Followup from meeting with the City

Betsy Palazzola, Sandra Turner-Handy and I met with Karla Henderson and Marja Winters on Friday. It was a very positive meeting, in our opinion.

1. Reactions to the summit from Karla and Marja:

- the raw conversations resonated
- there seemed to be a wide variety of people with different interests, philosophies, jobs, age, race, income, etc.
- it was educational and interesting - particularly to see that even within the "environmental group" there are different perspectives

- it was good to see that people kept each other accountable with knowledge, information
- felt that the planning group did a good job in representing diverse principles, issues
- it was helpful that the discussions were solutions-oriented. want to know recommendations
- realized that the issues cut across so many lenses and entities that it can be hard to digest

2. Some immediate steps underway:

- The City has created a workgroup to look at improving the Adopt-A-Lot program for next year after hearing about the problems with recent changes to the program at the summit.

- The municipal solid waste task force has been meeting to discuss opportunities for citywide recycling.

- For the longer term, the DWP is reforming the team, really trying to pair community and city expertise. They are working on creating a broader table.

- Green demonstration projects are in the works for the three target areas, such as incorporating energy standards in home renovations.

3. Next steps: There was very high interest in endorsing a State of Detroit's Environment report (like a combination of Ann Arbor's State of Our Environment and the Detroit Food System Report prepared by Dr. Kami Pothakuchi for the Detroit Food Policy Task Force.)

The goals of such a report would be to:
- compile a comprehensive baseline of the current state of the environment and set targets for improvement
- identify policy opportunities and barriers (survey best practices)
- catalog the body of existing initiatives and efforts to improve Detroit's environmental quality
- organize the existing work, opportunities and needs into a comprehensive framework that lays out a sustainability strategy for the city while acknowledging and celebrating the efforts that are already on the ground.


We'd love your thoughts.
Thanks, Read more

Critical Moment post & response

There was a recent post on Critical Moment on community engagement in the Detroit Works Project by former CLR staffer Angie Allen. Here is my (Sandra Yu) response:

First, a big thanks to Angie for writing this post. It's very helpful to see the perspective of someone who has been involved in both processes.

As someone who was involved in helping organize the environmental summit in a way that tried to expand community outreach (thought we only had 2 months to DAAA's 6), I think the topic-based meetings could be called necessary but insufficient, and only the starting point if folks have the commitment and support to continue. Yes, I'm still unclear about how the input from those meetings will be incorporated into DWP 2.0 and next steps for those groups are yet to be determined. And I agree that neighborhood level (and regional!) input is absolutely critical. But those summits served as a very important forum for getting artists, seniors, youth, environmental advocates...
and entrepreneurs (and immigrants, sort of) to express population-specific needs and explore opportunities together with city officials - has this ever happened in any kind of coordinated, open, documented fashion?

Although concrete proposals are a ways off, I view that experience (organizing to plan the summits, meeting new fellow advocates and building relationships - hard as that was at times, learning more about different perspectives on each of the topics and their relationship to land use, learning who and what's "out there") as very valuable to moving forward - maybe not quite directly related to DWP's specific goals around dealing with population loss through land use, but certainly towards advancing our own as environmental advocates.

My point is - while I don't disagree with some of your overall points about the absolutely critical need for broad, genuine, neighborhood level engagement - it would be unfortunate to miss the very important fact that small coalitions of community residents and local advocates and stakeholders (including members of the Mayor's Advisory Task Force) were indeed deeply involved in organizing the environmental, entrepreneurial, artists and youth summits as well as the senior summit.

This is important because to me, the important lessons are that:

a. Even when the engagement strategy is genuine and in earnest, engagement on a challenging topic in a community with a tough past is HARD and that's nature of it - dealing with it and making it work is the expertise that we need, not a perfect engagement plan on paper; and

b. Building skills and experience in LOCAL organizations and people is worth the stumbling and slower pace in the long run because you will have built-in accountability and commitment to implementation, as well as a smarter, stronger local community at the other end of the process.

Different groups with different philosophies about [justice/development/revitalization/etc.] and different goals [building trust/implementation/quality of life outcomes/etc.] will define "successful/effective community engagement" quite differently.

What I am most curious about regarding the Community Revitalization Strategy (CRS) is what the actual outcomes have been. I usually hear "the process was great but overall it failed." What does that mean? People involved (Shea Howell has written about it in her column, Angie wrote about it in Critical Moment, Donele Wilkins has spoken about her experience as Cluster 3 co-chair) seem to have thought engagement was "good," but don't feel that exercise delivered significant tangible changes what neighborhoods look like for a variety of reasons (Archer didn't fund implementation, the plans were "pie-in-the-sky," PDD was isolated, etc.).

But there are lots of different kinds of possible outcomes beyond physical condition of neighborhoods (which is just one indicator of success) - local organizing capacity, a populace that's more knowledgeable about land use and community development, relationships built between advocates, residents, city officials, local consultants, foundations. All of these are important factors that help lead to better tangible quality of life outcomes.

Did Detroit's experience with CRS result in a stronger, savvier community development community that has an idea of the type of engagement they'd like to see? Did it result in better understanding about how the City, foundations, private consultants, community development practitioners and local stakeholders and residents can work together? Did it result in some physical changes in some neighborhoods? What kind? Where? Did it result in reducing poverty? How much? Where?

Angie writes that CRS was a 20-year vision, and it's now been almost 15 (I believe it kicked off in 1997). Is there a thorough progress report somewhere out there on the outcomes and lessons of CRS? What a shame if not, and if there is, why is it secret? $1.5 million was spent on that project - what are the lessons?? If it was so great, why does Detroit look the way it does now, and are there more important outcomes?

There's a philosophical question at the heart of both CRS and DWP - and any community development endeavor, for that matter. I personally believe that there are good intentions and genuine desire for better quality of life in every camp - City, philanthropy, community development industry, residents, advocacy groups. But there are complicating power & money dynamics, differing views of best strategy, distinct specialized expertise, and different types of authority and responsibility. Given all of that, what are the most effective/appropriate roles for each in helping a City rise again? And can that be worked out in a non-adversarial manner? If so... who should be the arbiter...?


Read more

Executive Summary of Draft Summit Report to City/DWP

Here is the letter and summary report we sent to Karla Henderson and Marja Winters. And here is a great diagram of the principles that came out of each topic-based discussion. Thanks to Margaret Weber, Betsy Palazzola, Joel Heeres, Jessica Kursman, Evan Major, Sandra Turner-Handy, Killian O'Brien and Charity Hicks for helping pull all of this together.
And here is the rest of it. Read more

Latest article about the Detroit Works Project

Latest news on Detroit Works - Full Plan to be released in 2012; short-term strategies to emerge this year.
Read more

Charter Revision - discussion draft

Click for the Discussion draft

Take a look at Article 6, Chapter 6, which details modifications to the section about the Department of Building Safety Engineering [and now] Environment. In particular, there is provision for a "Green Initiatives and Sustainable Technologies feasibility study and plan, to be reviewed and updated annually.

Section 6-609:

"The department shall study the matter and prepare and implement a long-term strategic
plan (“Green Initiatives and Sustainable Technologies Plan” or “GIST Plan”) for the
establishment, use and support of green initiatives, technologies and businesses, utilizing
public and private partners. The Mayor shall commission a public study (“Study and
Report on Green Initiatives and Sustainable Technologies” or “SRGIST”) to determine
the feasibility and requirements for engaging in and supporting this activity in the City of
Detroit and areas outside the City of Detroit for the benefit of residents. The SRGIST
shall be initiated within three (3) months of the effective date of this Charter, completed
within one (1) year of its commencement and publicly disseminated upon its completion.
2. Within six (6) months after completion of the SRGIST the Mayor shall prepare the GIST
Plan and submit it to City Council for approval before it may be implemented. City
Council may hold public hearing prior to taking formal action on the GIST Plan, and if
approved shall create any ordinances required to achieve the GIST Plan‟s objectives.
3. The GIST Plan shall be comprehensive and may include solar, wind, thermal and other
forms of alternative and renewable energy production and uses; alternative fuels; or other
sustainable technologies and endeavors; green public works, construction and building
programs; and any other green initiative or technology considered feasible. The GIST
Plan shall incorporate green initiatives and technologies within the workplace and for use
with City owned vehicles and property, real and personal. The GIST Plan may include
methods and support for citizen initiated green initiatives and sustainable technology
uses.Discussion Draft May 6, 2011
4. The GIST Plan shall be reviewed yearly by the department and revised as necessary. All
revisions to the GIST Plan must be approved by City Council, who shall implement all
ordinances necessary to achieve the objectives of the revised GIST Plan.
5. The Mayor may create advisory commissions under section 7-103 to assist with the
development, monitoring, implementation and revision of the GIST Plan.
COMMENTARY: Revitalization of the City of Detroit requires that it develop and utilize
green initiatives, technologies and businesses. The utilization of such technologies will place the City squarely within the 21st century and serve as a solid foundation for substantive economic growth and improvement in the quality of life for Detroit residents.
Indeed, the “green” job opportunities presented in the area of construction are promising and
the potential for economic growth is undeniable. As noted in a 2009 special report of Green
Technology, a leading non-profit “green” initiative:
Fueled by concerns about energy, greenhouse gas emissions and indoor air quality, an
explosion of interest in green building is creating new job opportunities in the construction
industry. A 2008 report from McGraw Hill Construction, “The Green Outlook: Trends
Driving Change,” notes that the size of the national green building market has expanded fivefold over the last three years, and is projected to triple again in the next five years, reaching
$96-$140 billion.
To meet the demands of government programs and increasingly stringent regulations
regarding energy efficiency, alternative energy use, water conservation and environmentallyfriendly building materials, working professionals such as plumbers and electricians find that
they need training on new equipment and technologies. At the same time, entirely new jobs are
emerging, such as solar panel installers, energy efficiency building auditors, and recycling
specialists.
According to a recent report from the Vocational and Technical Education Act (VTEA)
Industrial and Technical Statewide Collaborative, 30,450 new employment opportunities are
projected in California construction occupations between now and 2016. In contrast to this
increasing demand, VTEA notes that an aging workforce, and a negative perception of
construction as “common, dirty work,” have restricted the pipeline of new workers.
As the first state to enact a Green Building Code, and the home of numerous local
governments that have mandated green standards for new construction, California is poised to
set the standard for greening of residential and commercial structures. Effective outreach and
training programs for green construction jobs are crucial if the state is to make the most of the
current potential for economic growth and increased sustainability. These can help men and
women from all sectors of California‟s diverse student and working populations gain access to
a range of high-paying jobs that also offer the reward of tangible and immediate impact on
environmental quality. (See, http://www.green-technology.org/greentech-report-june09r.pdf)
This new Charter section requires the development of a long-term strategic “Green Initiative
and Sustainable Technology Plan” (“GIST Plan”) by the Mayor, after a one (1) year study
period that results in a public report (“Study and Report on Green Initiatives and Sustainable
Technologies” or “SRGIST”). Approval of the GIST Plan by City Council assures that the Discussion Draft May 6, 2011
entire community and all facets of city government have input. This section calls for continual
review and update of the GIST Plan. The use of public advisory commissions in the
development, monitoring, implementation and revision of the GIST Plan is provided for in this
section. All forms of feasible green initiatives and technologies are to be included into the GIST
Plan with public and private partnerships serving as a vehicle for achieving its objectives.
The appreciable resources in the City of Detroit and State of Michigan, in the form of research
universities, for-profit and non-profit green technology companies, local green initiatives and
access to national and international expertise and funding, makes the development and execution
of such a plan not only feasible, but a practical necessity in light of the current economic
condition and opportunities for growth currently existing in the City." Read more

Policy Audit Summaries

Please find here links to summaries of the Detroit Works Project policy audits. The summaries provide a brief overview of the content, and include elements that we thought were missing, as well as key questions and proposed solutions to think about.

Infrastructure/Transportation/Sustainability

Urban Agriculture

Public Land

Ecology/Landscape

Remediation and Environmental Health

Read more

Updates from Detroit Works Project

Read more

Process for change - Breakout 3

Process For Change – BREAKOUT 3 (Facilitated by Donele Wilkins)

• Coordinating community ideas with city action
• Educating entire city home by home about engagement opportunities
• Start young
• Schools?
• CDC’S resources and energy towards actually organizing neighborhoods
• Better coordination between city agencies w/ overlapping responsibilities
• Create an Office of Sustainability to coordinate all actions
• Citizen representation
• Transparency of city functions

• Better public info
• Budgeting
• Specific allocations
• Actual use
• Community benefits
• Business incentives for sustainability work/jobs creation
• Look at what residents in mostly abandoned areas as people who have done something right to keep their homes
• Use as community anchor points
• Develop incentives for residents to serve in their communities and take ownership of their “struggling” neighborhoods
• How to take the reasons behind DWP and make it work for residents (density concerns)
• Talk to residents in those less dense communities
• Need to change mindset of how to inform process and reach assets of those not in the conversations
• Use lived experience
• Change message: “we need you” to actually reach residents in affected areas
• Are we about people or about profits of displacement
• Need to get out of box and not go where we’ve been
• Need to figure out way to engage community in neighborhoods and reverse disinvestment
• Decentralize input and decision-making
• Need info/availability/incentives/education to help residents create businesses instead of just looking outside limits for companies
• How do we get the city to both facilitate and get out of the way of local business
• Preferential treatment
• Tie into office of sustainability
• Need to be able to demonstrate value of your new business/org/project
• Need to take into account environmental and social value, not just economic
• Need to take ideal development model and present it to the city
• Develop a mktng package for city to take to streets
• Show ideas of sustainability to thrive, not just survive
• Needto address system of real estate
• Need fundamental shift in concept of land ownership
• Respect desires for density or lack thereof
• Citizen say over how saved money from downsizing should be spent
• Can’t take services and community from residents and give nothing inreturn
• Tax revenue - redistribution
• Allow community say over what to do with cleared/vacant land
• Alt. energy
• Bioremediation
• Remaining residents as stewards of those projects
• Issues of race and environmental justice to be considered across/throughout/integrated with all issues
• Need holistic sustainability approach
• Train people around environmental injustice
• Areas with historically high death/illness
• People and stewardship 1st over profit
• Holistic, realistic, humanistic – heal hurts of race and environmental damage
• Not to be all handed over to city
• We need to do it
• Want organizational charts and contact info for all city departments/duties
• Database of commonly requested documents online
• Permits
• Business forms
• Etc.
• Seek native Detroiter “celebrity” spokesperson to raise consciousness & urgency
• Balance corporate welfare (tax incentives) with the welfare of residents
• Historically imbalanced

Land Use

• Clear deeds and demolish vacant bldgs in batches/concentrated areas
• Issues with ownership
• Concerns with open/dangerous
• Efficiency, not chaos
• Detroit Land Bank
• Who governs it?
• How does it function?
• How is it growing or not?
• Compliments to city service delivery last two years
• Answering phone
• Waste collection
• Farm-a-lot regulations, paperwork and limitations poorly conceived and cut out many farmers
• No soil improvement
• No rain water allowed
• If high rises along Jefferson could purchase land across street for community gardening
• Concerns over gardening on brownfield sites and garden permits
• Cannot address contaminated soil on sites due to code
• Capture demolition materials
• Deconstruct& reuse brick from commercial bldgs/rejected concrete
• Brightmoor’s huge cleanup
• Need easier access/process to lots
• Acquisition
• Permits : why 50 applications for 50 lots?
• Many issues of land use management solved by local control of:
• Use
• Ownership and/or control of assets
• demolitions
• vacant land use
• don’t allow uncontrolled building, suburbaniztion
• consider aesthetics
• If Detroit is “ground zero” for brownfields, where is $$?
• What’s happening with vacant schools/fields?
• Problems w/ historic zoning conflict with desired current uses
• Historically polluted, heavy industry in same neighborhoods, now have heavy industry where now residential areas
• Speeding
• Heavy trucks
• Air quality
• Noise @ night
• Worried that community will be discarded, but residents have good revitalization ideas that are hampered by zoning
• Concerned that prioritized neighborhoods (DWP), schools (DPS), and churches (Archdiocese) not coordinated, but should be
• No coordinated policy on urban gardening & problem w/ Right to Farm Act blocking
• Detroit Parks Coalition community resources to help neighborhoods maintain own parks
• Clark Park community-driven
• Only overused park in system
• Make parks assets
• “D4” zone if their neighborhood faces dwindling services:
• Allow current residents right of first refusal on bldgs/land
• Some residents already maintaining
• Concepts of “valleys” of like interests
• Entrepereneurship
• Garment district, e.g.
• 25k properties have lead poisoned kids, 5k multiple times
• Many more with lead exposure
• Lead paint from demolitions going into ground
• Include testing in demolition process
• Garden Resource Program provides one test per garden for free
• Bioremediation considered
• Access vacant land for ecosystem services like storm water management
• Bring more contact with nature into city
• Psyc and phys benefits
• Lawns to gardens
• Create natural spaces with MI indigenous plants
• Community now has to fit with city system
• City should instead create a function to receive community input & respond
• Extremely important to use managed open space, provide for long-term management, fix system for residents to purchase and love vacant property
• Thanks to participants for showing how much people love Detroit
• Local food system
• Commons
• Community-based economy
• City as sustainable ecosystem
• Alternative energy generation
• With great amt of open space, city should look at alt. energy generation
• Avalon model: people, profit, earth
• Detroit like no other place
• Embrace this; plan around ecological services
• Greatest urban ag system
• Need to craft principles for responsible disinvestment

Read more

Process for change – Breakout 2

Process For Change – BREAKOUT 2 (Facilitated by Guy Williams)

Big Solutions (Ideal)

• Good Neighbors – Skillman
• Empower groups to make decisions
• Better communication between city of Detroit activities (transparency)
• Connectivity of other plans throughout the city
• City Master Plan city-wide review
• All city depts. need to follow Master Plan
• H20 Dept. to work w/ community on rates to prevent storm water pollution
• Follow-thru very important

• Penalty or incentive for everyone
• Everyone must be involved
• Creating regional investment
• City, state fed

Implementation

• Identify low-hanging fruit
• I.e. eliminate conflicting zoning policy
• Food policy council + other groups should broadcast shows/info on local TV
• Awareness -> education – be sure to connect the two
• Facilitate small-scale, diverse solutions
• Decentralized
• Neighborhoods
• More local involvement
• Explore alternative business model – reinvestment of money
• Cool: not using 1 tax dollar for developing Detroit
• Restaurant assoc. -> grow food
• Neighborhood investors
• Economic development resources
• Incentives for businesses that work w/ communities
• Incentives for new bldgs vs. existing bldgs.
• Need policy
• City of Detroit “building better” program/policy
• Challenge
• How to identify low-hanging fruit
• Prioritize

Top Priorities

• Connectivity (3)
• The interactive plan more effective

Next Steps

• Ask (city):
• Assign 1 person from City of Detroit for Urban Ag + 1 person for Land Use
• Transparency very important to foster partnerships
• Designated comm.. representatives for the comm.
• Public comment review of city policy audits
• Consider info presented at this Summit to be included into Policy Audits
• Review against old policy
• Land use policy needs remediation
• Water quality = health

Read more