Driving through neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, the sight of vacant, abandoned homes is hard to miss. In some of the hardest-hit neighborhoods, including many of those neighborhoods served by Southeastern Village, few blocks are untouched by the years of population and economic decline, let alone the current housing crisis affecting many neighborhoods.
According to the most recent published data from the U.S. Postal Service, the rate of residential vacancy stands near 30 percent in several neighborhoods served by Southeastern Village. This represents a near doubling of the rate of residential vacancy since 2005.
The growing number of vacant and unmaintained properties in some neighborhoods has a tremendous impact on families and life in those neighborhoods. As more and more homes are left vacant due to foreclosures and abandonment, the occurrence of housing and property blight can begin to overwhelm neighborhoods, leading more residents to move and more housing vacancy, increased criminal activity and a variety of other environmental and social problems. These issues and their severity are what distinguish some urban areas, like Detroit, with regard to implementing SR2S initiatives.
These “neighborhood” issues represent a set of extremely challenging barriers when compared to those common identified in suburban and rural areas. Clearly though, SR2S initiatives also represent a community organizing and advocacy opportunity that may help bring much needed attention, problem-solving and even funding resources to the communities that need them the most. Addressing the safety of children going to and from school can have a direct impact on the safety of the community at large and it can be a method of creating community within neighborhoods of strangers, a common condition in urban settings.
Engaging Government and Community Resources
Detroiters can report neighborhood problems to government in many ways. 911, 311, direct phone calls to city officials, including elected officials and city departments such as the police department or DPW, or even the city Ombudsperson's Office. They can even report issues while at community meetings, where oftentimes a city official will be present. Not surprisingly. However, the neighborhoods that often need the most help are those who are the least active, organized and connected to decision-makers.
Historically, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" method has been the most effective method of getting things done in Detroit -- especially if you know someone well-placed in city government. Most citizens would agree that the bureaucratic method has not worked effectively for decades and that the existing “system” for addressing persistent neighborhood problems in the City of Detroit is broken. Citizens consistently complain that local government is not responsive -- their complaints about problems are not followed through with action. Even recent surveys conducted by the City itself highlight these sentiments. The results show very low citizen satisfaction with many basic city services such as policing, street lighting, and those related to housing and environmental conditions.
The ongoing presence of dangerous conditions in neighborhoods such as abandoned buildings, junk vehicles, and illegal dumping are symptoms of the onset of a socially destructive process that can render an entire neighborhood virtually uninhabitable. Residents who live in these conditions live their daily life with increasing frustration and despair. These factors also lead residents to believe that government is powerless to remedy the situation. Those with the wherewithal will often move out.
SEV’s Taskforce Approach
SEV Taskforce sought to demonstrate a collaborative model of problem solving based on “old-style” community advocacy and organizing but also one featuring key partnerships with government agencies that could help get things done – specific actions on problems. SEV’s Taskforce combined broad community participation including residents, school officials, and other community actors (e.g., churches, other agencies) with data collected on conditions present near nine different SEV area schools. The data was used to quantify and prioritize the large number of neighborhood problems that needed both advocacy and action.
The data was used to help inspire and coordinate community clean-ups around several schools. The data was shared with the City of Detroit Department of Public Works and Buildings, Safety and Engineering, and the Wayne County Office of Nuisance Abatement. Properties currently listed as being owned by the City of Detroit, Wayne County, or State of Michigan were identified as “immediate” risk management issues that should be looked at by local government. Privately-owned properties were directed to the City of Detroit’s Department of Administrative Hearings for code enforcement. These property owners could then be subjected to fines, fees and other action (e.g., forfeiture). If the conditions justified action, the property owner would be required to attend a hearing, agree to fix the problems, or incur fines.
During the course of the pilot project, SEV’s SR2S Taskforce was able to accomplish several things:
Community Organizing and Advocacy – SEV’s Taskforce recruited residents, school officials, and others who could provide the “power of numbers” to the effort along with the legitimacy of the SR2S effort. Through several community organizing and advocacy events (usually featuring free food!), these volunteers helped SEV articulate the seriousness of the issues it sought to address. The data SEV collected on the schools and neighborhoods (i.e., locations, photos, ownership information) helped to clearly identify the problems that it sought government officials to address. SEV’s Taskforce included several individuals who worked as staff for city council members (and even one congressional staffer). The involvement of local elected officials helped to secure participation of city agency officials and likely guaranteed a certain level of attention and action from those agencies.
Community clean-ups – SEV coordinated several large-scale community clean-ups and helped link citywide efforts (“Motor City Clean Up”) with its SR2S agenda. Youth involved with SEV’s summer programs also contributed their time to sprucing up areas around schools where trash had accumulated for many years.
Community education – SEV persuaded police department officials to conduct training workshops on crime prevention at the local community center. These workshops also featured presentations from city officials on organizing and registering block clubs and starting neighborhood watch programs and CB patrol programs. In some cases, the city offers funding to residents for help operating these types of programs.
Other Strategies for Community Involvement
SEV pursued a number of other strategies including:
- Providing information to parents and residents on how to become Eyes and Ears supporting SR2S.
- Representing the neighborhood and attend block club and Citizen District Council meetings to talk about Safe Routes to School activities, recruit volunteers and disseminate literature.
- Sharing the findings of the student SR2S mapping projects that identify locations of dangerous buildings and blight and solicit action from government agencies and elected officials.
- Developing a process for community members to report dangerous buildings that are not secured adequately.
- Recruiting volunteers for neighborhood and school campus clean-ups.
- Inviting residents to participate in Walk to School Day as walk leaders and other roles.
- Working with Neighborhood City Halls to hold classes on organizing block clubs.
- Working with Citizen District Councils to develop strategies on re-use of vacant lots for community gardens, street art, among other uses.
- Having police hold community classes for establishment of neighborhood watches.
- Enlisting local CB patrols to extend their activities to areas around their local schools before and after school.
- Integrating SR2S activities into other programs, such as community development initiatives funded by local foundations.
Comments