the unspoken requirement for urban revitalization

7/27/2019 The Unspoken Requirement for Urban Revitalization

1/25

The Unspoken Requirement for Urban

Revitalization:Solving Civic Problems with a Community Stakeholder

Model

Chequan A. Lewis

Spring 2012

Revitalizing Americas Urban Cities


2/25

2

The Unspoken Requirement for Urban Revitalization:

Solving Civic Problems with a Community Stakeholder Model

Setting the Right Stage

Ora na azu nwa. Translated in English, this centuries-old Nigerian proverb states

an oft-cited principle in our discourse: It takes a village to raise a child. Though often

invoked in reference to philosophies of child rearing, the core of this proverb translates

effectively to the civic context as well. If it takes an entire to community to shape children

in the course they should go, so too must an entire community be involved when a city

undergoes the urban renewal process.

Opinions abound when urban revitalization is discussed. Some people prioritize the

bottom line and delivering results that will have a financial impact in an area. Others

emphasize the social implications of any actions. There are even those who seek to chart a

third way that encompasses both approaches just mentioned. These traditional modes of

thought have some merit; however, they all pretend successful implementation of a given

redevelopment plan is axiomatic. That belief rests on a deeply flawed premise- that as long

as someone comes up with the right idea for an area it will work.

The reality is that too much time is spent trying to lasso urban revitalization

unicorns. There are no silver bullets. There are no quick fixes. There are no one size fits

all solutions. Urban issues necessitate thoughtful, narrowly tailored, neighborhood-

conscious approaches.

Discovering Dallas

In order to establish a framework of understanding, this section offers some

background on Dallas history and personality. Understanding this aspect of the citys


3/25

3

anatomy will be helpful in understanding the stakes in play. Furthermore, it will provide

some additional context for why this paper proposes the community stakeholder model as

viable solution.

Officially incorporated as a town in 1836, Dallas has spent over a century and a half

growing into an attractive location for businesses and southerners in search of

opportunity. Aggressive growth animates much of Dallas personality. When the early city

wanted to be placed on the map, it sought to grow its way forward. When recessions have

struck, the city seeks to grow through them. In many ways, one could say that citizens in

the area look to growth as a panacea for any problems it faces.

This is quite evident in mayoral elections as the city is often presented with two

types of candidates: 1) the growth candidate and 2) the city services candidate. The

growth candidate is exactly what he/she sounds like- they are primarily concerned with

attracting more businesses, launching big projects, and raising the citys profile. The city

services candidate is preeminently concerned with making good on what the city owes its

residents- the efficient and effective delivery of city services like police, fire, and schools. As

evidenced over the years, most voting Dallas residents seem to prefer the growth

candidate. This is not to suggest that growth and city services are mutually exclusive.

However, the results in past elections offer some insight into what the city thinks its

priorities are. In Dallas, growth seems to trump all.

This raises two Frug/Barron-style questions: 1) What kind of city is Dallas? 2) What

kind of city does Dallas aspire to be? Frug and Barron shine light on four types of city

profiles: 1) the Global City; 2) the Tourist City; 3) the Middle Class City; and 4) the Regional


4/25

4

City.1 Growth advocates are concerned with becoming a Global City- one with a large

profile on the international landscape as a center of commerce. This is obvious when

observing how the city has worked hard to bring in more Fortune 500 companies and to

compare its economy with that of other international cities. City services advocates (who

often meet defeat at the polls) are more concerned with being a stellar Middle Class City.

This is evident in their conception of Dallas a place that operates for the benefit of its

residents, not those who may never become residents or only visit on business. As an

interesting aside, Dallas may actually be best suited to be a Regional City. As the hub of the

nations fourth-largest metropolitan area (Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington), Dallas already

plays an indispensable role in the national landscape.

The truth of the matter is that it simply does not matter what type of city Dallas is or

wants to be. Indeed, that is why this paper gives admittedly short shrift to grappling with

Frug and Barrons four city futures. That discussion is only useful insofar as it animates an

internal tension that exists within the Dallas community. There is a misalignment of

interests between those who are routinely successful at the polls, growth advocates, and

those who are not, city service advocates. In order to chart its own successful city future,

Dallas must find the Aristotelian golden mean that lies between growth and services.

The growth advocates have it right. Dallas must continue to grow and build in order

to have a world-class city financially capable of supporting the booming area population

(see city population trend below).2 But, the service advocates have it right as well. Without

serving the citizens who comprise the population, Dallas cannot be a successful city. At a

very basic level, resident needs must be met. These seemingly disparate interests can be

1See Gerald Frug and David Barron, City Bound: How States Stifle Urban Innovation, p. 141, (2008).2 Graph is user image of publicly available population data from Dallas Commons digital site.


5/25

5

intertwined. Dallas can craft a portfolio of priorities that will propel it into a more

prosperous next century.

There are many requirements to achieve this prosperity. This paper argues that

there is an unspoken requirement, one that is fatally overlooked in American cities:

meaningful community input. My city, Dallas, Texas, can take a harder look in the mirror on

this topic as well. By developing andengaging community stakeholders, cities like Dallas

can achieve sustainable gains in five touchstone areas vital to the revitalization of the 21 st

century American city: 1) Public Safety; 2) Appearance and Perception; 3) Education; 4)

Collaborative Government; and 5) Gentrification Management. These five guideposts

comprise a priorities portfolio that promotes a hospitable environment for economic


6/25

6

growth balanced with the delivery of services citizens demand. Citizen input in the

formulation and execution of these priorities is the linchpin.

Let there be no illusions; this is easier said than done. Getting the community

involved in solving a tough set of issues is challenging. There are myriad questions that will

arise. Who is a stakeholder? What does stakeholder participation mean? What is the right

level of participation? What is the proper setting? Who should lead in a given setting? How

do you reach a decision? The questions are endless.

This paper has a limited aim: to argue that, despite the inherent difficulties, solving

the problems that urban centers face by building and incorporating community

stakeholders offers greater chances for inclusive, sustainable renewal. To that end, this

paper briefly surveys five topics at work in Dallas. The aim here is to merely offer some

organizing thoughts on how to move the city forward on these tough topics. In some cases,

Dallas leadership already has the right idea for community involvement; so, its approach is

explained. When such ideas are not evident, this paper looks to urban centers in other parts

of the country for guidance. It matters not from where the ideas originate. All that matters

is that they are useful.

Public Safety

No city can thrive unless those who inhabit and visit it feel safe when theyre there.

Urban centers routinely experience trouble with crime control. Law enforcement is

important because the deterrence and punishment of crime is crucial to a citys personality,

real and perceived. This is best addressed through a community stakeholder model of

problem solving. Implementing community-based law enforcement practices and can give


7/25

7

community members given a stake in developing sustainable solutions encouraging public

safety. This paper will explore one route rich with opportunity.

An important starting place for engaging the community in law enforcement is to

tear down the traditional walls felt between urban populations and their prosecutors.

Given that the chief prosecutors in many areas (district attorneys or state attorneys) are

elected, local prosecutorial practices offer a ripe opportunity for engagement. A

community-based approach to prosecuting shifts the role of the prosecutor from the

communitys paternalistic case processor to its active partner in public safety. This

philosophical shift is important conceptually and practically. Its conceptual importance lies

in the powerful message it sends to the community: he/she who prosecutes in its name is a

part of the community. Practically, this approach is likely to reap some resource benefits

over the long-term as gains in crime reduction and community participation are realized.

This is a story reinforced by Seth Williams efforts as Philadelphias District

Attorney. Williams uses a community-based prosecution model that assigns prosecutors

to specific geographic areas so they can get to know community groups, clergy members,

business associations and town watch groups, and track crime patterns geographically. The

prosecutors also manage the same cases from start to finish.3 This leads to clear and

efficient channels of case management and relationship development. Both results promote

more effective prosecution.

There is scholarly support for this approach. According to the National District

Attorneys Association's National Center for Community Prosecution, the community-based

prosecuting model is a proactive, collaborative, problem-solving approach distinguished

3See Marjorie Valbrun, Rethinking Criminal JusticeWhy Black Prosecutors Matter, (www.newamericanmedia.org),

(November 19, 2010).
http://www.newamericanmedia.org/http://www.newamericanmedia.org/http://www.newamericanmedia.org/http://www.newamericanmedia.org/


8/25

8

by certain key principles: (1) recognizing the community's role in public safety; (2)

engaging in problem solving; (3) establishing and maintaining partnerships; and (4)

evaluating outcomes of activities.4

Another scholarly take suggests there are six key operational elements of

community-based prosecuting: 1) a focus on problem-solving, public safety, and quality-

of-life issues; 2) inclusion of the communitys input into the criminal justice system,

including the courtroom (e.g., admission of community impact statements to be considered

at sentencing); 3) partnerships with the prosecutor, law enforcement, public and private

agencies, and the community; 4) varied prevention, intervention, and enforcement

methods (e.g., use of tools other than criminal prosecution to address problems); 5) a

clearly defined focus area, which has traditionally been defined as a targeted geographic

area; and 6) an integrated approach involving both reactive (e.g., prosecuting crimes

identified by the police) and proactive strategies (e.g., anticipatory actions aimed at

addressing problems at their root cause).5

These different takes emphasize an important theme that animates community-

based prosecuting: prosecutors can become effective problem solvers by developing

substantive relationships with communities and agencies to serve targeted areas.

Institutional investment in the community opens up a range of strategic and tactical

approaches to creating a safe environment that are more difficult, if not impossible, to

pursue without community partnerships. One such approach is geographic targeting. By

working with community groups, prosecutors are able to understand the backgrounds of

4 Charles Hynes, The Evolving Prosecutor: Broadening The Vision, Expanding The Role, 24 Fall Crim. Just 1, 2 (2009).5 M. Elaine Nugent, The Changing Nature of Prosecution: Community Prosecution vs. Traditional Prosecution Approaches ,

(February 2004).


9/25

9

key actors in crime waves, gain insight into what drives neighborhood sectarian violence,

and develop solutions to address surface and sub-surface level problems. This also allows

prosecutors, in the problem-solving model, to prioritize the most pressing community

problem-areas and then pursue strategies that extinguish the full extent of the p roblem

(be it people, places, or products).

Working with community groups also gives prosecutor offices credibility with the

citizens who can provide this valuable information. Perhaps more importantly, this can

even help create an environment in which those citizens seek out the prosecutors to share

critical information that makes being reactive to crimes identified by police and being

proactive with brewing problems not yet on the radar much easier. Though there may be a

necessary outlay of time and funds to build this model of communal participation, it is easy

to imagine how it may pay dividends over the long-term as investigation costs decrease

due to more immediate information and prosecution costs decrease due to reductions in

crime. Collaborative partnerships allow a focus on identifying and implementing lasting

solutions to crime and disorder problems through innovative problem-solving strategies

aimed at addressing the conditions that allow more serious crime to flourish.6

Prosecutorial offices report many long-term changes spurred by the use of

community-based strategies. Among these changes are: reduced crime and fear of crime,

reduced nuisances, reduced calls for police services, increased prosecutorial and police

accountability, increased community involvement in neighborhoods, increased victim

6SeeThe Changing Nature at p. 33.


10/25

10

satisfaction, increased public confidence in the justice system, and reduced costs due to

coordinated tactics.7

Dallas has taken steps in this direction but still lags behind Philadelphias efforts.

The Dallas City Attorney has a dedicated staff member serving as the Chief Community

Prosecutor. The commitment to the public availing itself of this resource must be

questioned however as the community prosecution website is sparse and under

construction.8

The Dallas County District Attorney, Craig Watkins (the first elected black DA in

Texas history), is probably best suited to implement community-based initiatives. Watkins

office has a robust community relations agenda- its hosts Make a Difference Day, works

with Big Brothers Big Sisters, and coordinates with the American /Red Cross Blood Drive.

Impressively, it also conducts a Citizen Prosecutor Academy, a 10-week comprehensive

educational program designed to familiarize citizens with the criminal justice system and

the DAs operations.9 However, Dallas still lacks a formalized, substantive community-

based approach to its prosecutions. Using Seth Williams efforts as a starting model can get

Dallas on the right track.

Appearance and Perception

Physical appearance is perhaps just as important to a citys personality as crime

control. This is because the visible environment impacts how residents, visitors, and

investors feel about spending time and resources in a city. This in turn impacts a citys

perception- the narrative told about what its like to live, work, and play in a place. So often,

7Seethe Milwaukee Countys District Attorney website:(http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jkrueger/Electronic/CPU.pdf)8See the Dallas County District Attorney website:http://www.dallascityattorney.com/Community_Advocacy.html 9See Dallas County District Attorney Press Release, January 12, 2012: http://dallasda.co/webdev/?p=912
http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jkrueger/Electronic/CPU.pdfhttp://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jkrueger/Electronic/CPU.pdfhttp://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jkrueger/Electronic/CPU.pdfhttp://www.dallascityattorney.com/Community_Advocacy.htmlhttp://www.dallascityattorney.com/Community_Advocacy.htmlhttp://www.dallascityattorney.com/Community_Advocacy.htmlhttp://dallasda.co/webdev/?p=912http://dallasda.co/webdev/?p=912http://dallasda.co/webdev/?p=912http://dallasda.co/webdev/?p=912http://www.dallascityattorney.com/Community_Advocacy.htmlhttp://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jkrueger/Electronic/CPU.pdf


11/25


12/25

12

Everyday citizens of Dallas must be engaged in this massive facelift as well. Just as

businesses recognize the impact nearby vandalism has on its bottom line, so too must

citizens realize that local eyesores (litter, vandalism, graffiti, etc.) debase their own living

experiences as well. This is a particularly tough sell because it requires widespread buy-in

to counteract the status quo. The hearts and minds of residents must fundamentally change

to truly eradicate these problems. The city can work with communities to get people

invested in the physical appearance of their neighborhoods in a contagious way.

In 2010, Dallas held a total of 25 community clean up events ranging from graffiti

wipe out days to mowing vacant lots. Again, this is the right idea. The next level of

effectiveness must engage residents more fully, however. Dallas launched a new website

(http://www.dallascommunityoutreach.com/) aimed at bringing more residents into the

fold. The city must build on the momentum it has created by empowering residents to plan

their own neighborhood-based events. Rather than planning scores of events and telling

people to come, the city can provide resident-leaders with resources and allow them to

plan the events themselves. The picture below is an example of one such event.

Group of citizen-volunteers cleans up Dallas community center
http://www.dallascommunityoutreach.com/http://www.dallascommunityoutreach.com/http://www.dallascommunityoutreach.com/http://www.dallascommunityoutreach.com/


13/25


14/25

14

not do. Much has been written about the causes of and remedies for poor student

performance. A recurrent theme in nearly all the literature is parental involvement.

Parents taking on an active role in the educational environment is a crucial nexus to the

central argument of this paper.

Dallas ISD has recently started a very useful initiative aimed at integrating parents

in the local community into the decision-making process.

The Dallas ISD Citizens Budget Review Commission, initially formed in the spring of

2011, is charged with making budget recommendations to the districts

administration. The commission is comprised of twelve individuals, nine of which

are appointed by members of the board. The tenth appointee is named by thesuperintendent and chairs the meetings. There are two other representatives from

the district, both of whom supervise school principals and help provide perspective

to the commission.13

13 From the Dallas Independent School Districts website:www.dallasisd.org/page/7797.
http://www.dallasisd.org/page/7797http://www.dallasisd.org/page/7797http://www.dallasisd.org/page/7797http://www.dallasisd.org/page/7797


15/25

15

The CBRC is an impressive step towards the direct involvement of citizens in the

educational process. However, this still lends itself to not reaching the sectors of the

community that need the most involvement. One can imagine a world in which the small

cadre of parents serving on CBRC comes from an elite class not truly representative of the

concerns of district families.

To create a class of community stakeholder-parents, Dallas must go deeper. The

National Center for School Engagement is setting such an example.14 The NCSE has adopted

Joyce Weinsteins Framework of Six Types of Involvement. The fifth and sixth types of

involvement, Decision Making (#5) and Collaboration with the Community (#6), speak

directlyto what Dallas ISD should pursue. Appendix A (at the end of the paper) shows a

more detailed breakdown of these two Epsteinian principles. With a renewed focus on

these two ideas, Dallas can activate community engagement in its educational processes

like never before. It simply must have the courage and conscientiousness to do so.

Collaborative Government

Another challenge that often faces urban cities in need of renewal is mutual apathy

between marginalized citizens and their government. More than just an enthusiasm gap,

these cities suffer an engagement gap. One way to activate community engagement is

through neighborhood associations. There is a syllogistic nexus between neighborhood

associations and engaged governance: when people strongly identify with groups, they

gravitate towards conditions that are best for the broader community; neighborhood

14See Judith Martinez, Parental Involvement: Key to Student Achievement, (Feb. 23, 2004).


16/25

16

associations provide fertile ground for group identification; so, neighborhood groups help

create an environment where citizens collectively pursue good living conditions.15

Neighborhood associations provide a forum for face-to-face interaction, create a

space for policy discussion often unavailable to marginalized community members, and

help forge a sense of shared purpose in an area. As these citizens feel increasingly

interwoven into the fabric of a community, so too does their sense of civic efficacy. To be

clear, the argument is not that simply sprouting neighborhood associations will the change

the psyche of an entire city. However, reposing power in institutions more within the reach

of citizens can stimulate their interest in and the use of it.

St. Paul, Minnesota offers an interesting model that illustrates this point. Prioritizing

face-to-face interactions, St. Paul imagines that neighborhoods are the primary agents of

political dialogue and citizen influence. As such, the city emphasizes placing power in the

hands at this level.

St. Paul is divided into seventeen District Councils, each elected by residents of the

council area. Every council has a city-paid community organizer and neighborhoodoffice, but virtually all other efforts come from volunteers or additional funds raised

by the council itself. The District Councils have substantial powers, including

jurisdiction over zoning, authority over the distribution of various goods and

services, and substantial influence over capital expenditures. A citywide Capital

Improvement Budget Committee, composed solely of neighborhood representatives,

is responsible for the initiation and priority ranking of most capital development

projects in the city. Community centers, crime prevention efforts, an early

notification system for all major city agencies, and a district newspaper in virtually

every council area help to make the system one of the most coherent and

comprehensive of any city.16

The St. Paul model is inspiring and instructive. It vests meaningful powers in

organizations that are close and accessible to the residents. Zoning can determine who may

15See J. Berry, K. Portney, and K. Thomson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, pp. 10-14, 294-296 (1993).16Id. at 13.


17/25

17

come or stay. Service delivery is one of the most impactful ways residents experience

government action. Capital expenditures dictate what will be improved, built, or allowed to

decay. When citizens see that these organizations are vehicles for the exercise of real

power, they are more likely to invest energy in them. As this happens, citizens have a

unique space to mutually affect their living environment by engaging one another through

the organ of government. Participation in these systems tends to increase confidence in

government and sense of community.17

The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (referenced in footnote 16) declares that a city

should not even entertain such a citizen participation program unless it is willing to meet

three conditions. First, exclusive powers must be turned over to the citizen participation

structures.18 Planning and advising is not enough. The structures must have real power, as

seen in St. Paul, to allocate goods and services and make zoning decisions in communities.

Put more plainly, these organizations must be integrated in the normal function of the citys

administrative structure.19 Second, accompanying such structural changes must be an

administrative plan that creates sanctions and rewards for city hall administrators who

must interact with the neighborhood groups.20 City personnel must be forced to buy into

the program and have their fortunes tied to the success of the citizen participation system.

Third, citizen participation systems must be citywide in nature.21 In order to be

legitimate, the system must be operating in poor and affluent neighborhoods alike.

Some aspects of this idea have already begun in Southern Dallas. Ten teams, of 13

community stakeholders each, were dedicated to one of the unique subsections of Southern

17Id. at 294.18Id. at 294-95.19See id.20Id. at 295.21Id.


18/25

18

Dallas (depicted in the map below), designed according to historical, natural, and economic

boundaries. Each team is challenged to develop strategic plans for its dedicated area based

on the following topics: economic development policy, small business, and finance/funding

sources.22 This approach has allowed for a narrow tailoring of solutions, by planning area,

which has begun to make a meaningful impact in Dallas.

As laudable as this innovation has been, there is still much to be done. Refracting

this effort through the lens offered by The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, it is lacking in three

ways: 1) these groups still do not have anything more than planning power; 2) there is no

evidence city hall administrators must work with these groups; and 3) this effort is

primarily based in Southern Dallas, not the other affluent areas of Dallas. Mayor Rawlings

has indicated that he would like to add at least 30 neighborhood associations throughout

Dallas in the next year. The effectiveness of these organizations will depend on how much

they activate the energy and effort of Dallas residents.

22See Southern Dallas Task Forces Interim Team Report, p. 11 (2009).


19/25

19

Gentrification Management

Gentrification is the ubiquitous topic in urban renewal. As cities seek to move into

the next century, they often must raze blighted areas and replace them with more urbane

scenery to attract a new wave of residents, visitors, and investors. The targeted areas of

gentrification are often poorer minority neighborhoods that are ripe for redevelopment

on the cheap. One major issue is that the redevelopment rarely takes the fortunes and

desires of existing residents into account. The result is that long time residents are

displaced by price or by feeling like strangers in a now-foreign neighborhood. This paper

does not argue that gentrification is evil. Rather, it argues that is an unavoidable stage in

the life cycle of cities that refuse to die. But, it does not have to operate to the exclusion of

residents interests. The gentrification process can be better managed to match community

needs by integrating the community into the planning process.

No plan is perfect. However, Dallas has offered the country an impressive example

with its forwardDallas! initiative. The goal of forwardDallas! was to engage local

stakeholders (everyday citizens and business leaders) in the project of developing a

comprehensive vision of what Dallas should look like in the coming years in key areas like

land use, housing, economic development, transportation and the environment.

The Comprehensive Plan was designed to provide the blueprint for implementation

actions and act as a guide for the Dallas City Council regarding allocation of City resources.

The plan focused growth where it is wanted and needed and protects stable areas of the

City. The plan also addresses convenient access to shopping, jobs for more people and

providing more housing and travel options for residents of Dallas.23

23 City of Dallas,forwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan: Vision, (June 2006).


20/25

20

To garner the proper cross-section of opinion, the City of Dallas held hands-on

workshops throughout the city for residents to share their ideas about how Dallas should

grow. Participants made recommendations as to where future homes and jobs should be

located, what transportation/transit/roadway needs exist, and where open space should

be preserved. The input gained through these workshops formed the foundation for the

plan. At this phase, participants were also surveyed so the city could develop a picture of

the top concerns of city stakeholders (results graphed below).

Based on the workshop results, model plans (called growth scenarios) were

developed providing an overview of how future growth may affect different areas of the

city. The different scenarios provided examples of what the future of Dallas could look like

under varying circumstances. Residents and community leaders indicated their

preferences for each growth scenario, and, in response, the City of Dallas crafted a

comprehensive, long-range plan incorporating strategies to implement this common vision

for the future.24

Survey

Respondents' Top Priorities for the City of Dallas.

24See forwardDallas!.


21/25

21

Six key policy initiatives emerged from the plan: 1) Enhance the economy ; 2) Make

quality housing more accessible; 3) Create strong and healthy neighborhoods; 4) Enhance

transportation systems; 5) Ensure environmental sustainability; and 6) Encourage new

development patterns.25 These initiatives should guide Dallas as it moves ahead. They

properly balance growth with preservation and business attraction with basic citizen

needs. Most importantly, they represent the collective expression of the preferences,

priorities, and passions of an engaged citizenry. Using forwardDallas! to create the space

for citizens (of all classes) and businesses to reach these conclusions through collaboration

is the plans true brilliance.

Applying the Nehemiah Principle: Lighting the Path Ahead

It is important to acknowledge in this space that there is a giant elephant in the

room with the community stakeholder model. The success of such a citizen-centric concept

is entirely dependent on citizen participation. Indeed, this dependency may be this ideas

greatest flaw. After all, if citizens will not engage how can they become community

stakeholders? If they do not become community stakeholders who will be this new breed of

collaborator that traditional power wielders must consult? The risk of this whole idea

collapsing might be high.

However, it is also worth questioning how one really knows that the risk is real? The

dissenter will point to things like low voter turnout rates, empty town hall meetings, and

low levels of civic efficacy across the country. These cautionary tales are especially evident

in the very communities this plan is aimed at bringing into the civic experience. However,

25See forwardDallas!.


22/25

22

this plan imagines the world differently. This plan imagines that the low participation

problem is a chicken-egg problem that might be misunderstood.

What if the real reason citizen participation is so low is because there is nothing for

citizens to actually connect with? Voting often comes down to picking one stranger over

another. Town hall meetings are often hollow forums to discuss matters that have already

been decided. People are insightful. They learn to see dog and pony shows from a mile

away. When they develop this discerning ability, they disengage. To counteract this status

quo, the community engagement exercise must be real. There must be real issues at stake.

There must be real power available for community members to use. There also must be

genuine avenues for community voices to be heard at the highest levels. In short,

community stakeholders must be created and deployed in the task of rebuilding broken

American cities.

Former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke addressed the community-based rebuilding

concept in the most compelling terms I have ever heard.26 Mayor Schmoke declares that

leaders who are serious about rebuilding cities must apply the Nehemiah Principle.

Nehemiah was an Old Testament prophet who sought to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and

its protective walls. The city had fallen victim to distress, waste, and discord. Nehemiah

called on the people of Jerusalem to work together (with friends and strangers alike) to

rebuild their city. Nehemiah engaged families from all classes. Recognizing different talents

allowed for different contributions, he encouraged each family to step up and do their own

26 Based on his remarks to our class on 3/29/12 in Austin North.


23/25

23

part, even if small, to revitalize Jerusalem. Everyone was included, and in just 52 days, their

collaborative effort had rebuilt the citys wall and gates.27

Revitalizing Americas urban cities will require a special type of leadership. Some

will want to be Moses-types that deliver a city to the Promised Land with a set of

instructions. Others will want to be David-types that conquer Goliath-sized problems with

personal courage and faith. However, the project of urban revitalization will require

modern-day Nehemiahs. These leaders will change cities by galvanizing the people who

live in them. They will encourage citizens to pick up the tools and talents they possess to

make whatever contribution they can. Piece-by-piece. Person-by-person. Everyone can

collaborate to rebuild the Jerusalems of America.

To achieve this dream, cities need leaders and policies that transform everyday

citizens into community stakeholders. Grand plans are simply not enough. Neither are

grand ambitions. These concepts are perhaps necessary but not sufficient. Meaningful

citizen participation is the silent bridge from the decaying city to the thriving metropolis.

By engaging community stakeholders in the project of managing the civic portfolio of

priorities, Dallas and its peer cities can be genuinely revitalized.

27See Book of Nehemiah, Chapter 6,Verse 15.


24/25


25/25

the unspoken requirement for urban revitalization

Documents