Recently, the Central Dallas Community Development Corporation submitted a proposal to the City of Dallas for the redevelopment of an old, abandoned Army Reserve base located on Northwest Highway out in the Lake Highlands community in North Dallas.
Those of you who check in here frequently will recall what I posted last Friday, January 12, 2007 ("Fear of the poor") to provide the details.
[Let me confess just here that it is very hard for me to refrain from a rather cold-hearted, cynical rant in response to the neighborhood's reaction to the plan, a plan that was very creative, if I do say so myself.]
This situation raises all sorts of questions about how a community coordinates its efforts to deal with the unique problems associated with homelessness and extreme poverty.
What should our collective approach be?
It is clear from our experience here that a group of vocal and organized neighbors can "peel off" the voice and leadership of a good council member simply because he or she is willing to listen--not endorse, just listen-- to an innovative proposal.
If this is standard operating procedure, is there any location in our community where the very poor will be welcomed? Where is the voice for the poor?
If you take the Lake Highlands' folks who were quoted in The Dallas Morning News at their word, they want to help out.
In fact, they are on record as loving the poor, especially the very poor who are homeless. It's just that they feel certain there is a better place to extend a hand to these folks than in their area of town.
You can read what they said for yourself at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/
dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-armory_13met.ART0.North.Edition1.3d46e52.html.
About one thing they are not right. The article seems to imply that the homeless in Dallas are all residing Downtown. That is not true.
For years there have been, and there remain today, homeless "camp grounds" along White Rock Creek right in the middle of the Lake Highlands community.
That is the point, it seems to me.
Homelessness is not a problem isolated to just one area of town.
In view of this reality, it seems only reasonable that every area of the city should be willing to take responsibility for responding to at least a part of the problem--their fair share, if you will.
The typical response in Dallas has been to point South.
The message seems pretty clear to me: Let's keep poverty where it belongs, down there with the other poor people.
Such an answer is not acceptable.
So, the Lake Highlands community is on record as saying they want to help the homeless.
Great!
Now, let's get down to practicality.
What would that look like?
How do these good church-going, PTA-participating, upright folks intend to get involved with providing a solution?
I'm very eager to hear from them.
At present, it seems they want to see the property in question turned into a city park. Who could be against that?
Why, I bet even the homeless living down in the creek bed would vote "yes" on that one. They might even end up using the park themselves when the weather warms up, especially since there will be no permanent housing development on the site.
Short of some really creative ideas, what we are left with is another victory for "not in my back yard" with the clear result going forward to segregate the poor even further.
Shame on all of us.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI rarely respond to your blogs, although I read them often.
This time, however, I couldn't help but reply especially since I saw that no one else had commented.
The response of our "friends" in Lake Highlands is coming close to answering a question that has been bugging me since Monday: What is missing from the celebration of Martin Luther King Day?
We have developed the notion of a day of service, thanks to his widow, the late Coretta Scott King. We have nobly branded the holiday, "A Day on, not a day off". But I still have had the nagging feeling that we still don't get it!
Thinking about the tenor of the Lake Highland residents' suggestion that the homeless be located downtown (in effect 'where they belong'), the fact that the article appeared right before MLK day, it becomes clear what is missing is the notion of sacrifice.
I'm not talking about the sacrifice of leisure, or of a few discretionary dollars, but a life in which we sacrifice close to the bone as it were.
What we fail to remember about King were the options he had: the options for the safe a cloistured life of academia. He could have been a university professor, eventually president, a position from which he could have still inspired countless with studied scholarly treatises on racism, segregation and poverty.
He could have pastored any number of large established churches in the North. There he could have settled for a life in which he became known as one of the greatest preachers in the black church. Even there achieving a historic notoriety which would have made him legendary in significant, if not narrow spheres.
Yet he chose (and 'chose' is the operative word), to return to the South, where racism and bigotry was most virulent and where danger was imminent and begin his pastoral ministry and eventually carve out a role that was sacrificial even to the point of his death.
We who selectively pick from his image the most comforting aspects of his life, don't get it. We want to "serve" people by remote control and during certain times and periods without giving up very much. We want to be able to drive in and donate, or pass out coats and blankets. But we will not live among them and we certainly don't want them living among us!
We are willing to risk the dangers of there being a "poor section" of Dallas, in the mistaken belief that this will keep our neighborhoods free of crime and blight. All the while not realizing that hedonism, materialism and corruption don't have geographic, racial or class boundaries - only acceptable means of expression.
Where did we get the idea that all homeless people are unlike the rest of us? When did we arrive at the notion that the reason why most of us are not among them is because we work harder and are more virtuous?
I feel sorry for these Lake Highlands "neighbors", and as an African-American, and a resident of Southern Dallas are deeply insulted and offended that the only 'acceptable' place for the homeless is downtown!
I hope that they grow to understand, that you cannot authentically love the poor, by concentrating, consigning and segregating them to areas of the city that comfort the 'hard working' and those who have 'earned' what they have.
The only thing we can achieve is to make a very deplorable and shameful condition in our city worse by pretending that if we don't see it, it cannot possibly exist. If Dallas is to get better, we must own all of it: the good, the bad and the ugly. And if it is to be transformed, it will not be done by people who want to 'serve', but by a critical mass who understand the notion of real sacrifice.
I would have to say I don't think I would have backed down. I think I would have continued pushing forward to get the proposal through, at least until the redevelopment committee had made a decision.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's a major lesson in humility -- to back off when people don't agree. Hopefully, over time and possibly through better relationships with groups like CDM, people in areas like Lake Highland will change their feelings towards the poor and homeless.
Maybe we can go doorknocking through Lake Highland and ask people to spend a few hours at CDM. (Larry, since I know you've NEVER invited people to CDM before.) :)
Thanks for posting so thoughtfully, Gerald! And, of course, I agree with you completely.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, good to hear from you as well. The deal was unwinnable this round. We live to fight another day and we will make this an election issue for Mayor's race coming up in May 07.
From:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/15/state/n190310S04.DTL&hw=nonprofit&sn=006&sc=509
Tiburon residents fight proposed Habitat development
Some residents of this upscale San Francisco suburb plan to fight a proposed Habitat for Humanity housing development over concerns that the project would decrease property values and increase traffic.
The international nonprofit partnered with the owner of a 16.5-acre tract in the town's Eagle Rock neighborhood to build four single-family homes for low-income families, but neighbors fear negative effects on the community.
"Habitat for Humanity is to bring the neighborhood up, not to bring the neighborhood down," said Bill Roberts, a 40-year Eagle Rock resident.
Roberts said he and dozens of other neighbors are raising money to hire an attorney to fight the project.
Ed Sotelo, who lives across from the proposed development, said increasing traffic in the area already has caused several car accidents.
"We don't have anything against Habitat, but nobody wants the traffic here. It's going to kill us," he said.
The project would create the first Habitat homes in Marin County. The organization closed its Marin affiliate in the 1990s because it couldn't get community support to build affordable houses there.
Phillip Kilbridge, executive director of Habitat for Humanity San Francisco, which is heading the proposal, said the group is willing to work with residents on the development.