By far the highlight of Tuesday's City Council meeting was Near East Neighborhood resident Linda Harvot's citizen statement. Scroll to the 51 minute mark of the meeting to see it. Ms. Harvot is a life long resident of Oshkosh who, with her husband, purchased the east side home from her parents 14 years ago. The parents had lived there for more than 40 years.
Ms. Harvot describes how her original excitement for the near east plan was removed as she experienced what is described in the speech as a very citizen unfriendly method of implementation. She asked us to imagine what it would feel like if we got a letter and pictures of our home, with warnings of possible daily fines if suggested repairs aren't made. She said "you feel violated and attacked. You take it personally."
Here's a quote from the speech that I plan to share with my students:
"When you're in fear and when you're frustrated, you have two choices: you can either be paralyzed, or you can be propelled to make a difference. And I feel propelled to make a difference so that other people hearing me tonight might be inspired to come forward and speak out."
Neighborhood revitalization is too important to be undermined by perceived acts of disrespect and bullying from municipal officials. At the September 11 meeting of the Council, Mayor Tower said that he would be working with staff on a revamped citizen task force or steering committee idea to determine what has and has not worked with the near east plan. Let's hope that the end result is,at the least, to make the implementation more citizen friendly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Tony,
I realize the odds of your reading this before tonight’s council meeting are low. Nonetheless, I wish to make one last appeal for your vote against 08-414.
I should preface this with an appreciation for the testimony of Ms. Harvot at the last council meeting. My initial reaction was to note that my water bill, my property tax bill, etc. all spell out the penalties for non-compliance. Should I feel attacked by them as well? And a picture of my house has been published on the internet for the whole world to see and without my permission by the city. Should I feel violated?
But she does feel this way and, though it may be tempting to dismiss the reaction as overblown, it is nonetheless not a good sign. It may well be the approach of using the tools and language shaped for zoning and codes isn’t the best for this application. While again I am tempted to make a sarcastic remark about sending around Ms. Keplinger with flowers and a box of chocolate to every house before discussing peeling paint, but I’ll admit there appears to have been communication problems. Problems that should be addressed. And as near as I can tell, a mechanism to do this has already been set up – if we are to believe the words of our Mayor.
Your vote tonight is not about that. It is about whether you trust the Plan Commission to make the right choices – and by that I mean the right choices for the neighborhood. You know, the difficult choices, where you have to tell someone what they plan on doing to their porch will materially hurt their neighbors. Of course in an ideal world, none of this would be necessary. People would not let their houses fall into decay. They would see it as their duty as citizens and neighbors not to let their property go to heck. But it doesn’t work that way. If you have time before the meeting, take a walk down your street – except go a good bit further east of where you live to see the spiral of blight that can take over a neighborhood. To stop this requires someone stepping in and saying, “for the good of the community, I cannot let this continue.” And in all honesty, I do not see many politicians ready to make such a statement because it will not be popular. How many would be willing to sacrifice their tenure on the council for a porch?
There will be talk tonight of difficult economic times, and hardship for the residents of the near-east. Again, I put it to you that the exact wrong thing to do is to abandon the very plan set up to improve property values in the neighborhood – our homes are the biggest investments most of us have. And the plan *is* working. And there are extensions and deferrals for people in trouble, and block grants to assist owners with repairs – watch how often these are mentioned by the landlords against the plan.
There is of course also the accountability argument. As I’ve always said, it sounds really good. But it is impractical at a fundamental level - the logical conclusion is any decision made by a city employee should be appealable to the council. You don't have the time for that and need to focus on the big issues. And perhaps if I had heard that drum beat ever since the last election I might feel differently. but right now it seems nothing more than a convenient excuse.
A logical response to my argument would be to point out that voting “yes” tonight does not kill the near-east plan and that I am over-reacting myself. Unfortunately, I do not believe this correct, as the council does not have the background, or the expertise to make well informed decisions on these matters. Given enough time to familiarize everyone with the history, codes, ordinances, etc., sure. But that is not how the council typically functions. For example, in our earlier discussions, it was clear you were not aware that the council not overturn a landmark commission decision unless there was a procedural error, and then only in a case of denial of use (the argument that this would hold the near-east to the same standard as a landmark home is also therefore invalid). One might also look at the case of our friend on Merit and the reaction of some council members to his statements. Knowing the full background puts the case in a very different light. (And I presume you did have someone fill you in, right? I would still be interested to hear your comments on his case.) And I have deep reservations the council would not put the good of the neighborhood first and instead go for the easy choice. Do you want to be in the Northwestern as the guy who told ADVOCAP, those people working tirelessly for the aged and handicapped, that they have to repair the porch properly? No. I didn’t think so. And the minute an exception is made for one, it must apply to all, and the plan is effectively dead.
So, can you place the good of the many before the good of the few? I guess we'll see soon enough.
Post a Comment