GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES The development efforts by the East Gaines ville Development Corporation (EGDC) are entrenched in issues of planning, community de velopment, empowerment, and social capital. Historical forces have left inner city comm unities institutionally, financially, and socially disadvantaged. This chapter uses history, theory, and case study research to frame the evaluation of Eastside revitalization strategies. First, an evaluation of urban and re gional planning history indicates how political agendas and institutional r acism affected growth in these communities. In response, current efforts in the field advocat e equity and social justice. Understanding the history of planning, nationally and locally, provides the context in which residents and government stakeholders act to promote a vision for Eastside developmen t. Second, literature drawn from communicative planning, commun ity development and empowerment outline methods necessary to conduct a meaningful eval uation of EGDC and Eastsides development efforts using social capital (networks and relationships that result in productive outcomes) as a measure of empowerment. Finally, the converg ence of planning hist ory and empowerment methodology occurs at the community development corporation (CDC) level. Case studies of other CDCs and their efforts in distressed comm unities suggest these co mmunity organizations (such as EGDC) are centrally poised betwixt and between the historical forces that generated distressed central cities and the current act ors in revitalization processes. Planning and Inner City Disparity and Reform Theoretical paradigm s adopted by planning dire ctly shaped the deve lopment of Americas landscape. For example, 1960s urban renewal pr ograms implemented a modernist approach to remove blight from downtowns by displaci ng low-income (and mi nority) residents from established neighborhoods to promote redevelopm ent. Since its inception in the early 20th
20 century, the role of planning has been debated w ithin the discipline while being simultaneously praised and criticized for its effo rts. The position of planning between government and residents has consistently been controvers ial as the discipline has been used as a tool for institutional racism as indicated in the urban renewal example above. Eastside resi dent attitudes towards planning are informed by the hist ory of planning practices used in Gainesville that resulted in a lack of investment in minority-majority neighborhoods1 and by the broader theoretical paradigms that guide current equi ty-focused planning practices. Planning Paradigm Development: The Cyclic al Nature of Progressive Movements and its Influence o n Government-Pla nning-Resident Relationships Planning emerged as a profession during the Progressive Reform era with a focus on alleviating the plight of inner city residents. For Victorian reformers, planning offered a means to eradicate poverty and unsanitary conditions in central city slums. As planners became professionalized, drafting zoning ma ps, locating new roads and record ing plats, they increasingly took on roles as pragmatic technocrats. The philos ophical transition from progressive reformist to technocrat paralleled an institutionalization of government incentives, many established at the federal level, that valued suburbanization rath er than inner city rev italization. As federal, state, and local government pr ograms and regulations grew to include the Federal Housing Administrations (FHA) liberalization of mort gage lending followed by the urban renewal and highway construction programs, inner city areas suffered as the new suburbs thrived. Many center cities and inner ring suburbs continue to display the impacts of urban decay, social stratification, and discrimination as a result of these programs. Scholars argue past and current efforts to address inner city issues fail by not providing a comprehensive approach to view, 1 Minority-majority neighborhoods are communities where minor ities (i.e. racial, ethnic, gender, age, religious, etc.) of a larger geographic space such as a city, county, state, or nation have congregated to become the majority in a smaller geographic space such as a neighborhood.
21 analyze, plan and implement inner city reform (Campbell, 2003, Fainstein, 2003). Answering the issue of inner city disparity requires balancing plannings prio rities within a newly reformed theory that reifies the fragment ation of planning while promoting public engagement to create effective and holistic progressive policies. Campbell (2003), an environmental planner, prop oses a triangular model that outlines the planners role as successfully ne gotiating the planning prio rities of: social justice, environmental protection, and overall economic growth and efficien cy (p. 437; Figure 2-1) Planners have the difficult task of holistically harmonizing planning priorities to achieve sustainable developmentplanning that is environmentally conscious, profitable, and socially fair (Campbell, 2003, p. 436). The planners ability to achieve sustainable development is conflated by the conflicts that are inherent between the three pillars of pl anning: property conflicts between economic growth and social justice, devel opment conflicts between social justice and environmental protection, and resource conf licts between environmental protection and economic growth.2 Current planning movements to address the plight of distressed areas provide innovative methods to incorporat e resident input and promote justice, but often do not fully incorporate the three pillars of sustainable, comprehensive planning proposed by Campbell (2003). Healey, a communicative planne r, asserts that political economy is central to successful planning and views policy as, processes in te rms of power struggles between capital and community, between factions a nd capital, economic growth and environmental quality (2003, p. 2 Campbell (2003) identifies the conflicts between each priority as such: prope rty conflict generated when private sector simultaneously resists and needs social intervention given the intrinsically contradictory nature of property the resource conflict business resists the regulation of its exploitation on nature, but at the same time needs regulation to conserve those resources for present and future demands and the development conflict environmentequity disputes come from the difficulty of creating su bsistence existence for working people and sustainable conditions for the environment (p. 438-439). Each of thes e disputes is situated within the local political economic context.
22 239). Hence, the struggles between social ju stice, environmental protection and economic growth defined by Campbell (2003) are representative of poli tical economic struggles. The political economic structure causes the integr ation of planning and government to be problematic. Planning agendas are governed by government decisions which may or may not address problems in communities. Dear, an ur ban geographer, asserts the political economic position of planning: Planning is about power. It is concerned with achieving urban outcomes that serve the purposes of powerful agents in society[th e] planning apparatus has becoming highly ensconced as a part of the bureaucrat ic apparatus of the state (2000, p. 120). For example, mid20th century programs administered by the U.S. government facilitated suburban development rather than inner city reform. Since power often dominates rationality, planners must balance the specific political economic interests of the government and the community (Flyvberg, 2003, p. 325). According to planning historian Peter Hall (2002) the early coope rative, alternative societies envisioned by early pl anners were, ironically, physi cally translated through state agencies that eventually advocated for commercial redevelopment on the edge of blighted downtowns rather than cheap housing for poor inner city residents. The poor in the center city were neglected as planners moved away from their progressive roots and towards economic development-focused planning. Though supported by local governments, this transition ignored the other two vital pillars of comprehensive planning. Concurrently, planning divided into numerous specializations resulting in the disconnection from a holistic definition of planning while causing a stronger adherence to governme nt definitions of planning processes. A comprehensive definition of the role of the pla nner requires a resurgence of social progressivism instead of adherence to regulations in order to reinstate equitable development policies for poor inner city communities. Past efforts to answer the issues of central cities failed because policies
23 did not fully address urban problems. While at tempts have been made by modern planning theorists to revive the discip lines progressive roots, none have achieved a comprehensive methodology including sociopolitical, environmental, and economic issues. Evaluations of past planning theories and practices trace the forma tion of the plight of the modern inner city. Progressive roots to modernist intervention and back Current dilemmas in center cities were cons tructed by historical, political, and econom ic policies that placed economic development as th e apex of city planning. Early attempts to improve the quality of inner cities employed idea listic visions of wha t society ought to be rather than addressing the struct ural problems inherent in cap italist society. Howard, Geddes, and Corbusier each developed city plans that requ ired demolition of the entire city in order to achieve the desired self-govern ing commonwealths (Hall, 2002, p. 3). Idealist planning strategies were translated by early planners su ch as Clarence Stein into the context of the 19th and early 20th century city to: respond to inadequate housing and the proble ms of poverty, congestion, and transport, that were so evident, and planners [Mumfo rd, Stein, and Bauer] sought to address those problems directly within the urban context (Teitz, 1997, p. 775). In the early 1930s, planning was integrated in to the government bureaucracy. Beginning with New Deal programs, utopian visions advocated by the disciplines originators became tools of capitalismfocused on middle class development more so than eradicating poverty-stricken inner cities. The progressive New York urban planner, Clarence Steins, attempt to create a Howardian Garden City in Radburn, New Jersey became an upper-middle class model suburb rather than a city that met diverse housing n eeds at various prices. Meanwhile, federal public housing policy, beginning with the Housing Act of 1937, forced less fortunate groups into inner cities. Early public housing progr ams concentrated the poor in areas that received inferior provision of education and health care. Catherine Bauer, an advocate of public housing,
24 indicated her dismay over the management of p ublic housing within the capitalist bureaucratic system: [In 1957, public housing] still drags on in a kind of limbo, continuously controversial, not dead, never more than half aliveThe weakne sses [in the governments execution of the program] were in part inhere nt in the physical design of the high-density, high-rise buildings, where interior space was deficient a nd there was no private outdoor space. Such standardized housing inevitably became stampe d by the same charity stigma that was attached to veterans hospitals and orphan asylums (Bauer, 1957). Bauers disillusionment with the outcome of pub lic housing occurred as the planning discipline fully embraced a modernist perspective. This objective, modernist pe rspective ignored th e political and economic structure of cities while producing social, economic and environmental disp arity within i nner cities. Modernist planners, technocrats, claimed an adherence to scient ific objectivism that characterized the discipline as apolitical. Th e modernists claim was dependent on the economic dynamics of industrial cities, the rise of the middle class and public funding infrastructure to support favorable busin ess climate[s] through public-private partnerships (Teitz, 1997, p. 782783). As a result, planners and politicians encouraged and accommodated white residents moving from the city to the suburbs, while segreg ating minorities within the inner city. White suburbanization and formation of segregated cente r cities created a two-fold social disparity based on race and class that will be addressed in the following section (Silver & Moeser, 1995).3 Modernist planning failed at solving inner city issues because it disproportionately focused on commercial and white urban development. By th e 1970s, the concentration of inner city poverty resulting from urban renewal and associated eco nomic development initia tives caused planning to re-think its apolitical technocratic strategy. 3 Particularly, African-Americans were segregated into older inner city neighborhoods that were consistently denied infrastructure based on the idea that black-majority neighborhoods were a poor economic investment. Such ideology was translated into official policy such as redlining, blockbusting, and predatory lending.
25 In response, Paul Davidoffs advocacy planning replaced pro-business with socioeconomic conscious development. Instead of ignoring the problematic political-economic position of planning, Davidoff proposed placing planning [or recognizing plannings place as] overtly in a political agenda, in order to, rai se planners consciousness about political, sociocultural, and economic contexts in which [p lanning was] conducted (Beauregard, 2003, p. 121122, 130). The position of planning was too fixed within the structure of government for the discipline to fully adopt advocacy. Planners c ontinued to exercise their power within the bureaucratic system typically taking an, ambiva lent stance between goals of economic growth and economic justice in exchange for job secu rity and plan approval (Campbell, 2003, p. 436). The absence of a holistic perspective from which to determine and create effective sustainable plans and policies has led to: a nightmarish return of the oldest of urban problems, which more than any other originally brought [planning] into being gave it its legitimacy: the problem of the urban underclass waiting as a sullen and disaffected mass outside the gates, (Hall, 2002, p. 425426). The plight of the modern center city is the legacy of ineffective government policies that influenced real estate, banking, cons truction, and community development: Current issues [of inner cities] are similar [to the Victorian era], but [are] compounded by the outcome of [the] long and complex pro cess of urban economic change and migration from rural to urban areas that has left some inner city mi nority populationsin a state of deprivation(Teitz, 1997, p. 776). Recent attempts to incorporate equity planning, a more inclusive variation of advocacy planning, fail to promote the holistic perspective necessary to affect responsible cha nge in central cities. Post-modern planning practice Recent initiatives to reintr oduce reformist approaches, such as New Urbanism and the Just City, incorporate progre ssive ideals advocating sustainable and equitable development (Fainstein, 2003). Yet, both fail to fully consid er economic, social justice, and environmental
26 issues. Equity planning illustrates the fragme ntation of the planning discipline into social, economic, and environmental special izations rather than a compre hensive, holistic practice. Planners must choose which type of planner th ey want to become rather than considering complex issues simultaneously.4 Teitz (1997) recognizes the in fluence of new progressivism within the context of cities: Cities [in the 1990s and today] seem to be groping for approaches to be new economic environmentscausing them often to grasp at quick or temporary solutions to fiscal problems, for which they will pay in due course (p. 790). Adopting progressive theories th at focus on only one pillar of planning does not provide an adequate solution to existing proble ms in the modern central city. In-depth analysis of each of these movements reveals the inefficiencies of each theory. According to New Urbanists, a desirable m odern city, create[s] a close-knit social community that allows diverse elements to interact allowing integration rather than segregation of poor or lower class communities (Fainstein, 2003, p. 181). However, New Urbanism falters by assuming that a change in physical environmen t alone solves social inequality in cities. Creation of a New Urbanist tra ditional neighborhood promotes an unrealistic environmental determinism that ignores the position of comm unities and planning within a political-economic context in exchange for an idealized fantas y of suburban living (Fainstein, 2003, p. 182-183). Subscription to design-ori ented idealism prevents New Urbanists from developing neighborhoods that appropriately consider the soci o-political relationships within communities. Dears (2000) account of partic ipation in a New Urbanist development plan demonstrates the movements lack of interest in the everyday life of communities: 4 Beauregard (2003) indicates that t he post-modern fragmentation of planning theory would have been acceptable if it paralleled a corresponding form of integrative framewor k that critiqued society and advanced planning practice, (p. 118). Within this work, I attempt to provide the fr amework Beauregard asserts is missing from the current discipline of planning.
27 I suggested that we actually leave the office in order to go and look at the sites in question. This crudely utilitari an advice was immediately reject ed because the intrusion of urban actualities, so my [New Urbanist] colleagues believed, [would] hinder the visionary process (p. 117). The movements unsuccessful attempt at progr essivism is evidenced by the current New Urbanist communities that have become centers of the upper-middle class more so than lowincome, urban minority communities. Applications of New Urbanist criteria have demonstrated that changing one factor or priority in the planning pr ocess will not produce effective revitalization results. In orde r to adequately address current issues in established distressed neighborhoods such as Eastside, planners need to incorporate resident socio-economic concerns. Planning theorist, Susan Fainst eins, Just City model combines social and economic aspects of planning. Just City planners encourag e a social ideal that wo rks within the current capitalist American city, recognize the biases th at exist in government, incorporate public participation, and consider economic growth solely a tool to bols ter the current capitalist system (Fainstein, 2003, p. 186). The Just Citys integrat ive approach characteri zes planning as conflict between social justice and economic growth, but does not account for how power politics can be overcome to benefit the underrepresented populations in central cities. In particular, Fainsteins (2003) case for publicly funded mixed-income housi ng fall victim to the same critique of New Urbanisma change in physical environment does not change the socio-economic structure of a community even when surrounded by middle-to-upper class neighbors. The progressive foundations of urban planni ng became incorporated into a model of government regulation that freque ntly changed in response to popular political views leading many theorists such as Hall and Teitz to garn er a pessimistic outlook regarding the affect planners can have on the plight of inner cities. Te itz (1997) states:
28 Virtually no major planning journal gave the unde rclass much attention as there have been remarkably little published research on the issu es that it raises, desp ite their relevance to the future of the older inner cities (p. 780). A comprehensive perspective for planning in distre ssed center cities provides the tools needed to observe, analyze and elicit meaningful solutions for existing urban problems. A solution to inner city disparity requires a pe rspective that incorporates the priorities of economic growth, environmental protection, and soci al justice. New planni ng efforts require the return of plannings focus to the underclass of central citie s in conjunction with providing safeguards against discrimination and neglectin g community needs. Grassroots community groups such as EGDC attempt to fill this void. The role of the planner is redefined within a political economic perspective emphasizing an increase of in-dep th understanding of inner city communities to accommodate and encourage socially, economically, and environmentally responsible change. Incorporati ng a progressive and holistic appr oach reifies the fragmentation present in planning by integra ting all specializatio ns under a universal goal of creating a balanced planning strategy. This thesis analy zes Eastside redevelopment plans against the characteristics of a comprehensiv e revitalization effort. In order to apply su ch a perspective in the case of the East Gainesville, a detailed discussion of race and planning is required. Race and Planning East Gaines ville hosts the largest concentra tion of low-income and minority residents in the city (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, WilsonMill er, Inc. et al., 2007). As discussed in the previous section, privileging suburbanization an d infrastructure development have left many central city and inner ring suburbs like Eastside in a state of di srepair. Inner cities are often minority-majority areas as, more than 70 percen t of the [American] population would have to move to achieve full integrat ion, (Krumholz, 1997a, p. 112). From the 1950s to the 1970s, government policies openly embraced forms of ins titutional racism from redlining to strategic
29 urban renewal (labeled by some scholars as mi nority removal). Long-t erm resistance to civil rights laws over the past thir ty years has perpetuated Bl ack, urban, poor stereotypes. Misperceptions that inner-city Blacks lack j ob skills, are apathetic, and have dysfunctional behaviors that keep them from attaining middle-class status maintain racial and income segregation in cities (Rabin, 1997; Thomas, 1997a). The following section provides an overview of the persistence of the inner city minority poor, failed attempts to solve racial inner city poverty, and an evaluation of curre nt planning efforts to balance inner city inequities. These combined issues relate to the perceptions connec ted to Eastside and the residents apprehension concerning increased government involvement in their neighborhood. Post-Civil Rights Maintena nce of Inner City Poverty Post civil rights planning po licies that did not corr ect discriminatory practices resulted in the persistence of concentrated minority, low income communiti es. Civil rights laws that prohibited racial discrimination in the benef its of federal programs, public accommodation, voting, employment and housing we re passed in Congress as early as 1963 (Rabin, 1997, p. 97). However, the laws were not enforced. While studies confirmed the obvious existence of racial isolation within inner cities, none suggested methods to eradicate th e problem (Rabin, 1997, p. 98). Subsequently, federal and state infrastructure programs th at were supposedly racially neutral had extremely negative effects on minorities such as transportation policies that located roads, isolating black neighborhoods from white neighborhoods and limited access to services, commercial centers and public transportation. Further, programs designed to improve distressed Black communities had mixed results. The Model Cities program proposed by Lyndon Johnson in 1966 illustrates how attempts to improve Black inner city neighborhoods have, suffered from inadequate resources, local political battles, uneven performance, and poor federal leadership, (Thomas, 1997a, p. 144).
30 President Johnson designed Model Cities as a program that would encourage Black urban citizens to participate in neighborhood improve ment. While the program increased citizen empowerment and access to power in some cases, it lacked the ability to manage meaningful cooperation [and] internal conf lict within inner city communi ties (Thomas, 1997a, p. 150). In the end, the noble goal of citizen particip ation proved very difficult to accomplish handicapping Detroits program and apparently killing Clevelands and the process of empowering residents was fitful and painful (Thomas, 1997a p. 159). Program management problems on the ground along with lack of government al support caused the demise of the Model Cities program. Successive federal programs attempted to be less contentious. The combination of surface-level, quick fix civil rights laws a nd discriminatory execution of neutral polices have led to a self-reinforcing process that maintains the existence of inner city disparity (Rabin, 1997, p.95-6). The civil rights backlash within the political arena inhibits the creation of progressive policies for inner city residents. Rabin (1997) argued the following: [Cynical politicians] have skillfully employe d race-coded images to portray Blacks as undeserving dependents on public welfare and thr eats to public safety, to discredit those perceived to be sympathetic to civil rights, and to characterize those who support social programs as advocates of Black interests (p. 101). Race-coding has led to the flawed assumptions that: 1960s civil rights la ws removed all racial barriers, racial discrimination ca n be solved only for those who can provide evidence of direct discrimination, achieving equality for Blacks le ads to inequality for Whites, and current remnants of disparity between Whites and Blacks are due to Bl ack inferiority (Rabin, 1997, p. 101-102). Together, these assumptions have caused th e plight of minority i nner city residents to be continually ignored or minimized in political debates. Present efforts attempt to improve the
31 plight of distressed, minority neighborhoods by implementing equity programs and engaging social justice planners. Current Planning Efforts to Fix Urban Inequality Efforts to improve the status of distressed co mm unities such as Eastside aim to pour vital resources (technical, social, and financial) back into communities that face issues of racial and resource-based inequity. Krumholz (1997a) proposes equity planning as a means to redefine the role of the planner as defender of the public welfare, while Thomas (1997b) advocates for a unified diversity perspective to be adopted in planning education. Both Krumholz and Thomas acknowledge the disparity in inner citie s while also celebrating diversity. Krumholz (1997a) defines equity planning as similar to Johnsons goals for Model Cities: [Equity planning is] a conscious attempt by some professional urban planners to devise and implement redistributive policies that move resources, political power, and participation toward low-income groups (p. 109). Thus, planners must provide better futures for all residents. Equity plan ners attempt to reduce inequalities in cities while tradi tional planners consider the value of real property, while trying to fulfill local objectives (Krumholz, 1997a, p. 110). Planning efforts centered on disadvantaged neighborhoods result in the realization of beautiful cities by eradicating slums and answering the needs of officials (Krumholz, 1997a). Similar to Davidoffs advocacy planning tactics discussed earlier, equity planners id entify, clarify and publicize the interests of community stakeholders who oppose government initiatives (Krumholz, 1997a). Equity planning also involves public participation in the distressed communit y. Krumholzs study of affordable housing efforts in Cleveland touts the success of the Cleveland Housing Network (CHN), an umbrella organization made up of 13 neighborhood-based organizations and now the most important producer of lowand modera te-income housing in Cleveland (Krumholz, 1997b, p. 52). The consortium of non-profit stakeholder groups, however, did face obstacles.
32 The variability of private and government funding inhibited projects from being implemented. Additionally, in order for CHN activities to be sustainable, Krumholz (1997b) argues projects must be connected to a comprehensive ne ighborhood improvement strategy that includes government, resident and non-profit stakeholder in terests. An equity planning strategy to identify the opposing stakeholder interests could provide CHN with the collaboration needed to implement empowerment programs. Krumholzs argument for the prolif eration of equity planning must be supported by educating planners in the needs and perspectives of minority populations. Thomas (1997b) unified diversity in pla nning education bolste rs equity planning execution in center cities. As described above, the initial progressive perspective of planning efforts evolved into technocratic methods focused on scientific results. Unified diversity redefines traditional planning education to include diverse faculty and students that are supportive of diverse cultures. A multicultural cu rriculum emphasizes social action leadership (Thomas, 1997b, p. 268-9). Curriculums that co nnect minority interests with development processes can lead to more equitable planning practices (Thomas 1997b, p. 258). Thomas (1997b) links unified diversity planning e ducation to equity planning arguing: Embracing a stronger, more activist vision of diversity may create a new focus for fragmented, conflict-ridden effo rts to help train more eff ective [and equitably-focused] planners than can traditional education programs (p. 259). Scholarly arguments to refocus planning e ducation and practice on revitalization of disadvantaged communities continue to be adopted by planning programs. Critiques of contemporary government policies intended to alle viate distressed communities illustrate the delicate balance of equity and deve lopment in planning for these areas.
33 Critiques of Current Planning Efforts for Black, Urban, Poor Communities Although many local governm ents have adopted the positions of Krumholz and Thomas, implementation of government programs can still garner unfair results. The failures of past planning practices have caused some Eastside neighborhoods to distrust planning efforts as another attempt by public officials to poach area resources.5 For example, marliyn thomashoustons (2006) critique of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Departments HOPE VI program in South Carolina portrays how gove rnment programs manipulate equity jargon to implement non-equitable policies. A HOPE VI pr oject in Saxon Homes, a predominantly Black community, used rhetoric of empowerment and so cial change to justif y removal of residents from their homes (thomas-houston, 2006, p. 131). Mass communication of su ch equity jargon is a method of mythification and mystification that: deploy[s] social movement language while put ting into place, demobilizing tactics as an offensive to further subjugate historically oppressed peoples and use public opinion to cajole public housing residents into submissi on by taking the very language used by the [minority] underclass to empower themselves [the underclass] and sway public opinion (thomas-houston, 2006, p.133). Federal programs that reportedly aim to equalize th e disparity in central cities continue to effect inadequate hardships on the poor ra ther than eradicate urban decay. A new method and theory of planning mends the void between planners, community members and government actors by forcing planners to examine themselves and th e communication of planni ng critically to avoid superficial quick-fixes a nd enforce accountability. 5 Chapter 4 discusses negative perceptions that some Eastside residents have developed over time of affordable housing projects as concentrated areas of poverty that become neighborhood liabilities. Additionally, overabundance of institutional uses in Ea stside cause residents to feel that local governments view Eastside as a dumping ground for unwanted institutions such as prisons and homeless shelters.
34 Informing Methods: Communicative Planning, Community Development, Empowerment and Social Capital as Keys to Revitaliz ation East Gainesville stakeholders include government officials, residents, community groups, and outside special interest groups (i.e., conservationist s). Combining appropriate methodologies and theoretical perspectives from communicative planning, community development and community empowerment provi des a comprehensive method to evaluate existing revitalization efforts in Eastside. Comm unicative plannings approach to bring together diverse stakeholders to provide more consen sus-based outcomes form the basis of the case studys methodology (Chapter 3). Models for community development and empowerment in state-society contexts (government-resident) sugg est how stakeholder influences and interactions affect the ability of communities to come to consensus regarding revitalization programsin Eastside, resident empowerment is equated with decision-making in revi talization efforts. Within development/empowerment models, social capital is defined as a key asset to promote resident involvement. In the following section, e ach of these factors are discussed separately to provide a complete examination of the developmen t of these fields and their contributions to distressed neighborhood revitalizatio n. These factors and their comb ined use in the Eastside case study will be further developed in Chapter 3. Communicative Planning as a Solution to Racial Inequities in Distressed Communities Planning within m inority inner city commun ities requires the planner to acknowledge and understand the historical biases and current i ssues facing disadvantaged communities. East Gainesvilles history as an ignored, racialized commun ity requires such attention. Communicative planning acts as a method to integrate previous ly ignored community members in discussions and decision making with government officials and planners. Communicative
35 planning may not always result in consensus, but provides a shared means for different groups to develop policy decisions (Innes, 1998, p. 52). According to Healey (2003), the progressive element in communica tive planning is based on deconstructing the underlying inte rests of stakeholders in order to identify possible social and political relationships. By doing so, the ability to come to consensus and implement a strategic plan that incorporates all stakeholders increases (Healey, 2003, p. 240-253). Communicative planning addresses issues of past discrimination in planning pr actices, inadequacies of early programs (such as Model Cities), as well as race and planning issues by: recognizing that we are diverse people li ving in complex webs of economic and social relations, within which we develop potential ly varied ways of seeing the world, of identifying interests and values, of reas oning about them, and of thinking about our relations with others [C ommunicative planning] seeks to develop normative principles which we might use to judge our discussi ons and to build interrelations across our differences which will enable us to undert ake strategic consensus-building work through which to create interculturally sensitive st rategies for managing our common concerns in urban region space (Healey, 2003, p. 239). The key to realization of such strategies lies within inclusionary argumentation, public reasoning that includes and recognizes all members in a political community (Hea ley, 2003). Methods to accomplish communicative planning and inclusionary argumentation are discussed in Chapter 3. Disadvantaged communities benefit from inclusio nary policies that create open communication lines between government and community members. Innes (1998), a communicative planner, defi nes the importance of information in public planning decisions that can in fluence public action. Informa tion enters the public realm by becom[ing] gradually embedded in the understa ndings of the actors in the community, through processes in which participants, including pla nners, collectively create meanings (p. 52). Communicative planning strategi es recognize the influence info rmation has on public action, in the thought, practices, and instit utions of a community, (Heale y, 2003, p. 55). Focus on the use
36 of information is essential in understanding the motivations and actions of grassroots development groups such as EGDC. Policies that result from consensus building include agreement of information and attitudes about the issue being discussed (H ealey, 2003). In order to establish the use of information to seek consen sus all stakeholders must be present and hold an equal amount of power in discussions. Moreover, discussions must focus on providing valid reasoning and allowing stakeholders to test the claims and options provided by other speakers (Healey, 2003). Following Innes guidelines, while incorporating Healeys approach, offers a model for inclusionary argumentation and d ecision-making for disadvantaged communities. Communicative planning places the planning proce ss within a context of diverse interests. Baum (2003) notes focusing solely on general consensus may ignore intracommunity disputes, and advocates planners, must overtly acknowledge differences, rules should correspond to the extent and intensity of real gr oup differences, (p. 293). The st eps for assuring inclusion argued by Innes minimize the effects of intracommunity disputes. Even though some actors involved in the planning process may be negatively affect ed, communicative planning does not ignore those sacrifices and recognizes that so me participants benefit more th an others in order to reach consensus (Healy, 2003). Communicative plan ning provides a legitimate process that incorporates issues of race and planning through participatory comm unity discussions rather than the rhetorical inclusion witnessed by thomashouston (2006) in South Carolina. Disadvantaged communities are recognized as voices that are integral for planners and officials to understand in order to enact effective policies. Focusing on the context of communi cation and information within East Gainesville requires elaboration on the importance of community development in disadvantaged communities.
37 Community Development Community developm ent tactics attempt to catalyze investment and ownership in communities. Community development has ma ny nuanced definitions emphasizing solidarity, inclusionary communication a nd social action. Avis Vidal (2004), a scholar on minority planning, defines community development as as set building that impr oves the quality of life among disadvantaged neighborhoods (p. 165). Gene ral definitions describe the procedural aspects of community development as a comprehensive process for managing change that involves citizens in a dialogue on is sues to decide what must be done and then involves them doing it (Vincent in Vidal, 2004, p. 2). Bh attacharyya (1995) describes community development as the creation or advancement of solidarity and agency (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 3). Before community development can be examined in terms of its history, theory and importance in disadvantaged communities, the term community must be defined. Defining community and the hist ory of community development Comm unity is an amorphous term, taking on different meanings in various contexts. A person can be a member of multiple communities or have allegiance to one community over another. Colclough and Sitaraman (2005) defi ne two types of communities: simple and complex. Simple communities are typically pl ace-based, containing one or few small groups, where members choose to particip ate and share a single dimensi on of their daily activities. Complex communities include multiple groups that participate in various activities within the lives of their members (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005, p. 478). Simple or complex communities can either be based on place (location) such as neighborhoods or common interests such as church groups (Green & Haines, 2002, p. 4). Th e case study of EGDC and Eastside consists of both simple (EGDC) and complex (Eastside) place-based communities. Communities come in
38 diverse forms with varying intere sts and goals for their futures. Community development, from its inception, aimed to provide resource-poor communities with increased economic investment. Arising from New Deal legi slation, community development focused on revitalizing distressed communities. Often, racial discrimina tion was present in the execution of community development programs as referenced earlier. Mid-1960s programs provided more qualitative support through the Community Action Program (CAP ), Model Cities and the Special Impact Program (SIP). Community participation and governmental distrust caused these programs to be discontinued. Nixon introduced Community Deve lopment Block Grants (CDBG) to address poverty issues. Though the program began facing cutbacks under Reagans administration, CDBG continues to be a major tool for communi ty development today. President Bill Clinton attempted to revitalize communities through Empow erment Zones/Enterprise Communities in the early 1990s, while simultaneously cutting ot her community development programs (Green & Haines, 2002). Federal community development pol icy is often critiqued for being race neutral and ignoring the role of raci al discrimination in generati ng high poverty rates in minority communities (Green & Haines, 2002, p. 28). The issue of whether community development programs should confront racial di scrimination directly continues to be debated. Currently, basic tenets of community development focus on confr onting issues of inequa lity in more general terms. Basics of community development: practice and theory Community developm ent has been associat ed with social action and practical implementation strategies more so than scholar ly discussions of the effects of development within the broader context of planning (Hus tedde & Ganowicz, 2002). As practitioners of community development, EGDC continues to focu s on practical implicati ons, but the role of
39 EGDC must be considered within the theore tical perspectives of community agency and solidarity. Community development includes four major fu nctions and roles: organizers, developers, planners, and resource providers. Organizers center efforts on advocacy and empowerment of community members. Developers focus on devel oping projects that can be completed. Planners provide vision for future courses of action. Fi nally, resource providers financially assist community development planners, developers an d organizers. West (2006) suggests two basic questions must be asked by any community deve lopment organization (CBO): What do we want to do? and; Is there anyone al ready doing this (p.114)? West (2006) warns of the consequences of overzealous and unorganized involv ement in community development: [The] best interests of the communityare not served when there are others [working on the same project]just be sure you [CBOs] are not fragmenting scarce community resources with [the CBOs] ad mirable zeal to do good (p. 114). Fragmentation of community efforts negates the basic tenet of community development that all people should have a voice in community deci sions and have the pot ential to contribute resourcesand [be responsible] for community action and outcomes (Vincent, 2006, p. 2). Facilitating working groups that encompass all perspectives without turning into personal arguments is difficult. Communi cative planning can be an effec tive method to incorporate all stakeholder perspectives in the workshop phase of community building (Vincent, 2006, p. 4). Theories of community development concen trate on understanding the inner workings of communities. Hustedde and Ganowicz (2002) evaluate community development theory using Bhattacharyyas definition of community develo pment as both solidarity and agency building. The authors identify three major interrelated c oncerns that influence th e community development practice: structuregroups that play a role in solidarity and capacity building, power
40 relationships with those who control resources; and shared mean ingsocial meaning that people give to their community (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 4). The three concerns transfer into the theoretical frameworks of structural-functio nalism, conflict, and symbol interactionism. Structural-functionalism addresse s capacity building through inte rpreting social systems as interdependent structures that perform specified functions to maintain the overall structure of the system. Practitioners who follow structural-f unctionalism focus efforts on building linkages with larger social systems to build capac ity (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 5-6). Conflict theory encompasses Marxist, Foucault, and Wallerste in ideals that power is about who controls or has access to resources [and th at] conflict is an integral pa rt of social life (Hustedde & Ganowicz 2002, p. 6-7). Conflict th eory-oriented community devel opers use conflict as a means to organize and understand competing interests. Finally, symbolic intera ctionism argues that meaning of a situation is not fixed but is cons tructed by participants as they anticipate the responses of others [through interpretation of symbols/signs] (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 9). Practitioners draw from sym bolic interactionism to deconstruct the development of shared meanings within communities. Hustedde and Ganowicz (2002) ar gue that community development practitioners should follow Giddens (1984) structuration argu ment as a theoretical foundation to bridge the gaps be tween structural-functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Structuration theory most accurately describes the exercise of social agency and establishment of solidarity within and against pr esent societal divisions (Figure 2-2). Giddens structuration theory combines macro (structura l-functionalism and conflict) and micro (symbolic interactionism) theories to form a process-orie nted model of community development. Giddens (1984) model offers a third dimension, modalities an inbetween leve l of analysis [that
41 includes] cultural traditions, beliefs, normsa nd how the actors draw upon those in their behavior (p. 12). Actors use modalities to identify themselves in their interactions with other community stakeholders. Modalities represent the interaction between group solidarity in the form of norms and the structure of actor activit ies creating a dualism where norms cannot exist without structure (Hustedde and Ganowicz, 2002) Placed within the context of community development, structuration theory strongly resembles the consensus approach advocated by communicative planners. Agents of community ch ange are not viewed as powerless in the face of structural constraints, but can draw upon cultural patterns to influence power imbalances (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 16). Structuration theory is particularly important in the case of EGDC where issues of cultura l norms influence issues of power, solidarity and empowerment. Community Empowerment A prim ary goal of community developm ent promoted by EGDC is resident empowerment. Scholars and practitioners with in the field link empowerment with community participation as an objective, necessity and e nd result. A successful empowerment approach must include people as invaluab le partners since they cont ain the motivation to change (Narayan, 2005, p. 3). Narayan (2 005) defines empowerment as: the expansion of freedom of choice and ac tion to shape ones life; implies control over resources and decisionsthe expansion of assets and capabilities ofpeople to participate in, negotiate wit h, influence, control, and hol d accountable institutions that affect their everyday lives (p.4-5). Recent efforts to increase participation levels and resident-decision making power in community development simultaneously promote the, e conomic, political, social and cultural transformation needed to cause sustainable pos itive social change (M ayo & Craig, 1995, p. 1). The conceptual framework of empowerment identifies the key factors needed to assist disadvantaged communities towards self-reliance.
42 Narayan (2005) provides a pragmatic description of the elements that work together to improve a groups power: institutiona l climate, social and political structures, individual assets and capabilities, and collective assets and capab ilities (p. 5; Figure 23). Characteristics of empowerment include, but are not limited to: Empowerment emerges as a result of th e relationship between people and their environment. Empowerment requires both top-down changes in institutions and or ganizational processes and bottom-up changes incommunity organizations and networks and in their individual assets. Intervention or entry points vary depending on the nature of c onstraints and barriers (Narayan, 2005, p. 6) According to Narayans model, empowerment is determined through inte ractions between the agency of individuals or groups and opportunity structure. Opport unity structure refers to the removal of institutional barriers th at inhibit poor people from cont rolling efforts to improve their position within society. Institutional reform requires four basic elements to lead to empowerment: access to information, inclusion in decision making, accountability (political, administrative, and social/public), and local orga nization capacitythe ability for community to mobilize and solve issues together (Narayan, 2005). In disadvantaged communities, established social structures can prevent empowerment: When social structures and social cleavages are deep and systemic, opportunities and access to services are determined less by indi vidual characteristics [agency, assets, etc.] than by a culture of inequality that disc riminates and excludes entire social groups (Narayan, 2005, p.9). One method to overcome inequality includes esta blishing laws that enable disadvantaged communities to interact with gove rnments effectively while provi ding basic services and access to justice and legal aid (Nar ayan, 2005, p. 12). The context of government and community interactions must be an integral part of the evaluation of East side empowerment strategies.
43 A causal framework for empowerment within stat e-society contexts (P etesch et al., 2005) suggests the underlying influences on Eastside community groups and government officials that affect their ability to positively interact (Figure 2-4). Within the model, the primary interaction between agency and opportunity structure that can result in community empowerment is influenced by characteristics that define soci al group agency and institutional structures. Influences on agency: economic and human cap ital, capacity to aspire and organizational capacity, combined, determine a social groups ability to make purposeful actions to improve their community. Opportunity st ructure is influenced by openness of institutions, fragmentation and behaviors of dominant groups, and govern ment implementation capacity; create the environment in which agency can be exercised (P etesch et al., 2005). The causal framework for empowerment will be elaborated in Chapter 3. While community empowerment has become widespread in international community developmen t, it has also been implemented in distressed communities in the U.S. Eastsides techniques to elicit resident em powerment face challenges similar to those faced by resident mobilization efforts in other distressed U.S. cities. Community action in America has progressed since the Alinsky mode l of the 1940s and 50s to incorporate broad levels of organization that eroded traditional boundaries and divided organizing from coalition building. Saul Alinsky developed the approach to bring existing community organizations into a coalition to synergize development efforts a nd produce concrete results (Miller et al., 1995, p. 112). Miller, Rein and Levitt ( 1995) identify six approaches to organization witnessed since the Alinsky model that encourage and yield increased levels of community empowerment. Organizations with memberships based on residen ce, consumption (i.e., la bor unions), identity,
44 self-help/mutual aid (i.e., Mothers Agai nst Drunk Driving), advocacy, and mixed models6 each attempt to empower communities through involvem ent and participation (Miller et al., 1995). Linking broad values or ideolo gies associated with a communitys interests can engender empowerment. A current issue faced by many organizations is an overwhelming presence of leadership, but an insignificant amount of public following that weakens the or ganization politically andlimits the possibility of empowerment (Miller et al., 1995, p. 121). American community developers have hoped that poor and low-income groups can beco me a cohesive political force because of common economic interests [but] iden tity groups cut across such class lines (Miller et al., 1995, p. 124). Fragmentation threatens empowerment due to the competition it creates among issues along with the diffusion of support. Empowerment strategies must specify what a certain groups empowerment will accomplish (Mill er et al., 1995). For example, within the EGDC, the residents of East Gainesville are th e subjects of empowerme nt with the goal to improve resident livelihoods and control deci sions made about the redevelopment of their neighborhood. Empowerment strategies used in other areas emphasize the importance of strategic partnerships. Wiewel and Gills (1995) chronicle the posit ive impacts of coalition-building in minority neighborhoods. Alinskys model was first implemen ted in Chicago and resulted in the increased involvement of CBOs (community-based organizati ons) in the political pr ocess (Wiewel & Gills, 1995, p. 129). There, the Neighborhood Movement, as it came to be calle d, eventually led to professionalization and loss of grassroots cont rol over CBOs in the 1980s. In Chicago, CBOs became delegate agencies of the local government under Washingtons progressive mayoral 6 Mixed models include combined approaches such as multi-ethnic resident coalitions formed in the Dudley Street Initiative in Boston, Massachusetts.
45 administration to act on behalf of the city government. While CBOs gained decision-making powers, access to information, as well as implementation and evaluation rights, they lost independence and initiative af ter the administration changed. The lesson learned from the Chicago Neighborhood Movement is that: the community-building process necessarily includes both development practice and empowerment activity, but is only sufficient to the extent that new capacity is derived by communities to continue some new level of activity once the development stimulus disappearsBroad coalitions are necessa ry to maintain support for neighbourhood development (Wiewel & Gills, 1995, p. 134-135). Further, effective leadership sustains community development initiatives Empowerment efforts that lack government partnerships and a traine d, committed leadership quickly lose momentum (Wiewel & Gills, 1995). The ability to gain community empowerment becomes entangled in matters of leadership, structure, accountability, and collaboration. The issue of measuring levels of empowe rment among diverse groups with competing interests becomes equally problematic. Community empowerment among disadvantaged communities requires collective efforts by comm unity members to mobilize and organize in order to be recognized by government on their ow n terms, to be represented, and to make their voices heard (Narayan, 2005, p. 11). Social ca pital allows members to increase access to resources and economic opportunities that can become a measurable unit of empowerment (Narayan, 2005, p. 11). Social Capital Successful developm ent relies on the ability of groups and coalitions to build and utilize social capital. Eastsides str ong political and social history ma ke social capital one of the communitys largest assets. Social capital is a critical resource in community development: building social capital can be a powerful m echanism for planners who seek to promote greater equity in and across cities, if we can le arn how to foster and engage it in the service of disadvantaged commun ities (Vidal, 2004, p. 164).
46 There are different types of capital, or assets, which exist within a community including human (workers skills and productivity), physical (existing infrastructure), financial (money), environmental (natural resources), and social. According to Green and Haines (2002), social capital contributes to the growth of the other fo ur forms of community capital. The ability for a community to engage in building intraand inter-community social capital increases the ability for a development group to engage in positive soci al change. The role of social capital as a function of the socio-cultural milieu and institutional infrastructure can act as a model for neighborhood change (Temkin and Rohe, 1998). High levels of so cial capital lead to stable neighborhoods. Social capital builds community capacity, sp ecifically, networks of relationships based on trust, norms of reciprocity, mutual obligation, cooperation, and so on that lead to productive outcomes for individuals and groups (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005, p. 475). Social capital is credited by scholars in determining community members mobility and satisfaction within their respective communitys relationship networ k (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005, p. 476). Social capital is also used as a control, goal, and resource: social capital is conceptualized as (1) a quantity and/or quality of resources that an actor (be it an individual or group or community) can access or use through (2) its location in a social network (Lin, 2000, p. 786). As a resource, social capital can transform the status quo. Employed as a goal, it may produce desired outcomes. Finally, when used as a contro l method, social capital can include and exclude members to maintain hierarchical structures (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005). Social capital is gained by encouraging participation and harnes sing existing strengths within the community (Temkin & Rohe, 1998).
47 Social capital networks must be separate d from definitions of simple and complex communities since different circumstances garner different outcomes. For example, social capital can be used positively to effect social change as well as to maintain disparity within larger, complex communities such as cities.7 Social capital express[es ] a rational, instrumental side of human relations where networks become activated to accomplish specific tasks and trust based on peoples ability to c ontribute (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005, p. 494). In distressed neighborhoods, developing certain types of social capital networks determine community development success rates (Green & Haines, 2002; Vidal, 2004). Social capital acts as either a bonding or bridging agent. Bonding capital involves bringing people together who already know each ot her, while bridging capital for the purpose of building new social ties brings groups togeth er who do not know each ot her (Green & Haines, 2002). Four strategies increase community capacity in disadvantaged communities: Enhance abilities of individuals Make organizations stronger Build links among individuals Build links among organizations (Vidal, 2004, p. 165). The first two strategies encourage community deve lopment strategies that include social capital as an asset, while the second two strategies directly build soci al capital (Vidal, 2004). Bridging social capital, the fourth strategy, provides th e best method for improving community capacity. In disadvantaged communities, bridges forge new connections among disadvantaged groups 7 Colclough and Sitaraman (2005) examined the following variations of social capital networks in simple and complex communities in their research: community leads to social capital in a simple, local community with a diffuse network of social capital; social capital leads to communities in overlapping occupational and ethnic social capital networks. Communities can lack social capital in complex ethnic communities; social capital can be used as a tool to maintain inequality in concentrated networks within communities that limit resource use and mobility of members; and social capital can exist wit hout community under certain circumstances.
48 and between them and others with more resources [that] holds greater promise as an approach to increasing opportunity and voice for the poor [wh ile] bridge building fi ts more readily and centrally into planning practice (Vidal, 2004, p. 166) These arguments reflect the central tenets of community development that CBOs should alwa ys remember they are a part of a broader community (Vidal, 2006, p. 122). Scholars have found the process of bu ilding social capital bridges within communities to be difficult in minority-majority areas. Alinskys coalition building model and the Chicago Neighborhood Development Movement discussed earlier illustrate that bridging social capital networks garners results when networks are maintained by community members (Wiewel & Gills, 1995). Bridging social capital in disadvantaged communities allows prev iously disinvested members to interact with mainstream development activists as a means to influence policy and empower residents (Vidal, 2004, p. 166). In order to accomplish empowerment as an end result, community capacity should be the central goal of soci al capital and development networ ks since efforts to cultivate neighborhood capital can lead to failure or di sappointment if community capacity is not improved (Vidal, 2004, p. 166). Social capitals link to community capacity the credibility and influence of organizations to achieve resultsis vital to central city revitalization. Building social partnerships between stakeholder groups can unify longstanding political disputes that have created tension within the community. By focusing on consensus rather than debate, positive social bridges catalyze empowerm ent within disadvantaged neighborhoods.8 8 Diversity within communities including conflicting viewpoints must be ameliorated by: (1) Conducting an assessment that is inclusive of major groups and that determines the communitys condition and the strategies to address that condition. (2) In the case a proposal lacks community support, efforts should be taken to create stakeholder consensus as soon as possibl e as lack of consensus could prevent acc ess to external (f inancial) support. (3) If stakeholders demonstrate a willingness to collaborate it increases the chance of external partnerships and investment. This can lead to social capital bridges with city-level institutions (Vidal, 2004).
49 Community Development Corporations (CDCs) cr eate social capital ne tworks in order to implement community-led development projects. The Stew Pot of Planning History, Empowerm ent, Development, and Social Capital in Inner Cities: The CDC The role of CDCs as an intermediary between government and residents forces EGDC (and other CDCs) to balance the negative impacts of l ong-term lack of invest ment with collaborative efforts to rejuvenate distressed communities. As such, CDCs serve as the optimum location to study resident and government in teractions to develop consen sus (a unified vision) for community revitalization. The CDCs are gr assroots community development non-profit organizations that serve specific geographic area s that are typically controlled by the areas residents (Green & Haines, 2002; Vidal, 1995). Their organizational structure includes a membership-elected board of directors, small pa id staff, and volunteers to execute programs. Collaborative efforts determine the ability of CD Cs to accomplish development strategies aimed to solve problems unique to the community (Wes t, 2006). A historical analysis of CDCs and their abilities outline the role of grassroots comm unity development organizations in central city development. Impetus and Evolution of Community Development Corporations (CDCs) Beginning in the 1960s, CDCs were designed to be community-contr olled organizations that developed into professional community development networks. Community Action Programs (CAPs) contributed to the government st ructure for the organization of the first CDCs, providing comprehensive development, techni cal expertise, [and] entrepreneurial [support needed to] shape [the] development process [t hrough] community vision and needs (Green & Haines, 2002, p. 64). Early CDCs focused e fforts on housing provision and received the majority of their funding from federal programs. Professionalization of CDCs in the 1980s and
50 90s witnessed continued specialization of particular organizations and loss of activism that led to a growing tension between CDCs and intermediaries because of [the] influence control of resources generates (Green & Haines 2002, p. 66). While current CDCs attempt to build community capacity, they continue to be criticiz ed for their ideological shift from activist to professional. An examination of two early orga nizations in New York illustrates the precarious placement of CDCs between external institutiona l support and their unique position that enables them to build social relationships amonginst itutions and organizations in the community, which can serve as assets for future development (Green & Haines, 2002, p. 67). Johnson (2004) compares the accountability of the Harlem Urban Development Corporation (HUDC) to the Bedf ord-Stuyvesant Restoration Cor poration (BSRC) to indicate how the historical development of CDCs determ ines their level of accomplishment, stating: [The] specifics of each organizations early development played an important role in how community was defined and the role of comm unity in the CDCs development and also had implications for how the CDC approach ed the issue of ac countability to the community (p. 110). Governor Nelson Rockefeller organized HUDC in order to improve relations with New Yorks Black leadership, while BSRC partnered with Robert Kennedy creating two organizations: one community/Black led and one business/White led. HUDC exhibited conflicts early as community leaders fought amongst themselves and with the Governor producing ambitious plans that were never realized (Johnson, 2004, p. 116). Conversely, BSRC had initial success due to its connection with powerful White lead ers, but the White-led organization, BedfordStuyvesant Development and Servic es Corporation, held the majority of decision-making power. When the White-led and Black-l ed organizations finally inte grated in 1974, the BSRC found itself [like HUDC] facing the same issues of organizational drift, li mited productivity, and alienation from the community (Johnson, 2004, p. 121). The comparison case study of HUDC
51 and BSRC highlight the issues CDCs continue to face: political alienation, reliance on external support and difficulties in motivating community residents. Community Development Corporations (CDCs): A Solution to the Plight of the Inner City Despite the flaws observ ed in current CDC organizational capacity, these grassroots groups continue to hold the best hope for cha nneling community development that encourages resident empowerment and builds social cap ital. A CDCs ability, to understand the neighborhood from the residents perspective is criticalto effectively serve [the] population (Basolo & Strong, 2002, p. 84). Presently, th ere are 1,500 to 2,500 CDCs across the United States that generally have a staff of seven and a budget of $175-700,000 that serves as gap fillers for disadvantaged communities (Vidal, 1995, p. 208). Assessment of past CDCs efforts indicates these corporations are able to identify underlyi ng issues hindering community development other organizations co ntinue to ignore (Vidal 1995).9 However, CDC weaknesses such as high levels of turnover in leadershi p, small staff numbers and failure to foster longrunning collaborative partnerships suggest CD Cs continue to struggle with harnessing sustainable social capital part nerships (Temkin & Rohe, 1998).10 Basolo and Strong (2002) provide a colla borative model for CDCs to follow that incorporates higher levels of understanding ne ighborhood issues with effective programmatic strategies. To understand community needs, CDCs should survey residents, include neighborhoods in project development, enlist volunteers from the communities, and encourage 9 Vidal (1995) also argues CDCs provide a promising stra tegy to correct the spatial disparity and inequality in minority center cities since they: can respond to spatial gaps in opportunity in a strategic wayhaving a clear strategy is one of the primary factors contributing to th eir success; are entrepreneurial, flexible and persistent, displaying tenacity, willingness, and ability to work; are eff ective in targeting benefits to improve poor communities; and have passed a sort of market test since their numbers are growing, displaying market potential; and the growth in the number of CDCs and thei r systems of support is mutually reinforcing. 10 Temkin and Rohe (1998) also applaud CDCs in their ability to promote associative relationships with stakeholders.
52 regular communication with CDC leaders and th e community at large (Basolo & Strong, 2002). The key to CDCs providing access to quality servi ces to residents is tapping into existing or evolving networks whose members share informa tion, resources, and access (Harrison et al., 1994 p. 8). The CDCs such as EGDC must amalga mate social capital, co mmunity participation, and institutional opportunity structures in order to execute development programs that truly benefit and empower center city communities that ha ve been isolated by institutional racism. An evaluation of the EGDC comprises issues of planning history, progressive reform, theoretical models of empowerment and development, and realities of practicing in disadvantaged communities. The methodologies implemented in the Eastside and EGDC case study draw from both academic and practitioner literatures to provide a measurement to evaluate the CDCs ability to build social cap ital bridges and em power residents.
53 Figure 2-1. Campbells Model for Sustainable De velopment (Reprinted with Permission from Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Campbell, 2003, p. 437). Sustainable Development Social Justice Economic Growth Environmental Protection
54 Figure 2-2. Giddens' Structurati on Model: The Link to Social Ch ange at the Macro and Micro Levels (Reprinted with permission from The Journal of the Community Development Society. Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002, p. 12). Macro Structures Structuration Theory And Social Action Theory Modalities Structuration Micro Behavior Symbolic Interactionism Conflict Theory Functionalism
55 Figure 2-3. Narayans Community Empowerment M odel (Reprinted with permission from the World Bank. Narayan, 2005, p. 7). Opportunity Structure Agency of the Poor Institutional Climate Information Inclusion/ Participation Accountability Local Organizational Capacity Social and Political Structure Openness Competition Conflict Rights, Rules, Resources Norms, Behaviors, Processes Development Outcomes Improved incomes, assets for the poor Improved governance, peace, and access to justice Functioning and more inclusive basic services More equitable access to markets and business services Strengthening civil society Strengthened poor peoples organizations Individual Assets and Capabilities Material Human Social Psychological Collective Assets and Capabilities Voice Organization Representation Identity
56 Figure 2-4. Petesch and Colleagues (2005, p. 42) Causal Framework for Empowerment in State-Society Contex t. (Reprinted with permission from the World Bank.) Openness of Institutions Fragmentation and Behaviors of Dominant Groups Government Implementation Capacity Capacity to Aspire Organizational Capacity Opportunity Structure Agency of Poorer Social Groups Economic and Human Capital
57 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The research design of a case study of th e East Gainesville Co mmunity Development Corporation draws from the literature in the pr evious chapter to evalua te grassroots community development through communicative planning techniques using social capital as a measure of empowerment. In this chapter, the Empowerment Structuration model evaluates the functional, conflicting and normative interactions between the agency of community groups and the opportunity structures (government institutions) in which agency can be exercised (Narayan, 2005; Petesch et al., 2005). The methodological tools of communicative planning drawn from Healey (2003) and Innes (1998) can be used to analyze social capital networks, project consensus and stakeholder interactions. Both primary and secondary sources provide a historical analysis of East Gainesville revitalization and current intera ctions between government and Eastside social groups. Together, these data so urces provide a comprehensive examination of how EGDC and Eastside stakeholders harness so cial capital as a means to promote resident empowerment and successful revitalization. Empowerment Structuration Model: Meth odological Basis for EGD C Evaluation The relationship between the major factors and struggles within and outside Eastside are identified in order to examine the organization s institutional structure and capability to develop social networks and programs. Combining Gidden s' Structuration theoretical model for social action (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002) with Pete sch et al.s (2005) model for community empowerment in state-society c ontexts provides a framework fr om which to explore social capital partnerships in re vitalization efforts. The Empowerment Structuration Model analyz es relationships between government and social groups (Figure 3-1). The model indicates a causal framework for empowerment as a four-
58 part process in which empowerment may or may not be able to o ccur. The primary interaction for empowerment occurs between opportunity stru cture and the agency of social groups. A balance, or mutually beneficial relationship, must exist between opportunity structure and social group agency in order for empowerment to occur. Empowerment of social groups is a product of the interaction betwee n the agency of these groups and th e opportunity structure in which this agency is potentially exercised (Petesch et al., 2005, p. 41). Opportunity structure consists of the present institutional climate and social and po litical structures in a community. Agency of social groups consists of indi vidual and collective assets a nd capabilities (Narayan, 2005). The relationship or interaction between opportu nity structure and social group agency is affected by several factors speci fic to each component (Petesch et al., 2005, p.41). Social group agency is affected by economic and human capital (existing resources, safety nets and skills), the groups capacity to aspire (culturally formed ability for visioning future goals), and organizational capacity (ability to participate in both informal and formal groups to draw collective action) (Petesch et al., 2005). Influences on opportunity structure include the openness of institutions (the ability of social groups to influence government policy), fragmentation and behaviors of dominant groups (cleavages among elites against and for minority empowerment), and government implementation capacity (ability of government to successfully complete projects). However, influences on opportunity structure and agency do not occur within a vacuum. Relationships within and between infl uencers can determine the modalities (attitudes, interests and biases) that agency and structural stakeholders bring to revitalization efforts. The process of resident empowerment must conf ront the historical bi ases, vested interests and personal visions that comprise the moda lities of primary stakeholders. Within the Empowerment Structuration model, modalities are represented by the Relationship Filter
59 (Figure 3-1). Drawing from Giddens structuration theory, stakeholder influencers (identified as economic and human (social) capital, capacity to aspire, and organizatio nal capacity) can have functional, conflicting, or symbolic relationships (Hustedde & Ganowicz, 2002; Figure 3-1). For example, a social groups capacity to aspire ma y be incredibly high while the existing economic and social capital in the community is low. The relationship between influencers affects the agency of social groups in their interactions with the broader existing opportunity structure. Moreover, the inner relationships between social groups and government can determine the ability for each party to eff ectively communicate their goals and vision for empowerment. Resident empowerment and social action result when the influen ces on agency of social groups and opportunity structure result in a positive and unified relationship between stakeholders and institutions. Identifying existi ng social capital in both community social groups and government institutions and how they relate is essential to understanding the su ccess of redevelopment initiatives. The ways in which these elements interact with or against each other determine a communitys ability to promote empowermen t and positive development programs for East Gainesville. The study of EGDC focuses on the relations hip between the agency of Eastside and EGDC community stakeholders and the opportunity structure es tablished by city and county government. The result of the study will not only provide an evaluation of EGDC, but also a test for the legitimacy of the Empowerment Structur ation methodological model. Within the model, communicative planning techniques evaluate the ability of EGDC to develop consensus between government and social structures. Measuring so cial capital through quali tative and quantitative data determine whether consensus or empowering development outcomes (soc ial action) exist. The research questions that will be examined include:
60 Does social capital exist in the comm unity and how is it being distributed? Are social capital resources and partnershi ps balanced between community groups and government institutions? How does the distribution of social capital and partnerships influence the outcome of empowerment in revitalization efforts? Combining these methodological techniques and m easurements to address the questions above requires a wide range of data co llection methods. Social capita l indicators are measured to determine if social capital exists within the community and how it aff ects bridges within and between community groups and government actors. Does Social Capital Exist in the Co mmunity and How is it Distributed? Community development requires social action that transfor ms the current situation for disadvantaged communities. Narayan (2005) rec ognizes social capitals role in empowerment since the extent of trust embedded in public in stitutions and the nature of civil society are critical aspects to state-societ y relations (p. 19). EGDCs role as an intermediary between community members and governmental institutions creates the opportunity for the organization to harness social capital essential to its su ccess in revitalization efforts. The community development literature identifies empowerment of residents as a major goal (Green and Haines, 2002). Yet, empowerment is difficult to measur e as it is a latent phenomenon (Narayan, 2005). The number of positive social capital partne rships fostered by EGDC and community stakeholders provides a measurable indicator of the empowerment. The case study of Eastside focuses on measurin g strategic partnershi ps as catalysts for empowerment (Vidal, 2004; Green and Haines, 2002). Bridging social capital between two different social groups or a social group and a government or pr ivate sector organization gives both parties access to new resources they may ha ve not been able to obtain by themselves
61 (Narayan, 2005, p. 11). Social capital in EGDC is measured using Temkin and Rohes (1998) factors of sociocultural milieu (relating to soci al group agency) and institutional infrastructure (relating to organizational capacity of social gr oups and opportunity structure). Within the Empowerment Structuration model, sociocultura l milieu is assessed through a combination of participant observation and document (newspapers and adopted plans) res earch. Sociocultural milieu is used to evaluate the presence of st rong social capital partnerships among Eastside community stakeholders (Economic and Social Capital, Capacity to As pire and Organizational Capacity; Figure 3-1). Temkin and Rohes indicato rs for institutional infrastructure are used to evaluate the strength of social capital partnerships between go vernment and Eastside community stakeholders (Openness of Institutions and Orga nizational Capacity of Eastside community; Figure 3-1). Indicators for social capital based on Temk in and Rohe (2002) include: Sociocultural Milieu Feeling that community is spatially distinct Level of social intera ction among residents Degree to which residents work a nd socialize in the community. Institutional Infrastructure Presence and quality of neighborhood organizations Visibility of neighborhood to city-wide officials. Drawing from these characteristics, the EGDCs and the larger Eastside communitys social capital network and its influence within the Em powerment Structuration model is evaluated. Methods to determine social cap ital and identify key stakehol ders draw from communicative planning tactics to determine if social capital is balanced between community groups and government institutions. Are Social Capital Resources and Partnershi p s Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions? Community Development Corporations, including EGDC, mu st have a thorough understanding of a communitys needs in orde r to execute programs that will empower and
62 improve residents lives. The Empowerment Structuration model identifies modalities interactionhow government and community stakeholders draw upon norms, beliefs and traditions in their interactions with each otheras the integral point where strategic partnerships and cultural identities of the CDC and Eastside co mmunity meet with the rules and regulations of the government. As stated above, the intera ction between community groups and government institutions must be balanced or mutually beneficial for empowerme nt to occur and be sustained. Communicative planning techniques can be used to understand how decisions are made through communication at meetings, use of information and development of consensus to determine if the EGDC is able to balance their available resources and communitys needs with government programs and policies. As stated in the previous chapter, communicative planning draws upon ethnographic techniques to discover the underl ying relationships that prop el the planning process while defining the role of planners as facilitators between citizens, othe r private interests and government. Strategic development planning re quires both commun ity collaboration and consensus building. Figure 3-2 identifies Healey s (2003) criteria for consensus building that will be used to examine EGDC. The five ar eas of consensus building are evaluated through participant observation during EGDC meetings (F igure 3-2). Participan t observation involves active engagement with a group over a period of time to fully understand the internal and external issues of th e community. Planners can choose to bring in a social scientist or community leader that is approved by the comm unity or actively engage with the community themselves to use pertinent knowledge of th e community and its inner-workings to plan development. In the case study of EGDC, the resear cher acts as the planne r and social scientist
63 to understand the underlying issues and motiva tions of individual members, communication between members, and development of consensus. Healeys (2003) criteria eval uate consensus will be coupled with Innes (1998) rules for equitable planning outlined in Chapter 2 to de termine whether equitable practices are being employed in Eastside. The rules include Individuals representing all the important in terests at issue must be at the table Stakeholders being equally empowered Discussions occurring on terms of good reasons Discussions allowing all claims to be tested Participants assessing the speakers claims by evaluating the speakers ability to speak honestly, hold a legitimate position, speak co mprehensively, and be factually accurate Groups seeking consensus (Innes, 1998, p. 67). Determining EGDC and government officials adhe rence to the rules proposed by Innes requires in-depth analysis through ope n-ended interviews with EGDC members balanced by East Gainesville community leaders not involved directly with EGDC (Appendix A includes Institutional Review Board materi als). Interviews include questi ons regarding past development efforts, perspectives on EGDC, co mmunity leaders, changes in lo cal government, changes in the overall East Gainesville communit y, and evaluation of current revita lization projects in the area. Open-ended interviews, along with participant observation at EGDC and public meetings related to East Gainesville redevelopment provide a barometer for the CDCs ability to provide transparency and equality in organizational a nd programmatic decision-making. The benefits of open-ended interviews allow the re searcher to interpret and make sense of stories and complex interactions (Innes, 1998, p. 62). The results from the analysis of communication in EGDC formal meetings and interviews represent the ability of EGDC to effectively bridge social capital.
64 Combining the evaluation of social capital res ources and the analysis of relationship between community groups and government actors indicate s how social capital pa rtnerships influence redevelopment. How Does the Distribution of Social Capita l Resources a nd Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment Efforts? The final research question explores how social capital partnerships move through the Empowerment Structuration model. Findings fr om the two prior research questions merge within the model providing a holis tic framework for social capita l partnerships between social group agency and opportunity structure. Temkin a nd Rohes indicators of social capital within the sociocultural milieu are used to determine the social group agency influencers in the Empowerment Structuration Model. Social and employment activity (a social capital indicator) of residents determines the amount of ec onomic and human capital among community stakeholders (a social group agency influencer). Similarly, resident inte raction and area spatial distinctiveness (indicators) provides a measure for the communitys capacity to aspire (influencer), while presence of neighborhood organizations (indi cator) represents the areas organizational capacity (influencer). Opportunity structure is m easured using a combination of Temkin and Rohes indicators and plan review. Visibility of government officials, a social capital indicator, is used to evaluate the openne ss of institutions. Archival newspaper research and plan review, discussed in the following s ection, indicate the governments implementation capacity and fragmentation and behavior of dominant groups. The interactions between these influencers reveal whether a balanced relati onship exists between social group agency and opportunity structure. By investigating whether social capital resources are balanced, one can determine whether the interaction betw een community groups and government actors results in
65 empowerment. Participant observation and intervie ws with primary stakeholders inform whether influencers have a functional (reinforcing), conf licting, or symbolic in teraction (normative) relationship that strengthens or weakens social group agency and opportunity structure, respectively. If influencers on both sides of the Empowerment Structuration model have a functional relationship, then a balance will most likely exist between community groups and government actors. The integration of the first tw o research questions allows the researcher to determine how social capital partnerships relate to the interaction of st ructure and agency in communities. Qualitative and qua ntitative data sources are used in this study to provide a comprehensive analysis for Empowerment Structuration. Data Collection Sources for the Eastside Case Study Using a variety of resources, the researcher can establish the history of E astsides development and thus the context for current efforts to empower residents through the revitalization process. Evaluating EGDCs revita lization efforts includes plan review, archival newspaper research, open-ended interviews and pa rticipant observation. The following section describes methods for reviewing th ese sources and their limitations. Eastside Plan Review In her analysis of two Harlem CDCs, Johnson (2004) emphasizes the influence the early history of an organization [can have on] its later performance, selection and use of strategies, and efforts towards community accountability (p. 109) The historical context of the EGDC and East Gainesville redevelopment draws primarily from examinations of previous planning documents. In the past ten years, four govern ment plans have been written concerning the redevelopment of East Gainesvi lle. Comparisons of these pl ans reveal how government and resident attitudes towards community problem s and solutions changed over time. While reviewing plans, key terms that were repeated in each of the plans we re recorded. Key terms
66 include: resident par ticipation, negative perception, interconn ectivity, conservation, social conditions, and lack of investment. Comparisons were also made between the geographic areas the plans focused on as well as the government agen cy that authored the plan. Quantitative data from East Gainesville plans also provides information on the socio-economic and physical conditions of Eastside neighborhoods Limitations to plan review include lack of information concerning the success of resident participa tion, the ideas that were presented but not incorporated into the plan, and inter-governmental attitudes towards the execution of the plan. In an effort to augment the limitations of plan revi ew, newspaper research and interviews are used to understand the climate in which these plans were created. Archival Newspaper Research An analysis of newspaper articl es from the past five years fr am es previous planning efforts executed by both community groups and government actors. A large portion of newspaper articles draw from The Guardian a weekly newspaper that focuses on East Gainesville events and issues. While The Guardian is an excellent resource fo r understanding community attitudes towards planning efforts, it has only recently be en circulated (beginning in 2004). Additional articles from the city-wide daily paper, The Gainesville Sun provided information on East Gainesville prior to 2004, but th e amount of articles that focuse d on Eastside were limited. Newspaper articles related to the topics of development, planning, building siting, and community groups were reviewed for the pur poses of this study. Articles provided commentaries from both government official s and Eastside residents concerning the redevelopment of the area. Limitations to archival newspaper re search include the bias of the author of the article (such as wh ether they sided with the city or resident on the subject of the article) and selectivity of stories that were covered. Due to these limitations, interviews with
67 primary community stakeholders provided anothe r means to understand the history of Eastside redevelopment. Interviews with Primary Stakeholders Three pr imary stakeholders were interviewed in the Eastside case study: the Director of the CRA, Anthony Lyons; the Gainesville Planning Commissioner who represents Eastside, Scherwin Henry; and the current chairman of EGDC, Nona Jones. Interviews between one and two hours in length were conducted in January 2008 at either the homes or offices of interviewees (Appendix A includes Institutional Re view Board materials). Discussions centered on the history of planning and development in Eastside, the effectiven ess of adopted plans, current issues in Eastside, attitudes of resi dent groups and government institutions, current efforts to revitalize Eastside, and each intervie wees vision for Eastside redevelopment. All questions asked in interviews were open-ende d to engender meaningful and candid dialogue. The fact that only three interviews were conducted with primary st akeholders is a limitation to the study. Eastside is a small area, but comp rised of many government actors and community leaders. However, time constraints inhibited the researcher from interviewing all persons considered primary Eastside stakeholders. In stead, the three stakeholders interviewed were chosen due to the amount of influence, inte raction and presence they exhibit within the community. As mentioned earlier, the focus of this study is the interaction of community groups rather than individuals. Since entire groups could not be interv iewed for the study of Eastside, the three primary stakeholders are interpreted as representatives of the overall opinions and attitudes of Eastside groups and government institutions. Par ticipant observation of community and government redevelopment efforts provides another method to investigate social capital partnerships.
68 Participant Observation and th e Influence of the Researcher Interactions between governm ent and community groups are docum ented in participant observation at EGDC and public community mee tings. Over the course of one year, ten community meetings were observed. During mee tings, attention was paid to whether actors took steps (outlined by Healey (2003)) to come to cons ensus or to develop part nerships, how Eastside problems were discussed, how residents and gov ernment groups were described, and how people present at meetings interacted (verbally and nonverbally) in reference to Eastside issues. A major limitation of participant observation is th e influence the researcher may have on the community at large. As an urban and regional planning student, I was introduced to the intricacies of Eastside revitalization efforts through a comm unity development class. I c hose to continue my research on Eastside after witnessing evidence of a str ong community identity a nd will to better the community from key Eastside leaders. My impr essions of Eastside groups and leaders may have an influence on how the community reacted to my desire to document their efforts. By approaching the community, I may have given le aders a new feeling of importance that caused them to behave differently in my presence. However, due to my interaction with community members over the course of one year, I feel th is is not the case. My involvement in the community did have some implications. For example, when I approached the EGDC to attend meetings, I became involved with the organiza tion as a volunteer intern conducting small research projects when needed. In an effort to remain objective, I have attempted to separate any of my contributions to EGDCs work from my observations of the organization, their interaction with government actors, and my interpretation of revitalization in Eastside overall. The use of multiple resources balances the limitations of each da ta source in order to present an objective,
69 holistic analysis of the role social capital pa rtnerships play in community empowerment and revitalization efforts in East Gainesville. Community empowerment engages residents to take part in progressive development plans within their own neighborhoods to combat disparity. Measuring empowerment within community development is difficult since empowerme nt is said to have occurred if it results from the agency of the person who feels empowered (Narayan, 2005, p. 22). EGDC is a community development group centered on catalyzing empowerment for residents within a minority, disadvantaged neighborhood situating the CDC as an organizer for social groups with the purpose of synergizing revitalization effo rts. The Empowerment Structuration model measures empowerment through the use of positive social capital partnershi ps and their influence on the interactions between East side stakeholders and government officials. The model will define pathways to empowerment within the East side community as well as current constraints impeding social capital partnerships and empowerment programs.1 Participant observation at EGDC meetings provides the rese archer with an understanding of community and organizational constraints and methods of inte rvention being employed to addre ss those constraints. Tracing social capital according to Temkin and Rohes (2002) indicators through interviews, historical and quantitative analysis and surveys reveals the pathways that led to both positive and negative development outcomes for residents. The evalua tion of both Eastside an d EGDCs ability to transform social capital partnerships into empowerment provides a paradigm for similarly situated CDCs to navigate revitalization efforts through the Empowerment Structuration model. 1 This concept for measuring empowerme nt draws from Narayans (2005) claim that measuring empowerment is most useful when done in a framework that defines the role of empowerment in achieving positive development outcomes and defines pathways of causation depending on the type of intervention and the constraint being addressed (p.23).
70 Figure 3-1. Empowerment Stru cturation Model (Author). Relationship Filter Relationship Filter Empowerment And Social Action Functional Conflicting Symbolic Interaction Functional Conflicting Symbolic Interaction Openness of Institutions Fragmentation and Behaviors of Dominant Groups Government Implementation Capacity Economic and Human Capital Capacity to Aspire Organizational Capacity Opportunity Structure Agency of Social Groups Eastside Community Stakeholders (EGDC, Residents and other CBOs) Gainesville Institutional Structure (Government Officials, CRA, Adopted Plans)
71 Figure 3-2. Healeys (2003) Methodological Tasks for Communicative Planning-Based Consensus Building (Reprinted with permissi on from Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. p. 252).
72 CHAPTER 4 TEN YEARS OF PLANNING IN EASTSIDE A landm ark event occurred in 1997 when reside nts teamed with the city government to produce an action plan for Eastside. In the fo llowing ten years, three additional plans were adopted, each creating a separate vision for East Gainesville. An evaluation of plans developed and adopted by the City of Gainesville, Al achua County, and the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency provide the historical context for existing communication channels between government and Eastside resident groups such as EGDC. Primary sources reveal resident and government actors opinions of redevelopment effort s and interactions between the two parties. This chapter draws from plans, newspaper articles, and interviews with primary actors to illustrate the overlapping, and sometime s conflicting, efforts and definitions that have either enhanced or hindered redevelopment efforts in Eastside. Before government-led plans are discussed, a broad overview of the histori cal development of Eastside is provided. Eastsides Development: A Broad Overview Eastsid e provides an ideal case study to examin e the role of social cap ital partnerships in distressed community revitalization efforts due to its long-term lack of investment, current focus as an area for Gainesville development and high le vel of social cohesion. Gainesville, Florida is located in the north central region of the state. The town is well-known for being the home to the University of Florida which was founded and ope ned for registration in Gainesville in 1906. Long-term planning issues within the town cente r on the conflict between the University of Floridas growth and resident attitudes towards student-focused development. The area has also maintained a commitment to conservation includ ing the preservation of Paynes Prairie on the south boundary of Gainesville and Devils Millhoppe r located near northwest Gainesville. The city maintained a rural character until the pos t World War II development boom. For example,
73 between 1948 and 1974 the University of Flor idas student enrollment increased by 23,000 students (University of Fl orida, 2008). The increase in the areas population caused the city to develop and adopt its first comprehensive plan in 1980. However, the passage of the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 caused Gainesville to re-tool the citys plan to comply with the states new standards. The first comprehensive plan in compliance with the 1985 act was adopted in 1991 (City of Gainesville Comprehe nsive Planning Department, 2008). While the western side of Gainesville experienced expone ntial growth, East Gainesville experienced no new construction between 1970 and 2001 (Dix, 2008). At a community meeting in March 2008, Ed Dix, an Eastside resi dent indicated an overview of business development told the stor y of the area Today, there is only one grocery store, seven liquor stores, three gr aveyards, and zero banks in East Gainesville. The area has not experienced development progress in decades (Di x, 2008). Eastsides history is similar to many other distressed neighborhoods that were negatively affected by inst itutional racism practices of the earlyto mid-20th century. Prior to 1960, East Gaines villes position a butting the western edge of downtown resulted in a thriving business and social community that was considered a portion of the citys commercial center. The co nstruction of Interstate 75 during the 1960s encouraged growth west of downtown and the Univer sity of Florida. Over time, investment in Eastside declined while abandoned buildings and foreclosed neighbor hood businesses became more numerous (City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997, p. 1; Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 2). Westward developmen t continued and included large shopping centers, single family and student housing, and services that drew residents away from Eastside. East Gainesvilles population includes the largest concentratio n of minorities (AfricanAmericans) in the metropolitan area. Disinve stment led to increases in the number of low-
74 income residents and in crime, producing a pe rception of the community as unwanted or undesirable. The perception was exacerbated as long-term residents began to move out of the area once they reached higher salary levels. Desp ite Eastsides struggles, the area continued to maintain a high level of reside nt interaction, primarily thro ugh symbolic interactionism relationships such as church group involvement, wh ich aids the researcher in identifying existing social capital networks (City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997). Continued advocacy from residents combined w ith unsustainable overdevelopment to the west caused government officials to refocus development visions eastward. Community Approach: East Gainesville Develo pment Action Plan (EGDAP) and Creation of EGDC in November 1997 The EGDAP rejuvenated redevelopm ent efforts in Eastside. The project began as a joint venture between the city and the Gainesville Chamber of Commerce to identify ways to encourage investment in Eastside (Figure 41 indicates EGDAPs area boundary). After a meeting with residents on February 4, 1997, the plan quickly transformed into the creation of a community-led document that identified, researched, and analyzed solutions for the existing problems in Eastside. Since the city approached Ea stside residents to part icipate in the plan, its findings addressed all existing development east of Main Street that lay within the citys boundary. A task force made up of residents wa s formed that included eight subcommittees: Market Analysis and Data, Land Use and Map Creation, Education and Employment, Marketing and Public Relations, Financi ng and Investor Identificati on, Mission Statement, Neighborhood Development, and Barriers to Overcome. After six months of bi-weekly meetings, the East Gainesville Development Task Fo rce (EGDTF), with the aid of th e citys economic development department, produced an Action Plan for Eastside. As part of the action plan, the task force proposed that the resident-led group become responsible for the implementation of the action
75 plan. The task force chose to become a non-profit agency (renamed East Gainesville Development Corporation) to take charge of im plementation and collaborate with partners in order to accomplish the plans goals and mission statement: The Eastside of Gainesville will become a thriving business, residential and cultural center that serves its communities by providing goods and services to its residents, increasing business startups and expansions and broadening employment opportunities which will improve overall quality of life (City of Gain esville Economic Development Department et al., 1997, Executive Summary). The city agreed to provide fi nancial support for EGDC for five years, after which the group hoped to become financially independent.1 A review of the findings of EGDAP suggests residents primary concerns in 1997 were economic development and neighborhood pride. The EGDAP Findings The EGDTF, along with the Cham ber of Commerce and Gainesville Economic Development Department, focused on six areas of concern: Business Expansion, Retention and Attraction, Education and Employment, Neig hborhood Improvement and New Development, Marketing and Public Relations, Government Services, and Tourism Development. Table 4-1 provides a broad overview of the plans primary actors, goals, geographic area focus, areas of concern, identified problems, proposed solutions and plan outcomes (similar tables will be provided for each plan discussed in this chapter). The EGDAP organizers attempted to involve residents in identifying their ne ighborhoods problems and propose solutions that could be easily achieved. Residents identified three main problems with in Eastside: (1) negative perception of the area, (2) rundown neighborhoods, and (3) lack of business investment In order to address these issues, participants proposed developing Neighb orhood Associations to empower people to take 1 EGDC and its efforts to revitalize Eastside are further discussed in Chapter 5.
76 ownership of their community.2 Associations would organize clean-ups, provide a sense of cohesion, and afford a sense of place to the comm unity. Six years later another Eastside plan, Plan East Gainesville (PEG), would identify ei ght neighborhood associati ons formed out of the EGDAP (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 11; Figure 4-2 illustrates existing neighborhood association locations). One neighborhood associ ation, Lincoln Estates, was featured in Southern Living magazine for its successf ul beautification programs in April 2007 (Tinker, 2007f). Another success of EGDAP was the Duval Neighborhood Association. As part of its Neighborhood Action Plan, Duval became a part of the State of Florida s Front Porch Florida program which began in 1999. In 2005, the Nort heast Gainesville/Duva l Area Front Porch Initiative partnered with the city and the Black on Black Cr ime Force (a local crime watch group) to construct a building for Reichart House, an Eastside youth progr am that houses at-risk children and teens to steer them away from crim e and towards education (Florida Department of Corrections, 2008). Other solutions included a public relations campaign that the Sun Always Rises in East Gainesville, methods to attract businesses, and provision of vocational education to residents. The innovative and community -led action items outlined in EGDAP required continued participation and decision-mak ing control from Eastside residents. Execution of the plan was assigned to the EGDTF, later EGDC, to focus the activities of all different organizations whic h have [the] ability to make improvements in Eastsideworking together in public/private partnerships through the creation of new alliances allows sharing of responsibilities and pooli ng of scarce resources (City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997, 3.01). Attention to pub lic involvement and collaboration sparked a resurgence of government interest in Eastsides redevelopment. 2 Interview with Scherwin Henry, participant in EGDAP, charter member of EGDC, and present County Commissioner for District 1 (East Gainesville) on January 24th 2008.
77 Practical Improvements: 2001 CRA East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan (EGRP) As a result o f the EGDAP, the City of Gain esville began the proce ss of creating an East Gainesville Community Redevel opment District that would be managed by the citys Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). CR As are funded through tax-increment financing (TIF) in order to refortify the CRA districts ta x base through capital improvement projects and private sector investment (G ainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001, p. 35). The Gainesville CRA used the EGDAP boundaries to identi fy a section within the Eastside area that exhibited the largest amount of blight. The section found to have the most significant concentration of blight was located in southeast Gainesville. Tabl e 4-2 displays an overview of the citys East Gainesville Redevelopment Pla n. The EGRP used findings from a 2000 needs study and area social conditions based on 1990 census data to establish recommendations for Eastside project priori ties. The findings suggested that out of the 720 acres comprising 1,600 households (about 4,000 people) included in th e CRA district, 30 pa rcels had petroleum contamination, 30 percent of the homes were in poor condition, 33 percent of lots were vacant and used as dumps, and 40 structures were candidates for demolition (Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001, p.6; Figure 4-3 i llustrates Eastside CRA area boundaries). Despite the existing poor physical conditions, th e high levels of community interest, support from leaders and officials, as well as de velopment opportunities illustrated Eastsides development potential. The CRA plan prioritized its projects by focusing on infrastructure and street improvements first, increasing housing quality second, and providing parks and commercial services third. Records indicat e that members of EGDC did attend public meetings for the design of the CRA plan, but evidence of any additional involvement is unclear (Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001, p. 53). The CRA district presently hosts an Eastside
78 Advisory Board consisting of neighborhood reside nts who participate in project development and implementation. The Eastside CRA district quickly began to be a center for change in the community. East Gainesville CRA Projects: Culti vating Unity and Cultural Identity Projects within the Eastside CRA district also attem pted to reclaim historical sites that had been abandoned to unify the communitys sense of place and provide necessary services. A major project being funded by the CRA is the re novation of the Cotton Club, a historically black music hall and theater that hosted B.B. King and James Brown (Figure 4-4). The Cotton Club is located near the western boundary of the Eastside CRA, but represents a la ndmark that reflects the communitys Black identity. The CRA au gmented the $350,000 provided by the Historic Preservation Board and invited University of Fl orida architecture stude nts to develop a design for the building (Tinker 2005; 2006d). While th e cost of the renovation will total $1.8 to 2 million, the project is expected to be completed as a cultural destination by 2010 (Tinker 2007e). The CRA projects are aimed at unifying the co mmunity through the construction of gateways into the neighborhood that welcome vi sitors and residents. One gateway is located at the corner of East University Avenue and Hawthorne Road that will feature concentric steps with planted trees (Adelson 2007f; Figure 4-5). The CRA plans to continue gateway projects to create a welcoming atmosphere as well as building beautif ication grants to fix facades in disrepair (Tinker, 2007a). The combined formation of the EGDC and Eastside CRA district opened the door for a major master plan for East Gainesville. A Regional Approach: 2003 Plan East Gainesville (PEG) Six years after the EGDAP, a coalition of gove rnm ent and resident groups took a year to develop a master plan for East sides future development. Th e plan addressed both city and county owned lands considered to be within the re gion of Eastside (Figure 4-6). Since the plan
79 covered a regional (city and count y area), both the City of Gain esville and Alachua County chose to use the Metropolitan Transportation Planni ng Organization (MTPO), housed in the North Central Florida Regional Planni ng Council (NCFRPC), as the agen cy to conduct the study due to its responsibility for coordinating Gainesvill e-Alachua County transportation development.3 As such, the geographic boundary of the PEG area incl udes some portions west of Main Street as part of the transportation plan for Eastside. The boundary was extended to the west to allow for increased traffic interconnectivity between the east and west sides of Gainesville-Alachua County region. Table 4-3 provides a list of the pr imary actors, problems, and solutions proposed by Plan East Gainesville. Figure 4-7 provides an illustration of the PEG vision. According to Scott Koons, the acting Executive Director of the NCFRPC, who was involved with the development of PEG plan, the study was a positive experience and included no interjurisdictional disputes between Gainesville and Alachua C ounty (Koons, 2008). After garnering resident input from design charettes, planners developed a mission statement that included what residents desired from city and county governments: [residents ask government to make] a commitm ent to East Gainesville, and do so in a way that provides a catalyst to propel it in a direction towards sustained revitalization with expanded options for commerce, housi ng, transportation, and preserves its unique natural character (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. ii). The PEG provided a technical plan that incorpor ated environmental conditions into future land use, conservation, transportation, and implementation programs. Similar to previous plans, PEG identified major problems in the Eastside area as negative perceptions, lack of investment, and deteriorating infrastructure (roads, utilities, sidewalks, homes). Crime was considered a major cause of the negative perceptions of Eastside since the area accounted for % of reported crime in the city, but only 20% of the population 3 The MTPO hired a consultant, Renaissance Planning, to do the actual study.
80 (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 7). Yet, Plan East Gainesville referenced the testimony of Sergeant Ash of the Gainesville Police Departme nt in the 1997 EGDAP Plan when he argued that only a marginal difference existed between crim e rates in the east and we st sides of the city. PEG participants argued the good news is that th e problem of perception may be larger than the actual crime problem (Renaissan ce Planning et al ., 2003, p. 8). Economic development continued to be a majo r concern for residents who wanted higher paying jobs within the Eastside area, since data s uggested that workers reaching their peak earning years tended to leave Eastside for better housing in other parts of the city (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 4). Impr oving transportation was a major concern of PEG planners considering the involvement of the Metropolitan Transporta tion Planning Organization. Business corridors located at Waldo Road and Hawthorne Road were proposed as strategic investments that could combin e neighborhood development with infrastructure improvements (Figure 4-7). Among the technical plans propose d, PEG strove to solve a major conflict of interest between conservation and development. Development vs. Conservation in Eastside Previous East Gainesville plans addressed ar eas within the citys boundaries that were already developed. Plan East Gainesville adopted a regional approach that encom passed surrounding county lands into the Ea stside master plan. As a re sult, officials, planners and participants were forced to c onfront the greater Eastside area s sensitive and strategic wildlife areas and conservation parks. The PEG geographi c definition of east Gainesville illustrates the communitys development limitations as bot h the east and south boundaries are wildlife conservation areas (Table 4-3 and Figure 4-6). The struggle to balance development and conservation is outlined in the Executive Summ ary of PEG (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003):
81 The challenge in the Plan East Gainesville proc ess is to create a fr amework that balances potentially competing desires for expanded ec onomic, commercial and residential growth with a preference of many in the area for preservation of the na tural environment and maintenance of the peaceful qualities th at make East Gainesville unique (p. i). The proposed greenways outlined in PEG offered a means to preserve natural resources while also allowing compact, mixed-use development (Figure 4-7). While proposed development projects were similar to previous plans in te rms of housing rehabilitation and infrastructure maintenance, PEG also outlined a Special Area Plan that designated key focus areas for development. Hawthorne Road, Waldo Roa d, and the existing Alachua County Fairgrounds were identified as strategic investment sites. For example, a proposed use for the fairgrounds included an employment center and the main offi ces for Gainesville Regional Utilities, which would be relocated from downtown. The fair grounds location near Gainesville Regional Airport was argued to be a suitable site for business development (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 101; Figure 4-4). As the city and county m oved forward with the Special Area Plan, the supposed balance outlined in PEG between conservation and development became contested. Current Dilemmas of PEG: Wal-Mart, Ha tchett Creek, an d Activity Centers Since PEGs adoption in February 2003, the plan has become the primary focus of government development efforts in East Gainesville, particularly within Alachua County. In 2005, news articles contended the plan was s till going strong according to politicians, developers, and neighborhood advoc ates (Adelson, 2005a). PEG wa s integrated into both the city and countys comprehensive plans, but PEG architect and County Commissioner Rodney Long noted that government-university-community partnerships were still being formed: Were getting there. I think communication is the most impor tant thing. We need to all get on the same page with a vision. Plan East Gainesville could be the genesis for that vision. We need to start implementing it. Th e pieces are there, but everybodys got to see the same vision (Tinker, 2006a).
82 Implementation of PEG has gone forward to in clude controversial de velopment decisions including the approval of a privat e-sector initiated Wal-Mart Supe rcenter, tabling of a privatesector initiated high-end reside ntial development and progress towards a dense development plan for a previously low-density residential area proposed by the County Commission. Wal-Mart: A catalyst for community empowerment-driven growth? In October 2 005, Wal-Mart announced a 204,000 squa re foot supercenter would be built at the corner of Waldo Road and NE 12th Avenue. Currently, this site is part of both the PEG and Eastside CRA boundary areas (Fi gure 4-4). The proposal was viewed by city and county government as a watershed event and first step toward Eastside growth (Adelson, 2005b). One year later, Commissioner Long would state the siting of Wal-Mart in February 2007 as the biggest success of PEG thus far (Adelson 2007a; Tinker 2006b). Amidst the economic benefits argued by government officials, residents and planners continue to question the catalyst-effect that Wal-Mart will produce once it opens in May 2008. Citizens attending a November 2005 public meeting at Bartley Temple United Methodist Church presented concerns regarding crime, light ing and noise that coul d be associated with Wal-Mart. In response, Commissioner Long stated: We need to address East Gainesville developm ent. We need to make sure we develop housing for ownership, not renting. You knew Ce dar Grove II [a residential development] commercial property was coming and we need to get beyond the point of, We dont want it [Wal-Mart] (Southern, 2005).4 4 Cedar Grove II is a housing development in the Duval Neighborhood Association area that includes 131 affordable housing units (with front porches and recessed garages) to provide affordable housi ng and a sense of place to Eastside. The project received Comm unity Development Block Grant, a Sp ecial Purpose Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and ot her grants for its completion (City of Gainesville Community Development Department Block Grant Division, September 1998, p. 1). The Wal-Mart supercenter is located near the Cedar Grove II development with the intent to provide employment and commercial and retail services to the neighborhood.
83 Resident apprehensions echo the argument of some urban planners who suggest the economic stimulus opportunities of big box retail (i.e., Wa l-Mart) are overestimated. In a proposal for a comprehensive amendment to Alachua Countys comprehensive plan, Gene Boles, a planning consultant argued: This analysis [of the effects of big box retail] recognizes that chain retail and large scale retail has a place in Alachua C ounty, but that the increasing do minance of chain retail and the emergence of the superstore model in particular present challenges to Alachua County both in terms of community character and fis cal integrity. While large scale retail may offer low prices and a variety of cons umer choice, the accompanying effects on the local economy, the fiscal health of local governments, affordable housing, poverty levels, and travel patterns may create impacts that cannot be effectively addressed under existing planning, regulatory and fiscal policy (Boles, 2005, p. 32) In addition, Wal-Mart announced, in October 2007, its intent to build a second supercenter in the northwest section of Gaines ville which could displace possibl e investment in the Eastside community (Adelson, 2007d). Actions of the Bo ard of Commissioners since the Wal-Mart proposal suggest that allegiance remains with the residents rath er than big business. In November 2006, the County Board of Commissioners rejected a contract from a private developer to buy Candlelight Mobi le Home Park (located across from the Eastside Wal-Mart Supercenter site) with the intent to develop a commercial strip-mall. The commissions rejection was based on resident testimony that the mobile home park provided affordable housing that was desperately needed in the area. Meanwhile, th e controversy over Eastside development led to another debate over the balance of conservation and development. Hatchet Creek: conservatio n-development imbalance In 2007, after the W al-Mart siting had b een accomplished, the Gainesville City Commission faced another Eastside developm ent controversy. A developer proposed constructing high quality, senior housing within an existing golf-c ourse residential development (called Ironwood) in East Gainesville. Review of the site development plan indicated a large
84 portion of the construction would occur in a cr itical wildlife area lo cated adjacent to the Gainesville Regional Airport (Figure 4-4). Th e project required bot h a land use and zoning change from the city. In an effort to gain community support, the developer hired influential Eastside community leaders to promote the Hatc het Creek proposed development as saving East Gainesville by being integral to the areas redevelopment. Bo th the developer and community leaders hosted social events for the community to gain resident support. The campaign worked and caused Eastside residents to view Hatchet Creek as a landmark development critical to the success of the community. In public hearings, city pla nners and commissioners questio ned the proposal due to the developers lack of engineering plans, issues related to mitigation for critical wildlife area development, and the conflict the proposed development had with the future plans for the Gainesville Regional Airport. Ea stside residents interpreted the citys response to the proposed development as hedging in an effort to negate high quality development in their neighborhood based on the areas minority-majority demographics At one point, Mayor Hanrahan asked all citizens who provided testimonies at hearings to state if they we re being paid by the developer before speakingcausing many community leaders to desist in their promotion of the development.5 Discussions became so heated that government actors were immersed in the minutia of the proposal in order to serve th e interests of conserva tionists (against the development), the airport (aga inst the development), and Ea stside residents (for the development). 5 The previous information was provided by City Planning Board member, Robert Cohen, in a public meeting on mediation in planning. Cohen described the stakeholders and conflict that arose in the Hatchet Creek proposal. After the planning board made its decision, Cohen met with District 1 (Eastside) City Commissioner Scherwin Henry and together they separated the positions and need s of each stakeholder (devel oper, Eastside, Gainesville Regional Airport, and conservationists) and found that the problem most likely could have been mediated to come to a consensus for development, of some sort, on the site.
85 Months of presentations from city planners and the developer resulted in the commission approving the site plan provided the developer met 36 conditions a ssociated with preparing the site for construction and the actu al construction process. The c ity approved the development of 300 residentially-zoned acres to include 1,199 homes, an assist ed living facility, and up to 200,000 square feet of commercial and office space (Adelson, 2007c).6 In response, the developer warned that the project could be scrapp ed due to the amount of money it would cost to address the citys conditions. Ea stside residents were upset that a project promising to bring higher quality housing would not move forwar d. City Commissioner Jack Donovan commented on resident qualms stating Plan East Gainesville sa ys specifically that no one project will turn East Gainesville into a pros perous place (Adelson, 2007c). The controversy of the Hatchet Creek propos al, however, did not go unnoticed by Alachua County officials as representing a barrier to the successful implementation of PEG. Commissioner Long referred to the debate between conservationists and developers that resulted in the 36 conditions that halted development in Hatchet Creek at a public meeting on the balance of greenways and mixed land use designations in Eastside on Ja nuary 24, 2008 stating: We have a conflict between competing interest s in the strategic ecosystem [in Eastside] and of Plan East Gainesville. We dont want to get stuck without development because of the conflict. We need to fix policy wi th people to see how we can accommodate development and conservation (Alac hua County Commission Meeting, 2008). The balance of conservation and development re mains an issue in all Eastside development proposals, particularly when in cluding portions of the county. 6 In an interview in January 2008 a leader of an East side community group stated that insiders on the City Commission were skeptical of the development and the developer was suspected of never intending to follow through on the development. Specifically, they believed that he proposed to change the land use and zoning for the parcels in order to sell the land at a higher price and never intended to actually follow through on the development.
86 Eastside activity center: PEG follows through The adopted 2003 Plan East Gainesville document recommends creating activity centers throughout Eastside that combine employment, retail and commerc ial services, and recreation. One site suggested for an activity center was a 312-acre area at the inte rsection of Hawthorne Road and SE 43rd Street (Gainesville Planning Departme nt, 2008, p. 1; Figure 4-4). An update to the Eastside Activity Master Land Use Plan (a part of PEG) was presented at a January 2008 County Commission meeting. The proposed land uses included high density employment, residential, mixed-use, and open spaces surrounding Eastside High School. County Commissioners, particularly Comm issioner Long, stressed that th e plan should be consistent with PEG as well as conform to City of Gaines ville land use designations so that When the land is annexed into the city and may become a pa rt of the CRA [distric t], it is in compliance (Alachua County Commission Meeting, 2008). The commissions focus on promoting density in this area was protested by some residents. For example, Jim Stringfellow, a l ongtime resident, argued that the area has always been residential as it should be around a high school and beseeched the commission to think about the history [of the neighborhood]. The propert y is not ready for what were [the county] is putting down [proposing] today (Stringfellow at Alachua County Comm ission Meeting, 2008). At the conclusion of the meeting the commi ssion passed an employment-based mixed-use version of the master plan that would provide more flexibility for future development (Alachua County Commission Meeting, 2008). The county gove rnments position to promote more dense development while preserving stri ps of greenway create a source of conflict between residents who were not ready for development and officials focused on increasing investment in the area. Similar to PEG, a market-based CRA plan also attempts to provide economic development as well as promote a better quality of life.
87 A Targeted Approach: 2007 Southeast Gain esville Renaissance Initiative (SEGR I) Under the leadership of a new director as of September 2006, the Gainesville CRA commissioned a private planni ng firm to produce a market-driven plan for site-specific redevelopment potential in South east Gainesville. Southeast Gainesville covers roughly 1,000 acres and 3,800 households with low population density that c onsists largely of AfricanAmericans (WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007, p. 9). The neighborhood is described as well positioned between the University of Florida, Gainesville Regional Airport, and downtown Gainesville (Figure 4-5 and 4-8) The boundaries of the SEGRI plan were drawn to focus on the largest concentration of povert y and lack of investment in the existing CRA district. Findings suggest six sites are a ppropriate for development. A drugstore and health stores are proposed for the first site located on Willisto n Road near a Rails-to-Trails greenway. The second site is considered ideal for a mixed-use community with roughly 175 townhome and single family units (WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 20 07). The third parcel comprises the location of the now-demolished government assisted Kennedy Homes, which the City of Gainesville recently purchased for $1.95 million. City offi cials expected that buying the property [will] allow them to turn what has been a symbol of neglect on the east side into the center of its rebirth (Adelson, 2007b). The SEGRI proposes th e site be developed into 100 homeownership units priced at various levels. Sites 4 and 5 are combined in a marketing package for a medical village that would stimulate the Eastside econom y and provide health care. The last proposed site, located on Hawthorne Road, involves the recommended redevelopment of an existing gas station into a retail destination (WilsonMiller, In c et al., 2007, p. 29-33; Fi gure 4-5). Together, the proposed developments mirror the developmen t vision proposed in PE G of higher density mixed-use activity centers.
88 The SEGRI promotes strategic aesthetic improvements to facilitate the areas sense of place. Southeast Hawthorne Road, Southeast Williston Road, and SE 15th Street are each identified as areas for streetscaping projects. Gateways are proposed for the existing four major neighborhoods (Lincoln Heights, Sugarhill, Spri nghill, and Lincoln Estates) to unify the area (WilsonMiller, Inc et al., 2007, p. 41; Figure 4-5). The combined visual and economic stimulus projects in SEGRI drew partly from several community meetings that focused on eliciting the communitys vision for the area. Public participation in the SE GRI Plan included a public meeting, charette and master plan open house. In June 2007, SEGRI was described as a plan focused on how to get investment in the area in two years and garner ed positive responses from residents. Vera McCloud, a resident of Norwood Heights who proclaimed Weve be en seeing changes around us for so long. Now its finally our turn (Adelson, 2007e). The design charette hosted 100 participants as well as a large number at the master plan open house at Lincoln Middle School in the Southeast neighborhood. There, Kali Blount, a community activist, voiced There is a balance between what the residents of the neighborhood want a nd desire and what the developers desire indicating that SEGRI has perhap s reached that balance (Tinker, 2007b). Currently, the CRA is moving forward with the plans to develop the identified six sites. A comparison of the four plans proposed over the past ten years displays area s where residents and community groups may have become confused in their dialogue with govern ment and their visions for Eastside. Evaluation of Ten Years of Eastside Planning and Visioning The planning strategies outlined by reside nts in the EGDAP provi ded the foundation for re-energized governm ent planning in Eastside suggesting that reside nt involvement is the key to engendering revitalization. Each plan, whether proposed by reside nts, a particular government agency, or a coalition, focused on providing eco nomic development coupl ed with residential
89 improvements in order to reframe perceptions of Ea stside. The issues of different perceptions of the area are apparent when th e plans are compared and eval uated. Boundary differences and expectations for the development such as higher density mixed-use development versus conservation of residential and natural spaces cr eate confusion concerning the future vision of Eastside. Disparities between the visions of government agencies also confuse residents and community groups concerning what plans will ac tually be implemented in their neighborhood. The end result caused misunderstanding and te nsion in Eastside resident-government interactions. Broad Comparisons: Geography, Problems and Solutions In order to interact effectively and develop cons ensus, all stakeholders at the table m ust be able to understand basic definitions of place, c oncerns and existing proposed solutions to those concerns. The four plans were compared based on their geographic definition of East Gainesville, identification of ma jor problems and recommendations for action plan items (Table 4-5). Plans that address diffe rent sections of the Eastside area while focusing on similar problems and solutions can cause confusion when residents and community groups come to sit at the table. The definition of East Gainesville is consider ed both consistent and ever changing. Each plan addressing the area provides a basic defin ition of east of Main Street but displays differences in their southern, northern, and eas tern borders (Figure 4-9). The 2001 CRA and 2007 SEGRI plans largely follow the broad definiti on of east of Main Street. However, the City Commission is now surveying neighboring ar eas to be annexed in the Eastside CRA.7 Major differences exist between the EGDAP and PEG plans. The EDGAP focused on the area 7 The CRA expansion requires a survey to be conducted that positively identifies blight within the area. The blight survey is being conducted in 2008 (Lyons, 2008).
90 east of Main Street, but within th e city lines. Since the plan i nvolved a coalition of interested parties including Alachua County government, PEG adopts a regional perspective of East Gainesville that stretches the boundaries of the co mmunity east of Main Street to Newnan Lake, north to the airport, and south to Paynes Prairie. The City Commissioner for District 1, which comprises East Gainesville, who is also a form er chairman of EGDC, states that spatial confusion can occur when discussing Eastsi de plans since some people think of East Gainesville as east of Waldo Road, or east of Main Street, some people are even trying to move the western boundary all the way up to 13th Street to include downt own Gainesville (Henry, 2008a). While there are a variet y of answers to the question Where is East Gainesville? consistent problems have continued to pla gue the community over the past ten years. Existing Eastside weaknesses identified in each plan typically reference the same issues of low-income, deteriorated neighborhoods and in frastructure that lacks economic investment resulting in a stigma attached to the community. Negative perceptions of Eastside are mentioned in every plan except for the 2007 SEGRI plan that focused on the positive aspects of southeast Gainesville for marketing purposes The consistency of this s tigma over ten years of planning, visioning and project implementa tion for Eastside suggests th at planning can only take a community so far. Communication between residents and govern ment must go beyond superficial problems such as negative perceptions of Eastside to identify underlying issues that maintain current perceptions. In fact, some cons ider the issue of perception a scapegoat shifting attention away from structural barriers that im pede revitalization. According to the current CRA Director, Anthony Lyons perception has nothing to do with it [existing problems in Eastside] (Lyons, 2008). Poor street inte rconnectivity and lack of ec onomic investment is also consistently identified as a pr oblem. Commissioner Henry argues that interconnectivity is in the
91 eyes of the beholder Some people [in newer, Westside suburban developments] dont even see their neighbors, I [live in Eastside] and know ev erybody on my street. Social interconnectivity is important (Henry, 2008a). Despite a vague, broa d consensus regarding the major problems in Eastside, primary actors in the areas redevelopment continue to hold distinctive independent assessments on solutions for these problems. Ten years of planning have progressed, and the re sults are just beginning to be realized in the form of a new Wal-Mart, beautification prog rams, resident associations, as well as sitespecific and infill development. For example, private developer Ed Dix has built new homes in the area that rival houses on the we st side of the city (Tinker, 2007g). Simple problems present simple solutions such as producing highe r quality housing, enc ouraging white-collar employment, increasing vocational education oppor tunities, and providing a greater variety of retail and commercial services. Each of the plan s is in general agreement regarding conditions typical of inner city deca y, but propose different tact ics to develop Eastside. Revitalization strategies are be ing employed, yet the goals thes e strategies are trying to realize continue to be inconsistent with resident and government attitudes. Each plans solution to the negative perception of Eastside is di fferent: EGDAPs Public Relations Campaign, CRAs Develop Community Identity solution, PEGs Balanced Plan (between conservation and development) solution, and SEGRIs Capture New Residents Focus demonstrate disparate solutions that may or may not work in tandem wi th one another. Problems that are specific to Eastside, its residents, and thei r interaction with outside visito rs or government agencies produce solutions that lack a unified vision. Evaluation of Eastside Plans 1997-2007: Co mprehensive, Collaborative, Implemented? Community redevelopment plans aim to iden tif y the source of community needs, propose solutions to meet those needs, and provide the framework to implement the proposed solutions.
92 In the case of Eastside, community needs can be divided into three br oad categories: existing social conditions (including demographics neighborhood quality, and infrastructure), transportation (multi-modal, interconnectiv ity), and economic development (retail and commercial services, employment). A plan is co nsidered comprehensive if it addresses each of these issues in detail. Redevelopment plans should be participator y and collaborative in identifying problems and solutions. Implementa tion of the plan should include residents to promote community empowerment and achievable goa ls. Each plan was evaluated based on the three categories (comprehensive, collaborativ e, and implementation) described above to determine the plans overall efficacy (Table 4-6). Comprehensive planning is integral to the su ccess of a plan. All factors related to a proposal should be considered before a final actio n item is decided. In general, each of the four plans attempted to be comprehensive by at leas t addressing the three ma jor planning issues in Eastside. PEG provides the most complete compre hensive plan due to its incorporation of landuse, conservation, transportation, and economic development foci. EDGAP provides a strong comprehensive perspective as the plans fram ers intended to exhaust the problems residents acknowledged within the commun ity. The CRAs 2001 redevelopment plan provides a broad overview of existing social conditions and transportation, but centers primarily on economic development. SEGRI follows suit addressing eco nomic development as the plans sole objective and providing social and transpor tation data for contex t analysis. Naturally, PEG, produced by a coalition of planning department s provides the most complete comprehensive plan, but it should be noted that the EDGAP identified sim ilar community needs and solutions. Public participation and collabo ration in community redevelopment is integral to a plans success. A community must buy-in to a plan of action in order for the proposed plan to ever
93 be implemented. As a community-led venture, EDGAP produced a document that gathered and analyzed resident concerns and proposed solutions. Due to its intent to establish an Eastside CRA district, the CRAs 2001 redevelopment plan does not include much public participation, but rather relied on EDGAP for resident input. In 2003, PEG invited public participation in the form of a three-day charette but primarily collaborated between pl anning departments and agencies. Finally, the CRA, along with WilsonMiller, Inc. (the private firm hired to complete the SEGRI market-driven study), held multiple pub lic meetings and consulted the Eastside Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board throughout the plans process to assure community needs were being met and understood. While e ach plan involved some form of public participation and collaboration, success varied when implementing the plans. Successful long-term implementation of each pl an relied largely on the availability of resources needed to carry out the plans action items. The EDGAP resulted in the formation of EGDC, which will be discussed further in Chapte r 5. After EGDC broke away from the city government, funding was not as readily availabl e and hindered the organizations ability to communicate closely with the government fo r resources. Also, the non-profit group found gathering enough resources to fulfill the vast number of action items outlined in the plan difficult. While action items are currently being addressed ten years later, the plan is no longer the document EGDC references to guide what projects it chooses to implement. The CRAs 2001 Redevelopment Plan provided easily attainable goals to start an Eastside CRA district based on citizen and city approval. PEG was adopted as the local governments vision for Eastside and is continuing to be implemented in relation to Wal-Mart and other projects. Some residents remain skeptical arguing Ive watche d Eastside since Plan East Gainesville was adopted and havent seen much change. They [local government] can stick with Plan East
94 Gainesville, but if there is no momentum to impl ement it and there is too much bureaucracy, its time to change (Jones, 2008). Moreover, overarching responsibility regarding the implementation of PEG is unclear. There is no confirmed contact at the City, County or NCFRPC Planning Departments to assist Eastside residents if they ha ve a question regarding PEG.8 SEGRI is still a new plan, but is moving fo rward with site-specific development. Each plan provides a strong argument for redevelopment in East Gainesville, but none seem to have provided a unified buy-in of both residents, community groups and government officials needed to promote sustainable investment (resi dent and economic) and empowerment. Having an understanding of the opportunity (g overnment) structure in Eastside through a review of adopted plans, the agency of Eastside community groups will be addressed in the following chapter. An analysis of communication betw een each stakeholder group, cen tering on the experience of EGDC, highlights appropriat e methods to unite Eastsides revitalization. 8 The information was confirmed after th e researcher contacted the City of Gainesville Planning Department asking who an Eastside resident should contact if they had questions or concerns with PEG. The City referred the researcher to the CRA who then referred the researcher back to the City Planning Department. After contacting the City Planning Department a second time, the researcher wa s referred to the North Centra l Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) where the Metropo litan Transportation Planning Organization is housed. The NCFPRC stated they were not the appropriate contact either. Thus, the overall responsibility regarding communication between residents and government actors regarding PEG is not defined. The effects of this lack of clear communication could be the primary reason for the negative attitudes held by some residents towards PEG and its implementation.
95 Table 4-1. The 1997 East Gainesville De velopment Task Force Action Plan Primary Actors City of Gainesville Economic Development Department Eastside Residents Goal of the Plan Spark New Growth, Intere st and Investment in East Gainesville East Gainesville Boundaries East of Main Street a nd within City Lines Methods Subject Area Committee Brainstorming Demographic Information Areas of Concern Business Expansion Education and Employment Neighborhood Improvement Marketing and Public Relations Government Services Tourism Development Identified Existing Problems Lack of Business Development Poor Code Enforcement Ineffective Interaction with City Government Lack of Road Interconnectivity Rundown State of Neighborhood (Abandoned Buildings/Trash) Negative Perception of Eastside as Unsafe, Less Desirable Area Proposed Solutions Ensure Business Viability Increase Skill Level of Workforce Stabilize and Enhance Existing Neighborhoods Improve Eastsides Image and Public Perception Improve Government Services to Eastside Enhance Existing Tourist Destinations and Attract New Facilities Outcome Formation of East Gainesville Development Task Force to Execute Action Plan (City of Gainesville Economic De velopment Department et al., 1997).
96 Table 4-2. The 2001 East Gainesvi lle Redevelopment Plan (EGRP) Criteria EGRP Primary Actors City of Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency Eastside Residents (Included in Design Charettes) Goal of the Plan Present a Coalesced Set of Strategies to Improve the East Gainesville Area and Adjacent Lands East Gainesville Boundaries East Gainesville Redevelopment District East of Main Street Methods Review of Previous Plans Examination of 1990 Census Data Needs Study, December 2000 Areas of Concern Overall Assets and Constraints Physical Condition Transportation Utility Infrastructure Identified Existing Problems Lack of Investment Deteriorating Physical Conditi ons of Buildings and Lots Lack of Interconnectivity Proposed Solutions Increase Inventory of Non-Residential Land Use Encourage Evolution of Em ployment Opportunities Increase Housing Quality Replace Aging Utility and Infrastructure Facilities Eliminate Street Grid Gaps and Improve Streets Improve Community Identity Outcome Established the East Gainesville CRA District (Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001).
97 Table 4-3. The 2003 Plan East Gainesville (PEG) Criteria PEG Primary Actors Coalition of: Alachua County City of Gainesville Florida Department of Transportation Gainesville Regional Utilities Gainesville Urbanized Area Metro politan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO) Eastside Residents (3-Day Charette Open to Residents and Interviews with Neighborhood Association Leaders) Goal of the Plan Creating a Framework to Balances Potentially Competing Desires for Expanded Economic, Commercial and Resi dential Growth and Preservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas East Gainesville Boundaries North Boundary: Airport East Boundary: Newnans Lake South Boundary: Paynes Prairie West Boundary: Downtown Gainesville Methods Census Data (1990 and 2000) MTPO Employment Projections Previous Plans Annual Crime Reports Interviews with Officials (Police force) Land Use Data Inventory of Neighborhood Associations Evaluation of Major Traffic Corri dors, Public Transportation, and Alternative Modes of Transportation Facilities Areas of Concern Transportation Special Area Plan Land Conservation Identified Existing Problems Negative Perceptions (High Crime, Poor Schools, Poverty, Unclean) Lack of Investment Lack of Higher Quality Housing Lack of Multimodal Interconnectivity Conflict Between Development and Environmental Conservation Proposed Solutions Encourage Development of Compac t, Walkable Mixed-Use Centers Propose Special Area Plan to Implement Plan Vision Protect Natural Res ources via Greenways Develop Road Interconnectivity and Multimodal Trails Outcomes Current Government Focus for Planning in East Gainesville Adopted into City of Gainesville an d Alachua County Comprehensive Plans Eastside Activity Center Master Plan as Part of PEG Updated in Early 2008 (Renaissance Planning et al., 2003).
98 Table 4-4. The 2007 Southeast Gainesvi lle Renaissance Initiative (SEGRI) Criteria SEGRI Primary Actors City of Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Southeast Gainesville Residents (Shopper Survey and Charettes) Goal of the Plan Provide a Real-Estate a nd Market-Economics Driven Plan, Focused on Site-Specific Redevelopment Potential in SEGRI Area. East Gainesville Boundaries Focus of Plan is Southeast Gainesville Largely in Eastside CRA and Expansion Areas Methods Market Analysis Site/Property Analysis Demographic Analysis SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesse s, Opportunities, and Threats) Area Parcel Data Primary Data Analysis Areas of Concern Focus Site Selection Provision of Higher Paying Jobs Provision of Retail and Services Development of Higher Quality Housing and Mixed-Use Development Identified Existing Problems Large Population on Public Assistance Programs Lack of Offices Lack of Private Investment Failure to Capture New Residents Proposed Solutions Development or Redevelopment of 6 Sites into: Convenience/Drug Store and Shop development Mixed-Use Community Mixed-Income Community Medical Office and Research Lab Existing Gas Station to Community-Scale Retail Outcomes CRA Currently A llocating Funds for Site Development Projects Special Area Plan for SEGRI Currently Moving Forward (WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007).
99 Table 4-5. The General Comparison of East Gainesville Plans 1997-2007 Definition of Eastside Major Problems Problems Identified Recommendations East Gainesville Development Action Plan (EGDAP) Enterprise Zone: North Main Street Airport/Waldo Road Downtown/Central City Negative Perception Dilapidated Neighborhoods Lack of Investment Infrastructure Maintenance PR Campaign; Formation of Neighborhood Associations; Encourage Business Development; Work with Government to Provide Better Services East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan (EGRP) Area of CRA District: East of Gainesvilles Downtown District Negative Perception Dilapidated Neighborhoods Lack of Investment Lack of Interconnectivity Improve Community Identity; Improve Housing Quality; Develop Business Opportunities; Improve Transportation Plan East Gainesville (PEG) North Boundary: Airport East Boundary: Newnans Lake South Boundary: Paynes Prairie West Boundary: Downtown Gainesville Development/Conservation Conflict Negative Perceptions Lack of Investment Lack of Interconnectivity Create a balanced plan (Greenways); Develop Mixed-Use Walkable Centers; Implement Special Area Plan to attract Investment; Fill in Grid Gaps and Multimodal paths Southeast Gainesville Renaissance Initiative (SEGRI) Southeast Gainesville: Largely in Eastside CRA and Expansion Areas Lack of Private Investment Failure to Capture New Residents Market site-specific development opportunities; Provide higher paying jobs locally to retain and capture new residents (City of Gainesville Economic Development De partment et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Planni ng et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007).
100Table 4-6. The Evaluation of Eastside Plans from 1997 to 2007 Existing Social Conditions TransportationEconomic Development Public Participation Communication & Collaboration Implementation East Gainesville Development Action Plan (EGDAP) Very Good Addressed Current Concerns of Residents Good Addressed Traffic as an Issue Very Good Focus of Plan to Encourage Investment Excellent Turned into a CitizenGovernment Joint plan Excellent Encouraged Communication within Community and with Government Good at Beginning Catalyzed Eastside Regeneration Too Many Action Items to Implement East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan (EGRP) Good Identified Issues and Needs Good Identified Issues and Needs Very Good Developed Action Plan to Encourage Investment Good Plan Reaction to Residents Desires Adequate Needs Assessment Drawn from Census Data Good Served as Basis for CRA Projects in Eastside Plan East Gainesville (PEG) Excellent Provided East Gainesville Profile as Context Very Good Involvement of MTPO Very Good Special Area Plan Identified Areas for Development Very Good Included Residents in Interviews and Charettes Very Good Collaboration of Various Government Entities and Social Groups Good Focus of Current Eastside Development Attempt to Balance Growth and Conservation Still a Barrier Southeast Gainesville Renaissance Initiative (SEGRI) Adequate Broad Overview as Social Aspect Not Focus of Plan Adequate Provides Opportunities for Multimodal Improvements Excellent Identifies SiteSpecific Areas for Economic Stimulus Very Good Included Residents in Interviews and Charettes Good Worked with CRA and Community Received Approval from City Government. Good Currently in Process of Implementation (City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Planning et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al, 2007).
101 Figure 4-1. The EGDAP Boundary Area (Based on City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997).
102 Figure 4-2. Existing Gainesville Neighborhood Asso ciations and Groups (Reprinted with pe rmission from City of Gainesville, 2008 ).
103 Figure 4-3. Eastside CRA Boundary Area (Based on Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001).
104 Figure 4-4. Plan Boundary Overla y with Critical Landmarks (B ased on City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Pl anning et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al, 2007).
105 Figure 4-5. The SEGRI Master Plan (Bas ed on WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007.)
106 Figure 4-6. Plan East Gainesville Boundary Area (Based on Renaissan ce Planning et al., 2003).
107 Figure 4-7. Master Plan Vision for Plan East Gainesville (Reprinted with permission from Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, Appendix A, p.7).
108 Figure 4-8. Southeast Gainesville Renaissance In itiative Boundary Area (Based on WilsonMiller, Inc. et al., 2007).
109 Figure 4-9. Eastside Plan Boundary Overlay Ma ster Map (Based on City of Gainesville Economic Development Department et al., 1997; Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, 2001; Renaissance Pl anning et al., 2003; WilsonMiller, Inc. et al, 2007)
110 CHAPTER 5 THE EGDC AND COMMUNICATION IN EAS TSIDE REDEVELOPMENT The EGDCs progression from a corporati on assigned the responsibility to fulfill EGDAP action items in 1997 to its present status as an economic development non-profit provides a case study of how communication channels function in Eastside. The cor poration underwent three major phases, adopting different communication stra tegies with varied results. This chapter describes the success rate of co mmunication aimed at building st rategic partnerships throughout the lifespan of EGDC. Data is drawn from interviews with past and present EGDC and government leaders, employing participant obs ervation at EGDC mee tings and public CRA, City, and County Commission meetings and archival newspaper research. The EGDCs Early Years as a Mo biliz ing Non-Profit Corporation The EGDC was formed as a result of a comm unity-led action plan for redevelopment in East GainesvilleEGDAP. The residents who part icipated in EGDAP chose to form EGDC as a non-profit to provide the group greater autonomy rather than be bogged down by regulation as an advisory board to the City Commission (Henry, 2008a). Initial program efforts drew upon the action plans identified needs for Eastside. Scherwin Henry, who became EGDCs first Treasurer stated We stuck to the action plan to build off the synergy of what we initially did [drafting the EGDAP]. Prior to that, there wa s no cohesion [in Eastsi de] and no communication between city and county government and East Ga inesville (Henry, 2008a). Action plan items included establishing neighborhood associations, trash pick-ups, and bringing state programs such as Front Porch Florida to Eastside nei ghborhoods with the inten tion of empowering the people to take ownership of their community (Henry, 2008a). M obilizing residents in order to build social capital and encourag ing resident-ownership of Eastsi de was an integral part of EGDAP and EGDC efforts. While these initi al programs display high success rates, EGDC
111 struggled with maintaining a regular budget and gaining government support. Government funding was fundamental to EGDCs early progr am implementation. At its formation, the corporations request from th e City Commission for $25,000 to s upport staff was approved. Yet, according to Henry it was a struggle to get funding [at the beginning] and we were existing at the mercy of the city and county, but the area needed an advocate (Hen ry, 2008a). Thus, EGDC became a moderator between grassroots and c ity interests early in its existence. Communication strategies employed by E GDC between 1997 and 2000 attempted to mobilize resident groups while also maintaining financial ties to local governments for support. The goal of EGDC to create growth, developmen t and investment that benefits and empowers residents led members to approach Eastside communities directly for the purpose of organizing neighborhoods to create a sense of place. Cr eating a sense of place through clean-ups and neighborhood associations would lay the groundwork for realizi ng EGDAPs action items (Table 4-1). Simultaneously, as a fairly new commun ity group, EGDC did not have established ties with government officials or a long resume of successful projects to gain a substantial amount of support from the City or County Commission. Founding members executed public information campaigns to inform residents of the goals a nd projects outlined in the EGDAP. Developing relationships with government actors was a second ary objective. The results of EGDCs efforts to mobilize and create neighborhood associations led to a prolif eration of Eastside community groups. Eastside Community Group Explosion By i mplementing the EGDAP, EGDC synergized the formation of community groups that executed neighborhood beautification, employment and education, and business development programs. Initial neighborhood a ssociations, located in Lincoln Estates, Duval Heights, and Cedar Grove, gained positive reputations within both government and community circles,
112 mobilizing other neighborhoods to form associ ations (Henry, 2008a). As EGDC began to implement action items, such as neighbor hood clean-ups and founding community groups, excitement about the organization and the EGDAP grew, leading to an explosion of Eastside community improvement groups. The Eastside gr oups listed below are currently active in the area; a few were active prior to EGDAP, but most formed after the action plan was completed. Churches are not included on the list. While c hurches in Eastside are one of the strongest examples of community identity, they have dist anced themselves from issues of development except for providing a meeting space for charet tes and public meetings (Jones, 2008). The promulgation of groups stretched the allocation of government money. EGDCs mediation and collaboration efforts became stressed, causing th e corporation to focus on economic development rather than mobilizing residents. African American Accountability Alliance (4As) ACTION Network Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Mid Florida Black on Black Crime Task Force Blount Center Advisory Board Clinton Portis Foundation College Reach Out Program CRA Eastside Advisory Board* Cotton Club Restoration Project Duval Heights Neighborhood Association* Eagle Eyes Crime Watch* East Gainesville Development Corporation* Fred Cone Center Front Porch Initiative (Duval Heights)* Fifth Avenue Arts Festival Habitat for Humanity Heart of Florida Prosperity Campaign* Kirkwood Neighborhood Association* Lincoln Estates Neighborhood Association* Neighborhood Housing Development Corporation North Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Association* Phoenix Apartments After School Education Center Porters Community Neighborhood Association*
113 Pursue Your Business Passion Entrepreneur Group Reichert House* St. Francis House Santa Fe Community College East Gainesville Initiative Springhill Neighborhood Association* Sugarhill Neighborhood Association* UF/East Gainesville Alliance Woodland Park Neighborhood Association (Santa Fe Community College East Gainesville Initiative 2008; Renaissance Planning et al., 2003, p. 11).1 Limited Interaction: Continuing Economic Development w ith Outside Leadership Between 2001 and 2007 EGDC stepped away fr om its empowerment initiatives allowing government plans such as PEG to becoming the guiding vision for Eastside development. The result had a negative effect on th e level of community authority in planning decisions. Balancing program implementation, garnering funds and a dhering to the goals outlined in the EGDAP overwhelmed EGDCs leadership. The original plan to mainta in a member-based organization eventually evolved into a 13-member board th at developed and executed programs. Between 2000 and 2001, EGDC signed a contract with BCN Associates, Inc., a Gainesville consulting company, to act as the corporations administ rative entity. Pat Lee, a BCN employee, was assigned to EGDC to apply for grants to fund programs as well as to conduct administrative duties. Lee and the EGDC Executive Board de veloped economic development programs and social services for East Gainesville residents. However, due to the growth in Eastside community groups, EGDC began to lose its dist inctive identity. During this time, EGDC chose to temporarily assign a portion of its responsibilit ies to a consulting firm. By delegating their administrative decision-making power, EGDC sepa rated itself from its previous residentempowerment leadership identity. Further, the corporation re-defined itself as an economic 1 Organizations with an asterisk (*) next to them ar e groups that were formed as a direct result of EGDC mobilization efforts or indirectly by th e proliferation of resident empowermen t groups that occurred after the initial neighborhood associations were formed in the late 1990s.
114 development, entrepreneur-fostering non-profit group that continued to have an impact within Eastside. Program Focus under BCN W hile contracted with BCN, EGDC executed multiple small programs to benefit individual Eastside residents. Beginning in 2003, EGDC partnere d with the IRS and the Heart of Florida Prosperity Campaign2 to offer free tax preparation assistance for Eastside residents: The program, a coalition of different organi zations spearheaded by the East Gainesville Development Corporation, provides free tax pr eparation to anyone, especially families eligible for Earned Income Tax Credit (Robinson, 2007a). Between 2004 and 2006 EGDC graduated more than 100 people from its micro-entrepreneurship class taught by Pat Lee (Johnson, 2006). The corporations micro-loan focus continued in its partnership with the c itys Chamber of Commerce and local banks in the Access Loan Program, which streamlined the loan process for new and existing small businesses in Eastside. As a result, EGDC and participating banks were awar ded the Chambers of Commerces Volunteer of the Year Award for 2006 (Blomberg, 2006; Tinker, 2006c). In 2006, The Guardian a newspaper that focuses on Eastside news and events argued in its article Its Been a Year for Change: The non-profit East Gainesville Development Co rporation continues to be a major player in helping promote growth, development, among other things in the area, and frequently partners with public and private concerns to offer programs that benefit residents (Chandler, 2006). Specially targeted programs aimed at business development continued to separate EGDC from its role as a resident-mobilizing force in Eastside, but the corpor ation continued to maintain a collaborative communication strategy. 2 This program was renamed the Dollars and Sense Camp aign in 2008 and received a large donation from the Wachovia Foundation.
115 Communication strategies used during EGDCs association with BCN resulted in ties with banking institutions, government, and other large institutions that could become financial allies. Having struggled through its first few years, BCN and E GDC desired a consistent budget from which to fund innovative economic developm ent programs. Collaboration with City and County Commissions became a focal point of E GDCs communication strategy. In 2006, former EGDC director, Scherwin Henry was elected to the City Commission for District 1 (Eastside), putting a strong ally into offi ce. Pat Lee also met with commission members and Mayor Hanrahan in order to increase EGDCs presence a nd impact in Eastside. Building partnerships with government leaders and institu tions caused EGDC to lose its gr assroots identity in the eyes of Eastside residents. Lost Amongst the Crowd: Eastside Group Confusion The significant increase in various comm unity groups th roughout Eastside after 1997 caused residents to become confused regarding what each group did and the number of groups that existed. EGDCs structural change from a member-based resident empowerment organization to an economic development-focused organization caused the corporation to be forgotten amongst the crowd of Eastside non-prof it groups. Consequently, EGDC found that as the number of Eastside non-profit and social interest groups increased, citizens no longer discerned the distinctive goals or projects as sociated with each group, causing a decrease in resident knowledge of non-plac e based (i.e., neighborhood associa tions) Eastside groups. The lack of recognition from Eastside residents negatively impacted EGDCs interactions with government as their efforts became conf used with other Eastside groups. In 2006, EGDC applied for Community Develo pment Block Grants (CDBGs) to fund its entrepreneurial and technical assistance trai ning. A report from the Citizens Advisory Committee for Community Development voted agai nst allocating money to EGDC because the
116 Committee believe[d] that these services are al ready available to the community through Santa Fe Community College [SFCC] and other agencies (City of Gainesville, 2006). When the application appeared before the City Comm ission, EGDC was approved for a $25,000 grant after EGDC members confirmed the Citizen Advisory Committee was confused regarding the focus areas of the various Eastside groups. EGDCs interactions and communication with the City Commission was strong consider ing the presence of Commissi oner Scherwin Henry (founding member of EGDC), but poor among residents. The corporation took another hit when the Alachua County 2007 through 2008 budget cut all fundi ng to EGDC. As new groups continued to form, EGDC found itself at a crossroads to e ither restructure its orga nization or stay on its current path. Renewal of EGDC under a New Leader: Identity as an E conomic Development ResourceProvider In 2007, EGDC separated from BCN Associates, Inc. in order to regain control of the corporations objectives. A new leader, Nona Jo nes, became the chairman of the board, which recommitted to the original mission of EGDC to mobilize and empower residents. Jones had become a member of the EGDC board in 2002 while attending the Univer sity of Florida and defined the new mission of the corporation as m aking East Gainesville a great place to live, work and play with great residential opportunitie s that appreciate in value and sustainable professional jobs (Jones, 2008). Remarking on the EGDAP Jones (2008) states The plan included too many parties and no acc ountability. With the large number of action items, Im not surprised it did not get done. Strategic communication with ot her Eastside non-profits, social groups, and government leaders is noted as having a major role in EGDCs current efforts, particularly in establishing and leveraging partnerships to synergize redevelopment.
117 Communication within EGDC is consistent, clear, and ruled by consensus. Board members have different connections to Eastside ranging from Samuel Jones, who is a reverend at an Eastside Church, to Cain Davi s who is a private developer, c onsultant, and former Gainesville Housing Authority employee, to Charles Chestnut who owns Chestnut Funeral Home and whose relatives have held public office at local and stat e levels. Board meetings adopt an egalitarian tone where members are open to comment on any proposed project at any time. Jones argues My board is EGDCs greatest asset. They really care about the community and have the resources to pick up a plan and put legs on it. Th ey are also not stretched too thin, which can be a problem in Eastside (Jones, 2008).3 Debates regarding projects typically are not resolved until a consensus is reached. For example, a num ber of recipients of the Access loans have neglected to make regular loan payments. At a meeting in December, the board discussed appropriate methods or payment plans to offer r ecipients that would enc ourage them to resume regular payments. The debate took over twenty minutes with different members having very different opinions on what action the corporation should take. So me members believed that the recipients would never pay back the loan so a ny term change would not have any effect, while others argued changing the terms to forgive a certain percentage of interest could help recipients view their debt as manageable. The final decisi on was made by consensus to change the terms of the loan slightly in order for EGDC to hopefully begin collecting payments. EGDC also applies this desire for consensus and partnerships in their relationships with external parties, particularly Eastside neighborhood social groups and government leaders. 3 The problem of having the same people on multiple boards will be discussed below.
118 Projects and Partnerships In an effort to return to the organizations 1997 role to m obilize resident empowerment The EGDC is currently re-establishing its ties at the community level. Table 5-1 shows the changing goals and communication strategies of EGDC since its inception. Different than EGDCs previous economic development projects that only provided resources, such as tax information, business class, or financial loans to residents, all current EGDC projects partner with either one or more Eastside stakeholder groups and incorporate resident-decision making into the plans implementation. Jones social capital partne rship-building campaign includes a subsidized utilities program, creation of an East Gainesville Chamber of Commerce, and development of a senior affordable housing project referred to as the John Curtis Project. Project Empowerment, scheduled to begin in 2008, is a pa rtnership between EGDC and Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU ) to provide grants for utilities to low-income Eastside residents. An advisory board for the program will consist of representatives from the following groups: GRU, EGDC, City Commissioner, Nation wide Insurance, and an East Gainesville resident (EGDC, 2007). The EGDC is also worki ng on creating an East Gainesville Chamber of Commerce that will encourage small busines ses and those who graduated from EGDCs entrepreneurship program. The proposed John Curtis Project is the most ambitious project EGDC is attempting. With this project, EGDC hopes to provide an activity center and mixeduse development for low-income seniors that will involve the partnership of other Eastside groups working together as a coa lition, rather than as separate entities. The following section discusses this project in more detail. The EGDCs annual meeting will kick off the groups renewed agenda by inviting all major government and community groups t ogether to celebrate the 11th anniversary of EGDAP. Jones (2008) explains The annual meeting will be used to market and position EGDC as a credible group to work with. The EGDCs focus on cultivating
119 positive relationships to involve a ll the stakeholders in reviewi ng these projects is of vital importance to the Eastside community. The John Curtis Project and attempts to build an Eastside consortium In February 2008, EGDC began to take step s to create a consortium of Eastside stakeholder groups for the purpose of increasing community ownership of area development. Seven community groups were invited to a meeti ng at the Gainesville Housing Authority offices to participate in the John Curtis Project. The invited stakeholders included the following government and resident interest groups: Ce dar Grove Neighborhood Association, Gainesville Housing Authority, Ebony Awards Appreciation, Focus on Lead ership, Northeast Gainesville/Duval Neighborhood Front Porch Initiative, Black on Bl ack Crime Task Force, and Mt. Carmel Church.4 The initial meeting garnered attendance from the Front Porch Initiative, Gainesville Housing Authority, and Ebony Awards Appreciation. During the presentation, EGDC proposed a $4 million development plan to build a 60to 80-unit apartment complex and activity center, wh ich would serve as bo th a neighborhood center and meeting location on 15 acres located near Mt. Carmel Church. The development would provide affordable housing for elderly reside nts. The project addresses the 1999 Duval Neighborhood Action Plan that outlines the need for an elderly affordable housing development and community center (Duval Neighborhood Reside nts et al., 1999, p. 12). The developer, JOTAR Management Services, Inc. would mana ge the building for two to five years until payment was completed upon which the consortium of Eastside stakeholder groups would take over management. The presentation of the John Curtis Project not only suggested a one-time 4 Ebony Awards Appreciation is a non-profit group focused on Black community empowerment and accomplishments. Focus on Lead ership is an annual leadership development program for leaders of Gainesvilles Black community that brings government and business officials together to discuss how organizations are addressing issues of the Black community. Mt. Carmel church is an East side church that is one of the oldest established churches in the area.
120 partnership opportunity, but a new way for Eastside stakeholders to work collaboratively on development projects. The John Curtis Project represents EGDCs current mission to be a convener of stakeholders and resources to better East Ga inesville and regain c ontrol of the areas development (Jones at EGDC, 2008). Referencing th e current fragmentation of Eastside interest groups, Cain Davis, an EGDC executive board member, noted Being partners offers an opportunity for non-profits [curren tly] out fighting each other in survival mode and not knowing each other to come together in a consortium and develop [meaningful] projects (Davis at EGDC, 2008). Benefits to partnering in the John Curtis Project presented to meeting attendees were Ownership without Financial Expenditure Continuous Revenue Stream (3 to 4 Years after Project Completion) Long-term Positive Influence of Both Faci lities (Apartment Complex and Community Center) and on the Surrounding Community Enhancement of Organizations (who Partner in the Project) Portfolios Facility to Function as a Community Meeting Place and Events Center Model for Future Partnerships Catalyst for Future Development and Opportunity to Have Direct Impact on the Eastside Community Ability for Non-profits and Residents to Dir ectly Determine What Will Be Built in the Eastside Community (EGDC, 2008). The EGDC members present at the meeting em phasized the consortium would first involve sweat equity contributions from partners. Partne rs would be required to engage in at least one program (i.e., home ownership education, life skil ls, and recreation activities) for the apartment complex or neighboring community annually. Governance of the consortium under the John Curtis Project entails drafting an agreement a ll partners must approve, developing a written annual plan, actively attending monthly meetings to strategically plan activity programs to report on executed programs, and annually reviewing fa ilures and successes. The dialogue between
121 potential partners that followed EGDCs presentation indi cated conflicting inte rests needed to be confronted before partne rships could be cemented. The increase in community involvement in Ea stside has changed the methods EGDC uses to form partnerships among stakeholder groups Since 1997, social capit al networks between neighborhood associations, community social groups (such as churches) and government agencies (such as the CRA) have been establishe d that each have their own norms, restrictions and vested interests. For example, the Front Porch Initiative may agree to host a party for the John Curtis Project (located near Duval) in order to gain sup port for CRA projects within the Duval neighborhood. Community group vested inte rests in obtaining the scarce government financial support available for re vitalization for specific neighborhood projects creates barriers to developing a consortium of Eastside stakeholders since each stakeholder has become attached to a personal agenda. At the John Curtis Project pr esentation Cain Davis attempted to illustrate the opportunity for a consortium stating: This is our opportunity to shape East Gaines ville. Developers come to East Gainesville and we [residents/stakeholders] have no part in the processthings go up in our community we have no say in. The East Ga inesville Development Corporation does not need partners, but wants to show what we [a united consortium of stakeholder groups] can do. You have Plan East Gainesville and a m illion other things [plans] out there developed by people who either dont have money or dont want to spend it [money] to do it [implement a plan]. We have the opportunity to actually do somethi ng and set an example (EGDC, 2008). Davis comments gained support from the Ebony Appreciation Awards and Gainesville Housing Authority, but the representative from the Front Porch Initiati ve remained skeptical. The representative argued We have enough low income. It will be OK if its elderly, but not just regular low income housingwe [the Front Porch Initiative] dont want any more of that (EGDC, 2008). Re-integrating stak eholder groups within a unified project, plan or consortium
122 will require a detailed vision process that ad dresses the vested interests and underlying motivations of each stakeholder group. Fragmentation and Empowerment in Eastside Communications The case s tudy of East Gainesville reveal s how the distribution of social capital partnerships between community groups (social group agency) and government institutions (opportunity structure) affects community empowerment. Revitalization efforts in Eastside began ten years ago and have continued thr ough resident and government initiatives. Government plans addressed different areas of Eastside through the use of different boundaries causing project implementation to be inconsistent across the area. Currently, the focus is on the PEG vision. The changing communication strate gies of EGDC indicate community groups continued to build social capit al partnerships within the community and with government institutions over the past ten years (Table 5-1) The disjointed nature and imbalance between community and government-led ini tiatives keep empowerment elusive from Eastside residents. Does Social Capital Exist in the Co mmunity and How is it Distributed? According to the Temkin and Rohes (1998) indicators, Eastside has a large amount of social capital that has become stretched thin among the variety of community groups (Table 5-2 and 5-3). In terms of Eastside community social capital, the level of resi dent interaction is high as residents regularly interact with one another in various co ntexts, ranging from day-to-day neighborhood interaction, church and social group interaction. Social and employment activity of residents is also fairly strong. Many East side residents are involved in multiple groups: neighborhood associations, churches, non-prof it groups, and educational agencies. The employment activity of Eastside continues to suffer from a genera l lack of investment, but the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter combined with the future implementation of the SEGRI plan indicate employment activ ity will soon improve. The areas spatial distinctiveness is
123 relatively strong, but is not defined consistently across Eastside plans. Having poorly defined government-drawn boundaries makes it difficult to identify community stakeholders. The most significant indicator of social cap ital in Eastside is the presen ce of neighborhood organizations. While there is no comprehensive list of active Eastside community groups a rough estimate totals nearly 40 groups in the area. The strength of neighborhood organizations is both a positive and negative characteristic of current Eastside revitalization efforts. While neighborhood organizations promote resident pride and involvement, the pres ence of so many groups spreads social capital resources a nd partnerships thin. The apparent proliferation of in terest groups in East Gainesville that were formed after the establishment of EGDC in 1997 caused a fragment ation of assets and unconnected development projects within the community. The competition for resources is also partly due to the available resources from the government opportunity structur e. Often, there exist limited resources for revitalization of particular communities. With nearly 40 organizations, the finite funds available for East Gainesville result in a large number of groups receiving small amounts of funding hindering their ability to accomplish large scale proj ects. In addition, citizens became confused between the goals of the 4As, Santa Fes East Gainesville Initiative, EGDC, the CRA Eastside Advisory Board, and many others. Conversely, the government opportunity structures social capital is both united and strong. Government officials are visible to residents and make attempts to frequent community events. The st rength of social capital at the government level (opportunity structure) combined with limited res ources and the fragmentation of Eastside social group partnerships hinders Eastside revitalization and empowerment efforts.
124 Are Social Capital Resources and Partnershi p s Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions? In Eastside, there is an imbalance between the agency of social groups and government opportunity structure. Figure 5-1 indicates how E GDCs efforts at bridging social capital move through the Eastside community in the Empowerment Structuration Model. Influences on the agency of Eastside stakeholder groups reveal a high level of fragmentatio n reflecting a conflicted relationship between stakeholder groups. The ne gative relationship between Eastside influencers hinders the ability for Eastside to use its exis ting capital and agency e ffectively. In terms of opportunity structure, the city and county government display a pos itive, functional relationship that allows PEG to continue to dominate revi talization efforts despit e resident criticisms. As stated above, the dominance of dive rse vested interests among the Eastside organizations fragments existing resources. Conversely, influences on the governmental opportunity structure are genera lly unified. Despite inconsis tencies between adopted East Gainesville plans, PEG has been incorporated by government agencies as the vision for East Gainesville. The openness of government instit utions and government implementation capacity has a positive, collaborative (functional) relationship based on the implementation of the PEG plan. The existing opportunity st ructure in Eastside is bound by the agenda attached to PEG, even though negative opinions of the plan are present among residents and stakeholder groups. Therefore, Healeys and Innes inclusionary argumentation and consen sus-building approaches, respectively, are not able to occur since re sident group attitudes are not being adequately represented at the table. How Does the Distribution of Social Capita l Resources a nd Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment in Revitalization Efforts? The combined lull in empowerment initiativ es by Eastside resi dents (and groups) and government adoption of PEG has kept the goal of empowerment from being achieved in East
125 Gainesville. Among Eastside social groups, social capital is disjoint ed causing partnerships to be less productive and resources untapped. The l ack of consensus between Eastside groups concerning a vision for Eastside limits social capital partnershi ps to being small-scale and project-based. Social capital partnerships between groups are not often long-term. The government opportunity structure depends upon the so cial capital partnership between the City of Gainesville and Alachua County that was born out of the adoption of PEG. As a result, interaction between the fragmented Eastside so cial groups and the exis ting opportunity structure results in only small-scale empowerment and so cial action projects. For example, the Cotton Club restoration empowers a relatively small segment of the Eastside population while maintaining the PEGs vision to maintain the char acter of Eastside. The EGDCs social capital partnership campaign must navigate between th e competing interests of current stakeholder groups to harness economic and human capital re sources. Unifying resources from various organizations could cause a change in the agen cy of Eastside reside nts, encouraging broad empowerment and social acti on revitalization efforts. The EGDC as a Vehicle for Existing Social Capital Partnerships The EGDC s history of initiating partnerships with institutions and other groups gives the corporation an advantage in gather ing all the stakeholders together at the table to collaborate. Jones indicated that other community groups have not approached EGDC to partner with them I cannot think of one time when another [Eastside] organization has come to us [EGDC] to partner on a project (Jones, 2008). Jones commented fu rther that she would welcome other Eastside organizations if they were to approach EGDC with the intention to partner on a project, commenting We [Eastside residents and organizati ons] need to build partnerships in order to implement sustainable programs. The EGDC is now attempting to set that example in order for
126 that practice to become the norm (Jones, 2008). When asked about her approach in collaborative projects, Jones stated: You have to approach the righ t people. Some people are terri torial and want to put their names on many small projects rather than one la rge project that could have a longer-lasting effect [on the community]. Sometimes they would rather form a new group and fragment Eastside efforts than attach themselves to so mething somebody else is already doing. I am strategic in who I approach and usually receive a positive reac tion [when I propose a partnership-based program] (Jones, 2008). The EGDCs identity as the first resident -based community group delivering collaborative projects places the group in a pr ime position to re-unify the visi on of and efforts in Eastside. Based on the findings from the Eastside case st udy, a four-fold strategy must be applied to balance community and government initiatives for Eastside Redevelopment in order to achieve empowerment and sustainable so cial capital partnerships. Recommendations for Improved Re vitaliz ation in Eastside The historical contexts of Eastside planning and community group vi sions have created a web of confusion for residents, social and nonprofit groups, and even go vernment officials and agencies. A large number of community groups ha ve splintered and at times compete with one another. Government plans are slowly moving forward with mixed reactions from residents. The master plan for East Gainesvilles future development involves development consistent with PEG for some, preservation of th e current residential character for others, and participatory development projects for another Eastside st akeholder group. For example, when three community leaders (governmental, institutional, and grassroots) were asked to identify East Gainesvilles largest asset and liability, they pr ovided completely different answers. Assets included the residents, area chur ches, and development opportuniti es in the area. Liabilities identified by leaders varied from none at all to area churches, lack of land, presence of environmentally sensitive lands, and the pe rception of Eastside as a dumping ground for
127 institutional uses and buildings (Henry, 2008; Jones, 2008; Lyons 2008). Four critical steps should be taken to assure all stakeholders agr ee on a vision for the future of the community. Step 1: Re-Unify Vision Leaders should re-unify resident, community group and governm ent visions for Eastside by amending the EGDAP plan. A major compone nt of this visioning process should address long-standing Eastside problems. These probl ems include the negative perception of the area and the conservation versus development debate Each of these issues is loaded with preconceived beliefs that stakeholde rs bring to the table. In or der for consensus to be reached, stakeholders must get to the root of these issu es by deconstructing what is causing tension in the development process that creates barriers for revita lization in East Gainesv ille. Stakeholders with differing interests debate the futu re of Eastside rather than id entify projects that address all stakeholders interests. During the visioning process, stakeholders should identify their shared interests from which to construct a plan for Eastside and minimize their differences. There is evidence that leaders, such as Nona Jones are already beginning to do this as she stated It [success] depends on the residents. You have to own your own community. [For example], the question isnt, What do you do with the trash? its Why is the trash there in the first place? (Jones, 2008). Open communication and creating consensus will also bridge social capital networks between the fragmented community groups, residents and government. Addressing elusive issues allows stakeholders to move forward with a clear vi sion that can be translated into an amended plan. Step 2: Incorporate Community Visi on into Government-Adopted Plan The next step after re-unification requires gove rnm ents and planners to re-examine PEG to incorporate the unified vision of Ea stside stakeholders. Citizen i nvolvement is also required in updating the master plan. Collaboration with communities should include more than a few
128 charettes to assure that residents fully buy-in to the updated pla n. Resident buy-in is necessary for successful implementation of any plan. Local government will also need to approach community groups to determine what barriers to projects currently ex ist in the community. Recognizing these barriers and partnering with community groups can lead to streamlined implementation of the final plan. The planni ng update process should increase collaborative communication between stakeholders. Step 3: Revisit Underlying Issues Underlying issues in Eastside revitalization should have first been addressed in Step 1 of the reunification stra tegy. Yet, it is integral to the success of Eastside for underlying issues to be addressed again after the visioni ng process is completed by the co mmunity and incorporated into the city and countys adopted plans. Issues concerning conser vation and developm ent, defining Eastsides boundaries, and pers isting negative perceptions of the area require long-term attention. Intergovernmental committees that involve both government and community stakeholders should be established to assure these vital issues continue to be addressed. As evidenced in the prior two steps, creating re sident-intergovernmental committees will also promote a collaborative and balanced relations hip between community groups and government opportunity structure in order to engender empowerment in revitalization efforts. Step 4: Maintain Communication Channels After re-unification and planni ng updates have occurred, e fforts should be m ade to maintain increased communication with stakeholders. EGDAP sparked Eastside resident involvement and empowerment, which quickly dissi pated when the plan pr oved to be too large for one small group to implement. Preserving pa rtnerships will aid in project development, gaining community approval and achieving community empowerment. Stakeholders will have a vested interest in the outcome of the plan due to their incr eased and prolonged involvement. The
129 EGDCs strategies to develop partnerships need to engage other stakeholders in Eastside in order to achieve a revitalization that more comprehens ively incorporates community interests. The case study of EGDCs communication strategies i ndicates social capital partnerships have a direct influence on community development su ccess, but it is not a universal solution, particularly in organized, but fragmented communities. The case study of East Gainesville combines community development, empowerment, and planning techniques to identify th e effect of social capital pa rtnerships within residentgovernment discourses to revita lize distressed neighborhoods. As in any development effort, multiple stakeholders can exhibit conflicting or vying interests in their vision for their community. Effective revitaliza tion should concentrate on bringing stakeholders to a consensus for development that will result in increased resident decision-making and sustainable empowerment. The EGDCs campaign to convene social capital resources in an Eastside consortium illustrates the organizations initiativ e to make Eastside re sident empowerment a reality. Table 5-1. The EGDC Communica tion Efforts between 1997 and 2008 Communication Strategy Project Focus 19972000 Build Social Capital with Residents to Complete Projects Focused on Resident-Ownership of Area Creation of Neighborhood Associations 20012007 Build Social Capital with Govern ment and Institutions Micro-loans Entrepreneurship Tax Help 2007Present Build Partnerships with all Stakeholders to Synergize Development in Eastside and Create Coalitions Economic Development Affordable Housing Utilities Services Business Development (Author).
130 Table 5-2. Eastside Institutional Infras tructure Social Capital Indicators Institutional Infrastructure Indicators Eastside In stitutional Infrastructures Presence of Neighborhood Organizations Excellent Large numbers of active organizations. Visibility of Government Officials Good Officials are visible, but have their own agendas. (Author; Based on Temkin and Rohe, 1998). Table 5-3. Eastside Sociocultural Milieu Social Capital Indicators Sociocultural Milieu Indicators Eastside Sociocultural Milieu Area Spatial Distinctiveness Good Distinct in a broad sense, but detailed boundaries are debated. Resident Interaction Very Good Residents interact w ithin neighborhoods in community groups. Social and Employment Activity of Residents Good Social activity is high, bu t employment in area is variable. (Author; Based on Temkin and Rohe, 1998).
131 Figure 5-1. Eastside Empowerment Structuration Model (Author).
132 CHAPTER 6 NECESSITY OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACH IN REVITALIZATI ON OF DISTRESSE D COMMUNITIES Community development involves a delicate ba lance between government institutions and community-based organizations. This thesis e xplores how multi-sector partnerships influence the dialogue between CBOs and government stakehol ders. Strategic part nerships can engender mutually beneficial relationships that empower community resident s in the development process. The case study of EGDC in East Gainesville reveals the barriers and catalysts to encouraging revitalization efforts that i nvolve community visioning and decision-making in distressed neighborhoods. Harnessing social capital provides a mechanism for coalition-building processes, but must be accompanied by an effo rt to (re)construct and maintain a community vision. The Reality of Empowerment: EGDC Conclusions East Gainesvilles revitaliza tion efforts began with an i nnovative planning process that em powered residents in the decision-making process, but quickly transformed into a government-led strategy with public participation as only an element of the process. The City and the EGDAP Task Forces decision to assign E GDC the sole responsib ility of executing the EGDAP plan with little government involvement splintered efforts and communication between both parties. Subsequently, the proliferati on of neighborhood associations and CBOs spurred fragmentation of both social capital networks and the empow erment strategy initiated by EGDAP. As a result, the del icate balance between CBOs and government became dominated by multiple government-led plans while CBOs str uggled independently. EGDC is currently positioned to lead a campaign to unify CBOs and re-establish the balance of community development.
133 The EGDCs partnership strategy encompasse s three of the four major functions of community development outlined by West ( 2006): organizers, developers, and resource providers. The John Curtis Projec t proposed by EGDC attempts to organize a coalition of CBOs to invest in a joint venture to develop a project that can be implemented and provides resources directly to community residents. While EGDC does have a vision for th e community, the fourth function of community development, the corporati on would rather revisit their vision while fully engaging community input in the process to create a stakeholder-led plan. The EGDCs communication strategy relies on bridging social capital between CBOs and government leaders to refocus development in East Gainesville to in clude residents as decision-makers rather than project-receivers. The corporati on confronts barriers to its strate gy when key actors are stretched too thin among the various CBOs an d planning visions. As a result, stakeholders cannot separate themselves from their personal vested interest s. Communication and re lationship management strategies must therefore work to re-unify the communitys vision a nd incorporate resident authority. Future plans for East Gainesvilles revitaliz ation must address the perspectives CBOs, residents and government actors bring to the table to form a consensual vision for the community. Green and Haines (2002, p. 229-230) identify five key actions to promote community development including: build upon past successes, create a space for community visioning and planning, provide pr ofessional training for CBOs, form a consortium of CBOs to work together, and encourage community-bas ed decision-making. Pl ans to update the 1997 EGDAP suggest that these actions may be implemented in East Gainesville fairly soon. The plan update will draw from the past empowerment success of EGDAP while creating a space for residents to make decisions concerning their vision of East Gainesv ille. Dialogue should
134 emphasize inclusionary argumentation that recogni zes the ideas, concerns, and opinions of all participants in the planning process (Healey, 2003). The E GDCs communication outreach strategy to create a consortium of CBOs that will provide project and training partnerships represents another arena where communication in community development in East Gainesville is being improved. Narayans (2005) argument th at empowerment requires both top-down (institutional) and bottom-up ( CBO) changes illustrates the general agenda that should be adopted by East Gainesville stakeholders. The success of these efforts depends upon the willingness of CBOs and government actors to set aside their personal goals for East Gainesville in order to re-integrate stakeholders under a unified vision. The case study of Eastside contributes to the literature by addressing the role of co mmunicative planning from the perspective of a local CBO involved in long-ra nge revitalization efforts in an economically distressed community. Integrating Involved, Distressed Communiti es into the Established Literature Involvement in East Gainesville initiatives and projects became disjointed as planning visions changed and were not maintained. The majority of literature on economically distressed community development focuses on communities th at have little to no involvement. The findings from the Eastside study suggest that more studies should be done to evaluate how to balance social capital partnerships between community groups and government opportunity structure in active, but distressed communities. Does Social Capital Exist in the Comm unity and How is it Being Distributed? In non-involved communities, bridging social capital is seen as the primary method to begin grassroots community empowerment a nd development (Colclough & Sitaraman, 2005; Green & Haines, 2002; Lin 2000; Temkin & Rohe, 1998; Vidal, 1995; Vidal, 2004). Maintenance of a grassroots approach that bridge s social capital is imperative to implementing a
135 community-based vision (Wiewel & Gills, 1995) The case study of EGDC reveals bridging social capital is effective but not a universal quick-fix to promote co mmunity development in distressed communities. Communities that are already involved face different obstacles to harness social capital into an effec tive means of proj ect development. Are Social Capital Resources and Partnershi p s Balanced Between Community Groups and Government Institutions? Few studies address how to reintegrate local organizations that are currently involved in revitalization but have splintered their efforts and become territorial. Communicative planning approaches for building consensus address general planning conflict issues, but do not incorporate the specific barriers faced by distre ssed communities. Based on this study of the EGDC, maintaining social capital bridges in CBOs could have increased resident decisionmaking authority in government pl ans for East Gainesville. Guidelines for sustaining a balance between government and grassroots efforts could have led to plans where residents and CBOs felt i nvolved and empowered. Krumholzs inference regarding the Cleveland Housing Networks obstacles to sustainable revitalization indicates that a consortium of non-profit groups must be guided by a collabora tive comprehensive strategy led by government agencies (Krumholz, 1997b). As of now, PEG is not the unifying vision Commissioner Long had hoped it would be. Other th an Krumholz (1997b), th e literature does not adequately address how multiple revitalization visi ons of stakeholder groups in active, distressed communities have caused conflict among stakeholder groups. How Does the Distribution of Social Capita l Resources a nd Partnerships Influence the Outcome of Empowerment in Revitalization Efforts? Empowerment cannot be realized if there is not a mutually beneficial or balanced relationship between community groups and govern ment opportunity structure. Social capital resources and partnerships in fluence the strength of social group agency and opportunity
136 structure, respectively. Thus, soci al capital partnerships influence the ability for a community to achieve resident empowerment in redevelopment e fforts. The nuances of social capital networks within active, distressed communities have not been fully researched in the fields of community development or planning and require further study. Policy Implications and Future Research The nuances of community development in involved, distressed communities should become a main area of study to determine best practices to maintain long-term resident involvement and government-commun ity group partnerships. In East Gainesville, the issues that will be addressed in the update of EGDAP a nd visioning process coul d provide meaningful policy implications regarding how communities (re)create cohesive revitalization efforts. Communities with active community groups that are currently sp litting rather than collecting social capital resources should enga ge in a four-step process of (Re)Unifying the Community Vision Incorporating the Community Vision into the Government-Adopted Plan Revisiting Underlying Issues Maintaining Communication Channels. Following these four policy practices will (re)energize and balance community group and government collaboration. Once a balance and mutu ally beneficial relati onship is established between community groups and government opport unity structure, community members are empowered and affirm decision-ma king power in planning decisions. The case study of Eastside and EGDC provide s a stepping stone to fully investigate the particulars of social capital partnerships a nd their influence on community empowerment. Limitations of the study included its focus on so cial groups rather than individuals, limited
137 interviews with stakeholders, a nd lack of comparison case studi es. Centering on the role of Eastside social groups assumed that the groups in volved in the study repres ented the attitudes of Eastside residents. This assumption is inhe rently faulty. Communities have many members, each of which has varied opinions. The adopt ed missions of commun ity groups will never reflect the attitudes of every single community member the group attempts to represent. Secondly, due to the time constraints of the cas e study, only three primary stakeholders were interviewed. Additional interviews may have revealed different opinions on the interactions within the community and between Eastside and the citys and countys government institutions of the city and county. Finall y, the qualitative nature of th e Eastside study along with time constraints, kept the researcher from conducti ng a similar case study in a different community. A study of a distressed community that was white, rural and poor may have garnered different results. Future research to address these issues could examine how we ll EGDC reflects the Eastside resident attitudes by conducting houseto-house interviews with community members concerning EGDC and Eastside re vitalization efforts. An inves tigation of EGDCs campaign to form a consortium of CBOs through the John Curtis project could include additional interviews with community stakeholders to further evalua te grassroots consensu s-building and bridging social capital. Case studies comparing other similar communities can te st the findings of the East Gainesville case study to de termine the importance of main taining a community vision in relation to social capit al partnerships. Despite the limitations of the Eastside cas e study, the findings and methods can be easily applied to different community contexts. While the Gainesville study addresses issues of race, university-resident (town-gown) conflicts, and southern urban development, the issues of
138 scarcity of financial resources, plethora of community groups, a nd importance of social capital partnerships in determining resident empowerme nt are applicable thr oughout the U.S. and the globe. As more communities turn to revitalization as an alterna tive to urban sprawl or growth, communication in revitalization processes become s increasingly relevant. In these efforts, planners, CBOs, residents, and government actors b ecome more than their job titles. Each actor becomes part of a communication process that will define the future for a community as well as the communitys authority in determining its ow n future. Methods and strategies to build consensus and inclusion in revitalization efforts will increase the success rates across cities and towns. At the 2008 EGDC Annual Meeting, Planning Commissioner Scherwin Henry stated, So goes East Gainesville, so goes the rest of Ga inesville (Henry, 2008b). As indicated by Henrys sentiments, revitalization and development efforts in distressed communities not only affect residents, but determine the future of an entire citys development. Almost every urban area has a neighborhood that is considered th e bad part of town. Most often, these bad parts of town used to be thriving communities that hosted ma jor business, commercial and community centers, but were ignored as development became focused on the outer rings of the city. The major obstacle facing many distressed communities is ne gative perceptions. Revitalization offers an opportunity to transform nega tive perceptions into knowledge of area history, community members, and the planning process. Once commun ities view the success of revitalization, they often turn their focus to redeveloping other troubled areas. East Gainesvilles active leadership presents a positive case where community-based organizations continue to make a difference. Creating a revitalized neighbor hood, however, does not just include the planners and other government actors, but those residents in the neighborhood. Effec tive communication in
139 revitalization efforts not only transforms the physical appearance of communities but can also empower the community members themselves.
140 APPENDIX INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOAR D CONSENT FORM Informed Consent Communicative Planning in Revitalization Efforts: A Case Study of East Gainesville, FL Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: As a graduate student resear cher at the University of Florida, I, Allison Abbott, state the purpose of this study is to examine the efforts of community development in East Gain esville to measure social capital networks and extent of community empowerment accomplished through development efforts. What you will be asked to do in the study: If you agree to participate in the study, you will be a sked to provide your pe rspective of development efforts in East Gainesville through a variety of methods : interview, survey, or observation. If you agree to an interview, you will be asked to participate in an interview of no more than one hour. The list of general question topics include: networking in East Gaines ville, your knowledge of past East Gainesville development projects, present issues in East Gainesville projects, and your goals for East Gainesville. Your interview will be conducted by phone or at your office or home after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you. With your permission, I wo uld like to audiotape this interview. Only I will have access to the tape, which I will personally transcribe. All tapes will be destro yed by being erased at the conclusion of the research. Your verbal remarks may be included in the thesis document. If this is agreeable to you, please sign the cons ent form below where indicated. You may also be asked to complete a survey, given out by the researcher, A llison Abbott, regarding East Gainesville development projects that will focus on your perceptions and networks associated with East Gainesville. The topics covered will be the same as in personal interviews however, surveys will be anonymous, but associated with the community devel opment group or government group of which you are a member. The survey will not be completed until you have read and signed the consent form. Only I will have access the completed surveys. The survey will be complet ed for those who agree to participate during a community meeting. Finally, I may ask to observe your and your groups in teractions at public meetings in order to understand communication between members, issues regarding netwo rking and project building for East Gainesville, and potential networking possibilities. Observatio ns will be based on topics covered in open general meetings. Observations will not be recorded until y ou have read and signed a consent form. With your permission, I would like to audiotape meetings where entire groups have consented to participate. Only I will have access to the tape, which I will personally transcribe. All tapes will be destroyed by being erased at the conclusion of the research. Your identity may be associated with your comments during the meeting. If this is agreeable to you, please sign the consent form below where indicated. Time required: 1 hour Risks and Benefits:
141 There are no anticipated risks, com pensation, or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the study at any time without consequence. Compensation: There will be no direct compensation for partici pation in this study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be associated with your intervie w or comments in meetings unless you specifically request that I do not include your name in the thesis Surveys will be totally anonymous except for being associated with the community development group or government office within which you work. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Allison Abbott, Graduate Student, University of Florida, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, P.O. Box 115706 Gainesville, FL (540)-383-8174. Kristin Larsen, PhD, University of Florida, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, P.O. Box 115706, Gainesville, FL (352)-392-0997 ext. 433. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedures described above and agree to participate in the interview, survey, community meeting (observation) [circle all that apply] for the [title of your thesis]. I agree to have my remarks included and identified as mine in the thesis. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ I have read the procedures described above and agree to participate in the interview, survey, community meeting (observation) [circle all that apply] for the [title of your thesis]. I do not wish to have my remarks included in the thesis but rather wish them to remain confidential, subject to the protections described above and confidential to the extent provided by law. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________
142 Copy of Interview If you wish to receive a copy of the thesis, please indicate here and provide your name and address below. I will be happy to provide you a c opy with the thesis upon its completion. YES / NO (Circle one) Participants Mailing Address:
143 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelson, Jeff. (2007a, February 15) City Gives WalMart Final OK. The Guardian Accessed at www. GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2007b, February 8). An Eastward Rebirth. The Guardian Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2007c, November 1). Hatchet Creek Project in Jeopardy. The Guardian Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2007d, October 11). WalM art Planning a Second Supercenter. The Guardian Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2007e, June 28). Residents Work on Vision for East Gainesville. The Guardian Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2007f, June 21). City Approves New Design for Gateway. The Guardian Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2006, November 23). Board Rejects Plan to Clear Mobile Home Park. The Guardian. Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2005a, December 12). Pl an East Gainesville Chugs Along. The Gainesville Sun. Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Adelson, Jeff. (2005b, October 20). WalMart seen as First Step Toward Eastside Growth. The Guardian. Accessed at www.GainesvilleSun.com on 1/11/08. Alachua County Commission (February 22, 2008). Ea stside Activity Center Meeting. Alachua County Commission, County Administration Building, Gainesville, FL. Basolo, Victoria & Strong, De nise. (2002). Understanding the Ne ighborhood: From Residents Perceptions and Needs to Action. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1) 83-105. Washington D.C.: Fannie Mae Foundation. Bauer, Catherine. (1957). Drear y Deadlock of Public Housing. Architectural Forum, 106(5) 140-142, 219-221. Baum, Howell S. (2003). Community and Consensus: Reality and Fantasy in Planning. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition (pp.275-295). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Beauregard, Robert. A. (2003). Between Modern ity and Postmodernity: The Ambiguous Position of U.S. Planning. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition. (pp.108-124). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
144 Blomberg, Marina. (2006, January 25). Chambe r Officials Urge Great er Collaboration. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Boles, Gene. (2007). Alachua County Large Scale Retail CPA Alachua County, FL: Author. Campbell, Scott. (2003). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Developm ent. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition (pp.435-434). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Chandler, Doris. (2006, August 17). Its Been a Year for Change. The Guardian Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com City of Gainesville. (2008). City of Gaines ville: Neighborhood Groups and Associations. Retrieved March 6, 2008 fr om http://www.cityofgainesville.org City of Gainesville. (2006). Legislative File Number 060832. (version 0) City of Gainesville, FL: Author. Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from http://legistar.cityofgaines ville.org/detailrepor t/Reports/Temp/3320081443.pdf City of Gainesville Community Developmen t Department Block Grant Division. (1998). Duval Area Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy City of Gainesville, FL: Author. City of Gainesville Economic Development Department, East Gainesvill e Residents, & East Gainesville Developmen t Action Plan Task Force. (1997). East Gainesville Development Action Plan. City of Gainesville, FL: Author. City of Gainesville Planning Department (2008). Eastside Activity Center Plan Update. City of Gainesville, FL: Author. Cohen, Robert. (February, 2008). Mediation in Planning Efforts. University of Florida Urban and Regional Planning Department Gu est Speaker. University of Florida Urban and Regional Planning Department, Rinker Hall. Craig, Gary & Mayo, Marjorie. (1995). Community Participation and Empowerment: The Human Face of Structural Adjustment or Tools for Democratic Transformation. In Gary Craig and Marjorie Mayo (Eds.), Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development (pp. 1-11). New Jersey: Zed Books. Colclough, Glenna & Sitaraman, Bhavani. (Novem ber 2005). Community and Social Capital: What is the Difference? Sociological Inquiry, 75(4) 474-496. Davidoff, Paul. (2003). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition (pp.210-223). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
145 Dear, Michael. (2000). The Postmodern Urban Condition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Dix, Ed. (open comments in at E GDC Annual Meeting. March 13 2008). Duval Neighborhood Residents & City Gainesville Department of Community Development. (1999). Duval Neighborhood Action Plan City of Gainesville, FL: Author. EGDC (2007). November East Ga inesville Development Corporati on Meeting. East Gainesville Development Corporation, Nationwide Insurance Building. EGDC (2008) February East Gainesville Development Corporation John Curtis Project Stakeholder Meeting. East Gainesvi lle Development Corporati on, Gainesville Housing Authority. Fainstein, Susan S. (2003). New Directions in Planning Theory. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition .(pp.173-195). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Florida Department of Corrections. Front Porc h Florida. Retrieved on February 19, 2008 at http://www.dc.state.fl.us Flyvberg, Bent. (2003). Rationality a nd Power. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition (pp.318-329). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Gainesville Community Rede velopment Agency. (2001). East Gainesville Redevelopment Plan. City of Gainesville, FL: Author. Gainesville Comprehensive Planning Department (2008). Comprehensive Planning. Retrieved on March 19, 2008 from http://www.cityof gainesville.org/comdev/plan/compplan.shtml Green, Gary Paul & Haines, Anna. (2002). Asset Building and Community Development London, UK: Sage Publications. Hall, Peter. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectua l History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century, Third Edition Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Harrison, Bennett, Weiss, Ma rcus & Gant, John. (1994). Building Bridges: Community Development Corporations and the World of Employment Training. New York, NY: Ford Foundation. Healey, Patsy. (2003). The Communi cative Turn in planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation. In Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Second Edition (pp.237-253). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Henry, Scherwin (personal co mmunication, January 24, 2008a).
146 Henry, Scherwin (comment at E GDC Annual Meeting March 13, 2008b). Hustedde, Ronald J. & Ganowicz, Jacek. (2002). Th e Basics: Whats Essen tial About Theory For Community Development Practice? Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1) 1-19. Phoenix, AZ: Community Development Society. Innes, Judith E. (1998). Inform ation in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1) 52-64. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Johnson, Kecia. (2006, June 15). Program Graduates Future Entrepreneurs. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Johnson, Kimberly. (2004). Community Develo pment Corporations, Participation and Accountability: The Harlem Urban De velopment Corporation and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Cor poration. In James Jennings (Ed.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Race, Politics, and Community Development in U.S. Cities (Vol. 594). (pp. 109-124). London, UK: Sage Publications. Jones, Nona. (personal co mmunication, January 20, 2008). Koons, Scott. (personal communication on March 20, 2008). Krumholz, Norman. (1997a). Urban Planning, Equity Planning, and Racial Justice. In June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows (pp. 109-125). London, UK: Sage Publications. Krumholz, Norman. (1997b). The Provision of Affordable Housing in Cleveland: Patterns of Organizational and Financ ial Support. In Willem Van Vliet (Ed.), Affordable Housing and Urban Redevelopment in the United States (pp. 52-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lin, Nan. (2000). Inequality and Social Capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29 785-795. Lyons, Anthony (personal communication, January 25, 2008). Mallard, Aida. (2007, February 8). Tax Prep For Free. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Miller, S.M., Rein, Martin & Le vitt, Peggy. (1995). Comm unity Action in the United States. In Gary Craig and Marjorie Mayo (Eds.), Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development. (pp. 112-126). New Jersey: Zed Books. Narayan, Deepa. (2005). Conceptual Framework and Methodological Cha llenges. In Deepa Narayan (Ed.), Measuring Empowerment: Cro ss-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 1-38). Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
147 Petesch, Patti, Smulovitz, Catalina & Walton, Michael. (2005). Evaluating Empowerment: A Framework with Cases from Latin America. In Narayan, Deepa (Ed), Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 39-67). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publishing. Rabin, Yale. (1997). The Persisten ce of Racial Isolation: The Ro le of Government Action and Inaction. In June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows (pp. 93-108). London, UK: Sage Publications. Renaissance Planning, Inc. & Plan Ea st Gainesville Consortium. (2003). Plan East Gainesville. Alachua County & C ity of Gainesville, FL: Author. Robinson, Antonia. (2007a, February 11). Programs He lp Prep Tax Returns. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Robinson, Antonia. (2007b, May 24). Men, Women Honored at Entrepreneurship Luncheon. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Santa Fe Community College East Gainesville Initi ative. (2008). Current Partners. Retrieved on January 10, 2008 from http ://cisit.sfcc.edu/~egville/partners.htm Silver, Christopher & Moeser, John V. (1995). The Separate City: Black Communities in the Urban South, 19401968. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Southern, Theresa. (2005, November 10). Ci tizens Voice Concerns About Wal-Mart. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Swirko, Cindy. (2007, August 8). New County Budget Revives Some Programs. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Teitz, Michael B. (1997). American Planning in th e 1990s Part II, The Dilemma of the Cities. Urban Studies, 34(5-6) ,775-797. Temkin, Kenneth & Rohe, William. (1998). Soci al Capital and Neighborhood Stability: An Empirical Investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1) 61-88. Washington D.C.: Fannie Mae Foundation. Tinker, Cleveland. (2007a, September 16). Busine sses Offered Grants to Beautify Entrances. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2007b, September 6). Area Holds Final Workshop on Master Plan. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2007c, August 16). Kenne dy Homes is Quickly Being Demolished. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com
148 Tinker, Cleveland. (2007d, July 19). Residents Help Sought in Southeast Gainesville Plan. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2007e, June 14). Memb ers Break Ground at Cotton Club Museum. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com. Tinker, Cleveland. (2007f, April 19). Southe rn Living Features Lincoln Estates. The Guardian Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2007g, March 15 ). Eastward Construction. The Guardian Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2006a, December 21). Plan East Gainesville Vision Becoming a Reality. The Guardian Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com. Tinker, Cleveland. (2006b, October 5) Rodney Long Discusses the Plans. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2006c, October 5). Chamber Officials Seek to Help Area Grow. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2006d, April 4). UF St udents Come Up with Cotton Club Design. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Tinker, Cleveland. (2005, November 20). Hi storic Cotton Club Receives Grant. The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.GainesvilleSun.com Thomas, June Manning. (1997a). Model Cities Revisi ted: Issues of Race and Empowerment. In June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows (pp. 143-163). London, UK: Sage Publications. Thomas, June Manning. (1997b). Coming Together: Unif ied Diversity for Soci al Action. In June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows (pp. 258-277). London, UK: Sage Publications. thomas-houston, marilyn m. (2006). Donning the Em perors New Clothes: Consequences of Buying into the Rhetoric of Development In marilyn m. thomas-houston and March Schuller (Eds.), Homing Devices: The Poor as Targ ets of Public Housing and Practice (pp.119-137). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Quickfact s From the Census Bureau. Retrieved on January 12, 2008 from http://qui ckfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1225175.html University of Florida. (2008). UF Timeline: 150 Years of History at UF. Retrieved on March 20, 2008 from http://www.ufl.edu/history/
149 Vidal, Avis C. (1995). Reintegrat ing Disadvantaged Communities into the Fabric of Urban Life: The Role of Community Development. In Housing Policy Debate, 6(1) ,169-230. Washington D.C.: Fannie Mae Foundation. Vidal, Avis C. (2004). Buildi ng Social Capital to Promote Community Equity. In Judy Hutchinson and Avis C. Vidal et al. (Eds.), Using Social Capita l to Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2) 164168. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Vincent, John W. (2006). Basics of Community Development. In Ed Pittman and Rhonda Phillips (Eds), Community Development Handbook (pp.1-10). Atlanta, GA: Community Development Council, Inc. West, Monieca. (2006). Establishing Community Based Organizations. In Ed Pittman and Rhonda Phillips (Eds), Community Development Handbook (pp.113-123). Atlanta, GA: Community Development Council, Inc. Wiewel, Wim & Gills, Doug. (1995). Community Deve lopment Organizational Capacity and US Urban Policy: Lessons from the Chi cago Experience 1983-93. In Gary Craig and Marjorie Mayo (Eds.), Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development (pp.127-139). New Jersey: Zed Books. WilsonMiller, Inc. & Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency. (2007). Southeast Gainesville Renaissance Initiative City of Gainesville, FL: Author. Zwick, Paul and Carr, Peggy. (2006) Florida 2060: A Population Di stribution Scenario for the State of Florida. University of Florida GeoPlan Center, Gainesville FL: Author.
150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allison Abb ott received her Bachelor of Science in anthropology from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. She is pursuing her masters degree in both urban and regional planning and masters degree in anth ropology from the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. She hopes to continue he r work with distressed communities, nationally and internationally, through her work toward her Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Florida.