New Report on Reviving Smaller Rust Belt Cities

[Dan Lavoie]

Sorry if this is horning in on your forum, but I thought you all might want to know about a new report my organization released today on reviving smaller industrial cities like Youngstown, Erie, Scranton, etc. It highlights some of the great work already going on in these cities and offers a road-map for progress moving forward.

You can see the full report here: http://www.policylink.org/ToBeStrongAgain.pdf

If anyone has any questions about the report, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at dan_at_policylink.org. And, again, sorry if this is in any way an intrusion. I just thought y'all might find the report particularly interesting.

PS -- We'll be doing some interesting posts on the subject this week at our blog, EquityBlog.org. And we're always interested in cross-posts and guest bloggers.....

[Dan Knauss]

Thanks for posting this. Will read.

[Kenneth Thompson]

Hi Dan,
Very interesting report.. I am sending it on to my contacts engaged in community regeneration in the UK..
I do have a question, which seems to go begging in the report. How are we to
1) help people, many who have been injured by the decline of these communities, recover their capabilities and their sense of being actors in the world? (we spend a fortune on institutions- health care, education- but they generally dont seem to help people recover...)
2) engage in community processes that support social inclusion, that overcome the forces of social exclusion currently in operation??

Ken Thompson MD
University of Pittsburgh

[Dan Knauss]

Doesn't it depend on who "we" is? What is social inclusion/exclusion? Specifically, who is being excluded for what by whom and why?

The "program" approach to helping broken economies and communtities doesn't work no matter where the money comes from. It depends on too much distance between helper/helpee and creates incentives to create "sustainable failure." This points to bottom-up organizing as a solution, but without the classic political aims and goals of community organizing.

The classic Alinsky tactic approach is mostly irrelevant or peripheral now. It was designed for demanding bigger pieces of the pie for the laboring classes when there was an employing class that employed them and conspired with politicians to keep money moving up the food chain, not down. You would shame, humiliate and pressure the pols and moneybags to get what you wanted--better pay, hours, benefits, etc. It worked because there were jobs and the game involved bosses and workers who had a material interdependency.

Today, demanding jobs and "relief" for largely unemployed, uneducated and unskilled populations marked by their marginalization and self-segregation makes "community organizers" into a pack of fools if they attack the people who are most inclined to want to help them, as they often still do, or merely ask for more handouts and little perks.

What if significant money were spent on a "program" implemented by "community organizers" who lived and worked in the community they served, which would be a relatively small urban neighborhood with some key traits that make it more likely to "turn" and more likely to impact key adjoining areas positively? Suppose they had 6 years of funding with no renewal under any circumstances and requirements to meet every 2 years to keep the program going? Major activities would be identifying, teaching, organizing, and supporting residents who are trying to secure jobs, homes, streets, schools, businesses, and be involved with the city leaders and services--using them, advising them, watchdogging them.