What to do when community action bites you in the ass? or "No good deed goes unpunished" they say. But there is something more afoot in Better Waverly, and other neighborhoods that needs to be discussed perhaps....
Now it's nothing new to community activism folk out there that when you try to help them, you guide and support, endorse and facilitate, that they can often be thankless and even bitter for your work. It's understandable given the upheaval change can bring. But I've encountered a particular "flavor" of this as a resident here in Better Waverly, since I've lived here. It comes, particularly, from a group of those who are the self-appointed arbiters of "good change" vs. "bad change", with little regard to the social majority or will of those that do live here. It's NIMBY-ism, but not in their own backyard. They're in
your backyard.
A friend pointed out that here in Baltimore, as most places, the NIMBY thing runs deep. Race and class also, not surprisingly, ting it. What you NIMBY in Better Waverly
is decidedly different than in Roland Park where they have been fighting to retain green space in a area resplendent in the verdant. And then the point becomes clear how you can't "NIMBY" something if you lack the resources to respond to it effectively. Roland Park residents are all over the Sun article, complaining and discussing it. But what has been weird here in Better Waverly is that some persons, namely ex-officios of the of community's BWCO board, in particular use this lack of residential resources and response as a way to maintain their own, twisted image, of a status quo.
Since these folk know others
don't know, and that people lack the resources to effectively mount responses to issues -
even when they are the majority - these manipulators have learned to gerrymander issues to their benefit. To get issues that threaten their views silenced. Meetings are held quickly, opposing voices are not informed or invited. Options, or information that would counter these few people's visions of community are is
not circulated or shared (the annual plan was suggested to be brought door to door, or at least sample residents, rather than present it, cold, to the neighborhood at an upcoming meeting. The board completely and utterly ignored this suggestion - instead they do what
they think people are wanting them to do!)(To their credit the
have a plan for the first time.) So all actions are directed to smooth over issues, not investigate or entertain alternatives. All so that the decision about some neighborhood change
will proceed in the image and ideals of a few, not the community itself.
Now that's quite an accusation. How could this be you might ask? Well, NIMBY-ism is different, I think, than NIMBY folk that are vocal, public and coordinated - those with power. And usually that's the sticking point that powerful people push things on the less powerful. And so this is not so different but this is
supposedly the voice for the community doing it to their own - it's the "powerful"
masquerading as the "powerless". In the case of the true NIMBYs they work to gather support and vet issues because they are strong and loud. In this case, however, a few, seasoned, well intentioned, but generally self-serving, folk work carefully, quietly and
strategically to get what
they want, all while making it
appear they are the Champions of Democracy. All under the guise of community partnership and "democratic action". I would say perhaps these persons are somehow myopic but their actions (see below) suggest otherwise - they are quite cold, methodical and calculate. There is no lack of awareness of action and fallout. So how the hell does this messed upper perception of we are "Champions of Democracy" yet are really "Stalin in Better Waverly" take root? How does it continue? My partner had a thought...
Part of the focus needs to turn to the residents themselves maybe. Part of what comes from the above perception, that some action has been taken without consulting others, is a need to place blame, or at least the desire to. Rather than accept the responsibility for their own actions
or inactions perhaps residents learn to instead blame city services, their councilperson or their other neighbors. But never their community organization! It's the Champion of the Little Guy, right? But "blame" (responsibility, more accurately) should be – and only if they are throwing it around, I’m not placing it on anyone here, let's be clear –
place on residents themselves perhaps. How could that be though you ask?
It's rather remarkable I've noticed that folk here in most of Baltimore want something for nothing - and our community organization often exploits this. It continually paints our neighborhood as "getting less than its share" - the blame game. And this Black folk
and White folk but it does seem to be a minority (race, class, education, ability etc.) response to action events: I'm going to "cry foul" that you did me wrong. You did this to me because I'm __________ (insert minority status here). Now that's a pretty conservative statement from me, I would agree. But I struggle only to understand how it is a city of neighborhoods of so much folk who want SO much yet the majority do SO little to effect that change. Yes there are heroes and yes there are resilient people and groups, and I know about community and social capital etc.. I'm not talking about those issues per se. What I'm talking about is the bitter and damaged neighborhoods. Ones that
have resources, potential, volunteers etc. yet seemingly skew reality
so badly that their perception becomes that their present circumstances are a) somehow 'OK' and that b) folk shouldn't work to change them (even though they can and want to and have the means) and, indeed, that c) change is bad. In the end this means too that change agents are somehow "bad" -
that change agents are the ones to be blames - even for good changes follows logically. And don't get me wrong, I'm well versed in the subtexts and tensions of gentrification - I'm not talking about that. This is about people warping
any change into a threat if it disagrees with a particular vision.
In the end this community gestalt is one that's untrusting, selfish and petty, and often a place, contrary to hope, without a place for compromise - changes are things to be quashed, not embraced. And so those "leaders" (the past ones of the BWCO in particular to be fair to the present group) in Better Waverly have learned to manipulate community responses to be sure that conflict is avoided, that compromise is not an option. There is but one vision of how it will be and how it will be done. A recent issue about saving green space here serves as an example. Like the Roland Park group the majority of residents agreed to save a space (
84% of them). But then along comes one of the self-appointed demagogues of status quo in Better Waverly to rally the 16% of folk who were
against the plan and spins it into nothing short of a
shit storm of dissent. It skewed the issue - and purposefully so, because conflict here in Better Waverly
only happens when it serves a few persons desire to
stop something from happening. Then it is bridled and harnessed for use by those few. This issue made this minorities voices appear like they were never heard, like they were purposefully excluded from the discussion etc. (This is classic BWCO action by the way: Can anyone say
"The Giant" grocery store debacle of 2002?).
And so, with this green space issue, we see the pattern unfold again. No open discussion, just the
impressions of such. No compromise or community building
just fractures and splits where they had already been healed. No trust but continued lack of trust of particular community member's roles in manipulating public opinion to their own ends. A previously bound and trusting group, worked together, survey, consulted, linked residents to government and agencies and came up with a solution. And then someone stoked the issue - ripped it open, scabs were torn off, and only new scars will come of it, wounds taking longer to heal. Revisiting
is effective on one level - but this discussion brought the same, valid, concerns and comments
that were already heard and were previously addressed within the bounds of budget, time, and all neighbors' compromises to inconvenience and so forth. Yet now here they were again, resurrected. How? Because after goading by a particular person who
doesn't even live close by the minority residents were encouraged to open the wound again - and make it sound as if they were being utterly screwed by other neighbors. All while this one person sat back and watched - NIMBYing, but not in their own backyard, mine. What was telling in this discussion is that each tempered by a complete lack of compromise: "I want parking, but I don’t want to have to be inconvenienced,”; “I want a picnic spot, the cars need to go,”; "The illegal garage wasn't bothering
me why did
you all have to make him leave,"; “I want access to my backyard, I don't care if it's illegal to drive there to do so and breaking the law be damned,”; “I don’t want to park there, I want to park in front of my house so I'll continue to park on the
side walk". The compromises
had been met - someone encouraged them to not see them that way anymore. I am not beyond revisiting issues, I must add, democracy when in full swing is a messy affair. But one cannot be paralyzed by discussion - and conflict we need resolution and democratically achieved compromise, a la
Habermas and
Robert Putnam and importantly when consensus is achieved you cannot simply "backtrack - that's a violation of the trust you worked so hard to build (which, BTW, was the reason the BWCO was excluded from this whole affair from the start -
no one trusted them to act for the residents, rather than particular board members.So, instead, backtracking happened, indeed it was encouraged. In one fell swoop the compromises brokered over a matter of 18 months are dashed away. Trust melted. All because a particular person decided to amplify
their concerns (when they had already been heard, and compromises made, etc.),
above the majority's because
this person, who
doesn't live nearby also didn't like the outcome. It's not just NIMBY - it's not in the backyard of those people I don't necessarily like if what they are doing doesn't suit me, fit my view. That's an authoritative and totalitarian stance. That's Stalin in Better Waverly. Period. And this is not the first time such things have happened here; particular BWCO board members have had a history of such behaviors. Thank god that's changing though as people stand up for themselves and take the community back from a few well-intentioned, but
seriously misguided folk. And since those folk do not, or will not take critiques and constantly demand "facts" the following is an example of how seriously messed up these kind of retrograde actions have been here in Better Waverly, by these particular persons ( and this is since the Giant debacle -
when the community was split again by the same people).
In September of 2005, when we had first moved here, there was plenty of trouble at Independence and Gorsuch streets. The residents, besieged with constant drug dealing, random vandalism and petty violence came to the BWCO, then headed by Eleanor Montgomery, and asked for help. The police were invited into this discussion as we, along with councilperson Mary Pat Clarke sought solutions. I followed up with a resident during the process and they noted "That it was nice that someone from the BWCO board showed they actually cared about our part of the neighborhood for the first time". Whether truth or perception, there you have it. (I left the board in May 2007, btw). For their part, the police, headed then by Northern District's Major Pristoop, found a "blue light camera" in inventory that could be placed there - an ugly, yet temporary and perhaps needed solution to serious problems. The few residents that lived locally that I spoke with wanted it. Those further were not so clear on "yes" or "no". So we agreed we should bring it to the community for further discussion, after the board itself discussed at its next meeting. Eleanor Montgomery, single-handedly, decided against these actions.
After about 10 days of internal back and forths we were about to have our board meeting to discuss this issue. Ms. Montgomery appeared at meeting with copies of an email she had just sent to Major Pristoop. As she handed it out she remarked, quite publicly, "I know people aren't going to like that I did this, but I did it anyways." I looked at the header - it had been sent
just 15 minutes earlier.. What it said floored me: Basically "We (Better Waverly) discussed this and can't come to a resolution as to have the light or not so I'm deciding we won't have it." HOLY SHIT I thought. Not only was this an outright lie (we never had a chance to even discuss it between board member, never mind the community) it was something that was on the table to be discussed
that evening. Ms. Montgomery
knew before she sent it, and 15 minutes later was utterly unapologetic. She (we, the board more accurately) didn't discuss it further.
The police, pissed off, pulled the offer and put the light elsewhere. Our community reputation with City Hall was again damaged - the community that can't get its shit together in a crisis, the one that turns down helpful change when it's needed most, and when it's being given the special treatment it's crying out for. Her (Ms. Montgomery's) decision to reject the cameras was unilateral - it did NOT represent the
majority will of those that
did live in that part of Better Waverly. She decided, for residents, in an area she did not live in, what they should get, how the direction of their lives should go
and the risk to their lives that they would then have to face. Her decision thoroughly ignored what they asked that the BWCO might do - help them.
In that winter Eleanor Montgomery suggested a "block meeting" be held when she sent me a personal note that there had been muggings on my block. Block meeting? WTF?! No, we need to alert neighbors. I asked her, as member of the Quality of Life committee of the BWCO to send out such a note to residents to warn them to carry themselves with purpose, and security.
She outright refused to do so.. Sensing a pattern here and frustrated I followed up with a discussion with Major Pristoop the following January (2006). In that meeting he revealed to me that he had been sending "Crime Alerts" on to Ms. Montgomery
regularly with the explicit intent that they be passed on to residents.
NOT ONE was shared with residents. This is serious stuff. It's one thing to want a particular kind of change. It's one thing to refuse to accept reality, but it’s an entirely different problem when that process
puts residents at risk so you can live in that wonderland.The rationale presented in this, and other cases I've seen here, for such kinds of bizarre human action comes as people lay claim to their right to say how things should be here in Baltimore because they've lived here longer than you, or they somehow "deserve it" because they've been "busy doing community works". And then they want something (change) but ONLY so long as there is no conflict in that progression. And so they don’t/won’t/have learned how to compromise or work for it. But folk are plenty ready to offer you up as the "point person" - basically why not label me "witch" and send me to Salem c. 1660. The naysayers will boldly trot out their wonderful "community commitment" and "community service" and involvement. That's just plain
bullshit I say. You don't get medals for your work. Community building is
never something you get to wear on your sleeve as support for
your position of how something
ought to be. And time lived here is no more a reason to make one an expert - it makes them wise, yes, but a wise person with a voice that can be heard
and two ears to listen
and ONE vote. Not power to derail, warp, twist and otherwise steer community discussions in their view.
Now, I am not being patronizing, and I'm not trying to get myself out of some conservative hole I'm digging either when I say that I appreciate, recognize, value and am so thankful for the resiliency of my neighbors. BUT, they don’t have the only opinion on an issue, and living here the longest doesn’t give them more say than others. and their vote, opinion, perception does
not outweigh those of others. And, more emphatically, those that do not live in, or immediate to, an area in which an issue occurs while they are certain party to effects of neighborhood change ought to recognize that this it
not their neighborhood and should keep their noses out of business that residents are rightly working on figuring out for themselves.
A public, the most affected publue should have the chance to determine their trajectories in life - that's how a democracy works.Those here longer, those seasoned veterans of an urban war (and I don't say that tongue in cheek - this town has been a shithole beyond compare for decades now) certainly may be wiser, but again, they aren’t the grand arbiters. People, like Ms. Montgomery, seem to act as if time stands still. The kind of perception of “We’re coping just fine until people like you come along” is basically fucked up. Communities are built on ALL residents. Yet here it's been tempered by this weird, distorted “status quo” idea that things are somehow “OK” - when they sure as hell are not. One person against resolution of the green space discussion said "If they dump stolen cars back here we'll just call the police. And if they don't come and get it we'll call again. No. The answer - as agree upon by the
majority was to
end, and
prevent the actions - not to be constantly reacting to someone's abuse of you. This is a twisted kind of learned helplessness: The answer isn't to stop the abuse but to somehow
adapt to it - so long as it's an adaptation "I" like, others be damned. This is the legacy of the BWCO's previous actions.
I recognize in the end there is some kind of combination of the feeling of being left out and one of being dissed – and belief always trumps reality And while it means, then, more trips to the negotiation table in order to get things done, the more trips hammering out “Have you said your piece?” - “Do you know you are being heard?” - “Do you realize that we cannot do that?” - “Do we all agree we have this compromise?” then at least we can move forward and include
ALL in the resolution of issues. And there
will be conflict while do so. But it
doesn't mean that conflict is all bad, nor that it cannot be navigated artfully, productively and in a manner that enhances the capacity of all to participate in the process. Only by recognizing that conflict - OPEN conflict where all sides are
invited to discuss their views and angles on an issue is part of a healthy change process will we move forward. In the meantime I hope persons here realize and learn the damage they cause in their selfish attempts to create a community in
their image. They continue to create divisions rather than bridges, and fail to recognize the importance of autonomy in the locality of geography and folks
own ability and efficacy to effect change. Maybe then they'll stop coming down from the E. 30th St. mount and allow people to find themselves, their voices, their vision for a community. In fact we've already found it... now let us get on with the "doing of it".
At issue here is a scoring system that prevents ties. It's quite simple. Drop the high and the low score of the judges for each athlete's score. In the event of a tie drop EACH athlete's lowest score. And last night guess what. It works a tie happened it was broken - "no shit sherlock" event: He Kexin, the Chinese gymnast, had more high scores. They did not, as the NY Daily News reported, have the same score. That's like students of mine demanding they get the same rank in my class just because they can't see the "rounded off" part of a grade. It's there, trust me. And when the Star Telegram reports that "Not unexpectedly, Liukin and her father and coach, Valeri, weren’t familiar with the tiebreaking rules, nor were many in the National Indoor Stadium." it give me pause. Come on. These people are at THE PINNACLE of competition in the field. And she lost by 3/100 of a point (which in a scale of 10 is fairly substantial - NOT 1/1000 as the NBC commentators professed last night.Knowing the rules is part of the game. Accepting that you lost by them is part of sportspersonship.
Holy shit. Think about it for a second. United States is about to embark on yet another voyage of telling the world what is fair and democratic. And they've been such a beacon of hope in this field for years now haven't they (Jim Thorpe's humiliation, Tommie Smith and John Carlos' humiliation at Mexico by the US Olympic team, Title IX and Title IX dismemberment from that bastion of good research The CATO Institute ("Title IX Destroys our Olympic Team" from Conservapedia (that well of reality itself, WTF), see "Hoop Dreams" the movie (race and exploitation are alive and well decades after Jesse Owens, Thorpe, and 'Black Power, catastrophic youth injuries, etc., etc., etc.) But the US Olympic gymnastics team is out front leading the charge that this is "too complicated" and puts athletes "at risk" and that the experience of figure skating is to be noted (that athleticism was valued more than aesthetics. Where to start, where to start..
Look. The bottom line is Liukin didn't slam dunk the routine. She "left the door open". The other girl scored BETTER than she, AND with MORE judges. The tie is an artefact of system - NOT a reality measure of performance. The U.S.A. doesn't deserve to win every time. And everytime they don't win it's not because the system is against them. In fact they rigged most of that system themselves. Some are just better atheletes. But what is worst of all is listening to pundits (ESPECIALLY NBC) fucking whine about it all. The evening became one of the most vile moments for NBC and the American Olympics in broadcast of the last week and a half. After a week and a half of wallowing in the world domination of Michael Phelps they ran with it... She deserved this medal, she was cheated, the judges were incompetent, the FIG system is flawed. Holy Shit.... They went on and on trying to justify why the loser should be the winner. And with NO valid (to any form of scrutiny anyways) reason. And to top it off she was a shitty sport about it as well. Her disgust of not winning was supposed to be "hers" was more than apparent as NBC trained their cameras on her watching her rightfully anguished emotions (it is the Olympics, I don't fault her for wanting it so bad.).
