East Lawrence, the Bo Harris Redevelopment Plan, and the Search for Democracy

Background

I'm a relatively new resident in the East Lawrence Neighborhood, but as soon as I moved here I worked to try to get involved with the local Neighborhood Association. As a non-college student renter living in the Oread Neighborhood for several years, I had always wanted to live in a neighborhood surrounded by other working class people. I had always heard of how strong and organized the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association was, and this made me sufficiently jealous while living in the Oread.

Upon attending my first meeting of the Neighborhood Association in November of 2005, my partner and I were asked to join the Board of the Association. We very happily accepted this offer, and joined the ranks of some amazingly dedicated residents of the neighborhood.

One of the first issues that I came to work on right away was the neighborhood's response to the a proposed redevelopment plan of an area located at 8th and Pennsylvania Streets by developer Bo Harris. There was much contention over one of the proposed zones within the project, a zone (Zone 3) that would create 54 housing units on one square block and alone could effectively gentrify the entire area surrounding the development. This part of the neighborhood is home to some of the poorest residents of the neighborhood, and any change in property values would significantly affect the population of that area.

Throughout the process of the proposal for the development, Bo Harris had met with the neighborhood residents to try to feel his way around the development question. Despite the meetings, it wasn't until nearly three years later, and right before Harris was to get his zoning approval that the contents of proposed development of Zone 3 of the project surfaced. Many felt that despite Harris' voiced good intentions, he had deceived the neighborhood by withholding the plans for Zone 3 until December of 2005, although the development planning had started as early as 2002.

The Neighborhood Association took quick measures to hold meetings and organize approaches to stopping this zone of the development (Zone 3). Many months of meetings within the Association, and many months of intense dialogue and negotiations with Bo Harris resulted in two major developments. The first and most impacting of these, was the creation of a new body within the neighborhood of neighbors who were growing frustrated with what they viewed as a Neighborhood Association that wasn't willing to stand up to Harris: the Old East Lawrence Preservation Alliance. This body was effectively a break away group from the Neighborhood Association, and drew members that stood solidly opposed to the proposed development.

The second thing to occur was a compromise agreement reached by the OELPA, the ELNA, and Bo Harris. This agreement, after many weeks of arguments, was crafted to not only change the face of the proposed development project, but also to include safeguards for the residents of East Lawrence to help resist gentrification, traffic, and density concerns. These ideas included a fund to assist elderly and poor residents pay for their property taxes, tax rebates for said populations, and a traffic summit to focus on alleviating future traffic concerns for the neighborhood.

In the final hours before the City Commission was set to meet to approve the first phases of the plan needed for development, word came that the ideas for a site plan that were included within the compromise position would not be feasible from the perspective of the Historic Resources Commission, nor the Planning Commission. This was a serious blow to the compromise agreement, a blow that lead to the questioning of the compromise by the developer, and that basically has at this point, effectively killed that idea for the development.

A tense City Commission meeting ensued in which City Commissioners had to debate on the merits of granting the rezoning requests necessary to allow Harris to develop his intended project. Much debate went back and forth from the public, with the majority of the neighborhood residents that spoke voicing frustration over the process, the project, and with the City. Most that spoke asked for the vote to be deferred until a later date, until more time was available to reach another compromise position.

City Commissioner David Schauner laid out the oppositions core argument the best, when he went on to explain that for the last several weeks, residents of the neighborhood had worked with an understanding that the compromise position reached by the parties involved was where the project stood. Now, those thoughts had been squelched, and the residents had no bargaining chip available against the developer if the City voted to rezone the area. A vote to rezone would basically clear the way for the development, whether the residents liked the outcome or not.

Despite Schauner's astute understanding of the process, the Commission voted 4 to 1 to rezone the property and adopt the development guidelines that would allow for Harris' proposed development. This vote, despite assurances from the City that it would do everything in its power to meet the demands of the compromise position such as the fund for the elderly and poor besides the site plan demand, left many members of the Neighborhood Association feeling like they had suffered a loss.


Process and Democracy

Democracy is defined as the rule of the people. The United States of America, a nation supposedly founded on Democratic principles of the rule of the people, has developed different models and forms of what are accepted as Democratic processes. The City Commission is one of these processes, as well as the sub-bodies that work for the Commission, including the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Commission. The legitimacy of their being Democratic processes is at best, however, questionable.

With the Bo Harris development as an example, we can start to look at how the various bodies that are supposed to represent the will of the people are actually used to usurp that will, and indeed work for the interests of entities other than the residents of the neighborhood in question.

To move further in this discussion, we must understand that there are conflicting interests and conflicting populations within this scenario. The first of these would be the actual residents of East Lawrence. This is a diverse group of people with different goals, hopes, and aspirations, as well as differing class backgrounds, political opinions, religions, races, etc. However, East Lawrence is by far, a mostly working class and poorer neighborhood, and one of the most racially mixed of all the neighborhoods in Lawrence.

The second of these groups would be the Bo Harris construction firm, a firm that may have some employees that live in East Lawrence, but by and large, is mostly removed from what happens in that neighborhood, and has little real interest in what occurs in that neighborhood unless it affects that business' profit margin.

The third of these groups is the City. The word "City" is used in this context to describe the members of the various bodies of the City Government, including the City Commission, the executive ruling body of the city. This term also includes the Planning Commission, the Historic Resources Commission, and all other entities that are involved in the processes of the city. The City, although individual employees of which may live in East Lawrence, is an entity that also by and large has very little interest in what occurs in East Lawrence unless it affects the profit, the authority, or the workings of the City governance.

Of these three groupings, only one has any real interest in what happens in East Lawrence, and this interest is a vested interest, that for many means life and death. The residents of East Lawrence have the most at stake of any of these bodies whenever any decisions are made about the neighborhood. At the end of the day, it won't be the members of the City Commission or Bo Harris that have to really live with the development in East Lawrence. Instead, the residents of East Lawrence will become those truly affected by these decisions.

Under the idea of Democracy, the people with the most at stake should be those that have the biggest voice in the processes that affect their lives. At least, that's how I've always understood the idea of "rule by the people." What people and what rule? That's determined by who's affected by what decisions. For a system of governance to be Democratic, the system has to be set up in such a way such that the people who are affected by decisions have a say in those decisions. This was the social theory and philosophy that was supposedly developed to bring freedom after centuries of aristocratic and monarchist rule.

Instead, what has clearly happened, as is illustrated by this redevelopment project, is that the people with the most to lose in the process are also given the smallest voice in the process. The developer and the city work out most of the details, and indeed, the city works to advocate for the developer.

In this instance, members of the City's planning staff met with Harris and employees of Harris in private meetings to help develop the project, figure out ways to push the development forward, and find ways to help Harris pay for the said development. The City took and takes an active role in aiding developers. This process starts to blur the lines between these two entities, and starts to create a conflict between two entities: on one side the city and the developer, and on the other the residents of the neighborhood. And in the end, which side will actually have the state-sanctioned power to decide what happens in the neighborhood?

So where does this leave the actual stakeholders within this process, those that live in East Lawrence? It must be clear that no matter where one stands on this development process, any resident of East Lawrence has to plead their case in front of the City, a body that has already done everything in its power to aid the developer and also looks to gain tax revenue from the project. Does the neighborhood have final say in the matter? No. The City does.

So, it rightfully frustrated many residents of East Lawrence to have to make pleas in front of a body of five people who don't even live in the neighborhood in question. It's a natural response to become upset with a process that allows people with no direct ties to an area to make all the decisions for that area.

This was the scene that played out on August 8th, when the City granted the zoning and guidelines requests to Harris for his development. Five people that did not live in East Lawrence gave permission for a person that also does not live in East Lawrence (and who fits into an economic bracket that most residents of East Lawrence can only dream of) to change the fate and destiny of East Lawrence.

You may be asking yourself, just as I was and still am: where is the rule of the people here? Where is the democracy?

In fact, the only agreement actually reached by a democratic process, the compromise agreement has already been effectively shut down by the City. That same entity that holds all the power though they don't have the same interests of the residents of East Lawrence.


The Death of Community Control

This conflict of interests, this battle being waged within the framework of supposed Democratic processes is taking place all over the country and the world. This isn't anything unique to Lawrence, or unique to this project. In fact, it's this same struggle that has produced civil wars, rebellions, class warfare, and strife across the globe, from Chiapas in Mexico to Los Angeles in the United States.

This same struggle, the social struggle for where power should be centered is at the heart of debates currently happening across the country in reference to the War in Iraq, minimum wage and labor standards, medical care and insurance, and countless debates about social equity and justice issues.

The process that has occurred over the last centuries, of slowly eroding hard fought gains for control within communities, and handing that power over to state-sanctioned bodies has been a process that has resulted in the stripping of the power away from the people, and the concentration of all power in the hands of a few.

This is not Democracy. In fact, by definition, this is Plutocracy. This is not to say that there are no democratic processes left in the United States. However, this is to say that every time we hand power to a city or state government that has little true interest in what we, the residents of these neighborhoods actually are affected by, then we have handed power away from the community and to the select few.

In short, what the Harris redevelopment project has illustrated, is that no matter what your stance on the development, if you were a resident of East Lawrence, you really didn't have any power over the final decision, unless you were willing to take power into your own hands.

In fact, this is what was indeed shown by the Neighborhood Association, a committed group of individuals that throughout the process took power into its own hands and decided to make Harris' life a living hell until he had dealt with the body.

In the end, though, these efforts, as well organized and powerful as they were, were still overshadowed by the show of power from the City, who acted as final judge over the merits of the project.

In a Democracy, shouldn't the neighborhood have all the power to decide what happens in it? We are the ones that have to live with it, right?


Moving Forward into the Design Charrette

As the process moves forward to the design charrette to take place on August 26th, it is important to remember who has the actual power, and who has the perceived power in this process. The residents of East Lawrence have the power in this situation, and Bo and the city have the perceived power.

We can't be afraid to ask for everything we want in this process. We must keep clearly in mind that one of the only reasons that the charrette came into being in the first place is because the Neighborhood Association acted quickly to counter Bo's push for quick development and demanded a place at the table for discussions about Zone 3. Bo is only in this position because we forced him into it. This isn't to say that Bo may not be the nicest man in the world, but the social role he plays as a developer means he doesn't work from his conscience but from his pocketbook. There's an understanding that if he can include the neighborhood in his project, and get all complaints out of the way, that he can make some money and not look forward to long drawn out complaints or even lawsuits.

We hope to ensure that the OELPA is fully involved in the charrette process as well, so that these ideas can also be put into practice. The charrette process is a great way for us all to get what we want. Should this charrette have happened before the city granted zoning and the UCD? Yes. But now that we are here, we must use this democratic tool to craft a project that even if we're not happy with, we can have some say over. Though this process isn't totally or directly democratic, we need to use any tools of democracy handed to us to ensure that community power continues to stay concentrated with those that live in East Lawrence.

Ideally, in a really democratic world, someone wishing to start a development process would approach the neighborhood body and ask permission, then go through a charrette process to come to the outcome, without the City being able to move the project ahead of the expectations of the residents of the neighborhood.


Conclusions: The Future of Democracy in Lawrence

Although, as I have stated, this situation is not unique to Lawrence, it is my opinion that was is indeed unique, is that the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association is willing to take power into its own hands (where this power belongs in the first place) to make changes that need to happen within its neighborhood.

I think basically every member of the association can agree, that in a truly Democratic society, the power is within us as a neighborhood, and indeed that is the reason that ELNA exists in the first place.
These developments are truly hopeful when considering the future of Democracy in Lawrence. However, more concrete steps will need to be made by the Neighborhood Association in the future to ensure that the association fulfills its hopes and aspirations of engendering a democratic tool.

As the author of this piece, and as a Board member for the Neighborhood Association, I have several suggestions and goals that I would like to see come out of this battle against gentrification and for people power within our neighborhood.

Firstly, I would like to see the Neighborhood Association create a block liason program that ensures that a member of the Board or someone reporting to the Board is in contact with each and every resident of each block. This could work much like our intentions with the now put on hold efforts of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Safety Network. Either the Board could be comprised of representatives of each block or series of blocks, or such liasons could exist and report to the entire association autonomously.

The merits of this suggestion is that I feel this would naturally lead to more diverse body of the neighborhood association that is also directly democratic and in communication with everyone that lives within the neighborhood.

Secondly, I would suggest that before each meeting of the Association, Board members or other members or block liasons took an active role of canvassing their neighbors to alert them as to what was on the agenda at the meeting, and encourage attendance at the meeting.

Thirdly, I would recommend that the ELNA take a more active stance in the development of Direct Democracy by having an attitude shift. We are the residents of this neighborhood. We will make the decisions that this neighborhood. If we as a Neighborhood Association want to create safety programs, let's do it... if we as a Neighborhood Association want to help create tenant's unions to combat slumlords, let's do it... if we as a Neighborhood Association want to repair sidewalks, then let's do it. I know this sounds obvious and redundant and that these are already the opinions of many in the Neighborhood, we must really formalize the idea that the Neighborhood Association can be, and indeed, must be, the decision making organization for the neighborhood... one that is Directly Democratic, and based on equality and cooperation.

Fourthly, I would recommend that as much as possible, roles within the Association be rotated so members of the Association can all feel to be a part of the processes of the Association and so that power isn't concentrated in the hands of a few.

Finally, I would recommend and propose the creation of an internal body or working group within the Neighborhood Association that is to aid in the development of a truly Democratic process and become a think tank for new programs and projects we can take on and make these proposals to the rest of the group.

I know I'm a newbie to the Neighborhood Organization, and I seemingly have a lot to say about processes and organizations I am very new to, and may have because of this, made assumptions or conclusions that seem invalid or naive. I understand this perspective, and I write this statement not to push my own will on the Neighborhood Association, or advance my own political ideas, but instead so that we can start a process that is built from a foundation of Democratic and free processes.

Also, I want to reinstate that the reason that I love this neighborhood is because of the strong, capable people that make up the neighborhood and ELNA, and without people like KT or Janet, I don't know where I'd be.

It is my hopeful belief, that although it seems that the power of neighborhoods and the people within them is being stripped away and usurped by people with more money and perceived power, that we in East Lawrence can continue to strive for a community body that keeps power where it belongs. This struggle is at the heart of every issue of social justice, and our work to create Democracy in our Neighborhood can also be a part of a greater struggle for social justice and liberty across the board. The struggle for neighborhood power can also be the same struggle to stop warfare, poverty, hunger, class division, and oppression. We must start to understand that all of these social ills stem from one greater social ill... the concentration of power in the hands of the few. If we work to take back our power as a neighborhood and as a community, then we directly challenge those power relationships that destroy lives all around us.

The future holds much promise, and East Lawrence can be a major victory in this struggle for where power should rest. I look forward to hearing from you all, and I look forward to our continued work together.

For a future based in real power for all people.
For Democracy and Liberty.

Dave Strano
1235 New York Street
8/9/06