Has ECCO Crossed the Line?

The controversy over the proposed Lake and Knox development has taken the Uptown area by storm. As one would expect, the NIMBY-dominated neighborhood organizations have banded together to protest the recent Minneapolis Planning Commission ruling in favor of the development. If nothing else, recent neighborhood board activities highlight the dysfunctional nature of these organizations, and the need for real and substantial change in either the role or the implementation of neighborhood board activities. The recent allegations over ECCO’s recent activities are a good case study.

First, some background. The ECCO board previously voted to oppose the project due to concerns about height. It was not a unanimous decision, and several recent debates (including several letters and commentaries in the Uptown Neighborhood News) have led to heightened tensions at the board level. A difference in opinion in itself is not a bad thing; neighborhood residents seldom share the same view on something, and it’s only reasonable that the board members would also have differing ideas.

Fast forward to July. The Planning Commission met, approved the project, Lara Norkus-Crampton resigned in protest, and the NIMBYs rose up to declare the Uptown Small Area Plan (USAP) dead. The neighborhood boards and nine individuals are appealing the decision. This, however, is where things in ECCO get complicated and possibly cross both ethical and legal lines. Nancy Ward, ECCO’s board president, sent an email to ECCO board members asking if they would support an appeal, and, if so, would they be willing to contribute ECCO funds to do so. (I should note right here that I am not on the ECCO board, have never been on the ECCO board, and have not seen the email in question. If someone has the text and understands the situation differently, feel free to add your comments below.) It was not couched as a formal vote, and was never formally debated, discussed, or approved. A slim majority of respondents were favorable to the appeal, and the board (or at least a few members of the board) moved forward.

Assuming the allegations are true, this should be taken seriously by both the city and the neighborhood. ECCO is a nonprofit organization, and as such is expected to abide by certain laws and regulations. There is no excuse for ignoring legal obligations or for failing to follow the organization’s own bylaws. The bylaws, for example, state that “any action that may be taken at a meeting of directors may be taken without a meeting if authorized in writing and signed by all the directors.” An informal email poll hardly qualifies. The bylaws also clearly state “only the ECCO board of directors may make a binding commitment for the ECCO area.” An informal, non-binding email non-vote is clearly not sufficient.

There are many problems at play here. Local neighborhood boards are grassroots politics at the micro-level. ECCO’s own bylaws also state that one of their objectives is to “act as a spokesperson for the ECCO neighborhood before city boards, commissions, etc. and as otherwise needed.” If the ECCO board is going to assume that responsibility, and if the city and state are going to recognize it as speaking for the neighborhood, then it need to follow the rules.

I have little hope that the issues facing Uptown neighborhood boards will ever going to be fully fixed, but there are some potential actions that could help alleviate some of the problems. An open letter of suggestions for current and potential board members:

Take board membership seriously. A board is not just a social club or even a group of like-minded neighborhood activists meeting to discuss local issues. Boards have legal obligations, and as a director or trustee a member of the board it is your responsibility to know the law, as well as to read and understand (and follow!) your board’s bylaws. ECCO is a “duly authorized nonprofit organization under the laws of the State of Minnesota,” as ECCO’s own bylaws remind board members and residents. That status comes with rights and regulations. Board members – and especially officers – need to be conversant with their bylaws, and to fully understand just what they’re taking on when they join a board.

Board education is key. Obviously there are a lot of board members out there who quite possibly have never even read their own bylaws. Bylaws are boring. I understand that; I have plenty of personal experience both serving on boards, answering directly to boards, and attending board meetings as a non-voting participant. Still, every new board member should receive adequate orientation before assuming the mantle of “director” or “trustee.”

Boards shouldn’t ethically be allowed to speak as the “voice” of a neighborhood unless improvements are made. I don’t know about the legal issues involved, but if an Uptown-area board consists almost entirely of white, middle-class, middle-aged homeowners then I think it’s safe to say there are some potential problems. You can’t make people participate, and there’s no reason why a white, middle-class, middle-age homeowner can’t also take into account the potentially different needs of a young renter or an old renter subsisting on social security checks. Still, boards need to take a more active role when it comes to adding board diversity. A nominations committee should focus on outreach efforts, and the board as a whole should work to address the issue of lack of representation.

Board members are public officials, and need to be treated as such. If board members are going to assume representative powers then the residents – all residents (or eligible stakeholders) – in the neighborhood need to know just who these people are and where they stand on relevant issues. Realistically not all (or even many) residents are going to pay any attention to this, but neighborhood organizations could at the very least post candidate statements on websites prior to neighborhood elections, publish them (as paid advertisements, if necessary) in the relevant local neighborhood newspapers, and send them out via email.

Boards need to acknowledge their weaknesses. I’ve read and heard statements to the effect that if you don’t care enough to participate yourself, then you have no right to complain. I think this is hogwash. It is the boards’ duty to think about the needs of all residents, participants or not. It would be nice if everyone in the community could and wanted to participate in local issues, but that’s not the reality. That in no way means that the needs of non-participants do not matter. A good board acknowledges both its strengths and its weaknesses, and endeavors to consider the needs of the broader community.

Accountability is a good thing. Politics are obviously not perfect, and board members should be able to vote based on their conscience, not due to fears of political repercussions. But board members do need to be reminded that their decisions can have a significant impact on the development of the neighborhood. If, for example, a board member does something in his or her board capacity that is unethical or illegal or otherwise violates the public’s trust, then he or she needs to be held accountable for that action. Similarly, even if an action does not violate ethics – CARAG President Aaron Rubenstein’s comments in the Southwest Journal about the “very significant, long-term damage” to the Uptown Small Area Plan by the Planning Commission, for example – neighborhood residents should be aware of just what it is that their neighborhood representatives are saying on their behalf, and be prepared to boot those officials out of their board membership role if they decide that those opinions do not, in fact, represent the view of the neighborhood.

To bring this back to the situation in ECCO, it sounds like things are pretty seriously amiss if the allegations hold true. Bylaws and regulations aren’t perfect, but they are an attempt to protect people from potential misuse of power. In this particular case the NIMBYs are in the position of power; if the political makeup changes in the future and they represent a minority of board members then they, too, will appreciate why there are checks and balances in place to keep a few activists from making all of the important decisions. This is democracy at the micro-level, and it can only work if residents – and board members – take it seriously. If ECCO has indeed run amiss of ethics and the law then it’s time for a major shakeup, potentially a board recall, or at the very least some major internal soul-searching.

Garage Sale Season is Here!

It’s always this time of year when the weather is getting warmer, the leaves are budding, and the grass is growing that my thoughts begin to turn to one of late spring’s pressing questions: when does garage sale season start up? And, more significantly, when are the Uptown neighborhood-wide sales?

Garage sales, and neighborhood-wide garage sales in particular, are a great asset to any community. They’re fun, of course, but their benefits go beyond just entertainment value:

• Garage sales build community. Sales are a chance to meet the neighbors. There’s nothing like looking over someone else’s cast-offs to provide a source of instant conversation. Besides the snoopiness factor, of course, is simply the chance to hang out outside with your neighbors, chatting about the day, exchanging information (and money), and just generally feeling more connected to both other people and to the community at large. Your garage sale-hosting neighbor is usually a captive audience: you can talk to him or her as long as you want, and when you want to leave you have the ready excuse of other sales to attend.
• Garage sales are a form of recycling. You might not have a use for that green lava lamp anymore, but that student down the street might think it’s just the thing for her new apartment. Garage sales hook up buyers and sellers, and keeps things out of the trash. It’s a win-win situation for everyone involved.
• Garage sales help you to make or save money. Most people don’t make a fortune from their garage sales, but you’ll probably make enough to make it worth the time and effort. And, even if the hourly wage ends up being less than what you’d make at work, there’s something about garage sale money that makes it feel like found money. Have the sale with a friend to double the fun; time goes fast when you’re lounging around in the front yard talking to friends and neighbors, and when the day’s done you’ll have a pocket full of cash and house cleared of clutter. For those who are doing the buying, garage sales are full of great buys. Whether you’re looking for weird novelties or have an actual need to fill, go to enough sales and you’ll probably find what you need, and for a fraction of what it would cost new, and probably even cheaper than what you’d pay somewhere like Salvation Army.

While every nice weekend between May and October is going to be filled with garage sale options (check the Star Tribune, Craiglist, and watch for signs posted at corners to find them), there are some definite Uptown highlights fast approaching. The local neighborhood-wide sales are a highlight of the season. They make it easy to hit a lot of sales in a short amount of time, of course, but they also tend to have a festive atmosphere that you don’t find on the average Saturday. There’s usually food and drinks to be purchased at some of the sales, and the food, combined with the wandering groups of fellow garage salers, make for a good time. I, for one, am counting the days until the first (and my favorite) Uptown neighborhood sale of the year: next weekend’s CARAG sale. So, with no further ado, the 2009 guide to Uptown neighborhood sales:

CARAG Neighborhood Sale
Saturday, May 16; 8:00 to 4:00

The CARAG Sale always has a good mix of stuff. The neighborhood itself has a pretty diverse of ages, which translates to everything from old-lady knick-knacks to hipster apartment furnishings. There are families, too, and I once filled a bag with baby clothes at just a quarter per item.

ECCO Super Sale
Saturday, June 6; 9:00 to 4:00

The ECCO Super Sale has been around (almost) forever – it’s now celebrating its 37th year. I think I’ve been to at least 25 of them, and my brother was born after my garage sale-loving mother went into labor following a long day of last-minute ECCO Super Sale baby gear shopping. Historically this has always been the best Uptown neighborhood sale for kid stuff, although there are plenty of options for adults, too. It was at an ECCO sale that I scored a brand-new Coach briefcase still in the original shopping bag and tissue paper; the owner said he already had another one, and that the shade of brown “didn’t go” with his fashion tastes.

The WEDGE (LHENA) Sale
Saturday, June 20; 9:00 to 4:00

The Wedge is filled with youngish renters, which often makes for great garage sale finds. Younger renters often have cool stuff, move often, and can’t take it all with them. I like the Wedge sale for finding clothes and random household stuff. One bonus about the Wedge’s sale (for customers, anyway) is that you can top off a day of shopping by stopping off at Mueller Park for the neighborhood’s annual ice cream social. The ice cream social runs from 3:00 to 5:00.

ADDED BONUS: In the spirit of one of my favorite local blogs, Picking Up Strangers, I’ll give a prize to the first CARAG Sale shopper who identifies me and says the special winning phrase: “Uptown, it’s where I want to be.” (sorry, family members aren’t eligible.) How will you know me? I’ll wear my heart on my sleeve, Uptown-style.

ECCO Thinks You're Stupid

The April 2009 ECCO Board meeting was more heated than normal. Not fist-fight heated, but pretty exciting by ECCO standards. Voices were raised. Words were had. So what happened to cause this group of mostly middle-aged and relatively mild-mannered Minnesotans to resort to, well, not violence, but a shouting match? Given that this is ECCO, I bet most of you can guess the root cause of the argument in one try - yep, development issues.

Kay Anderson, an ECCO resident (although not a current Board member) showed up at the meeting ready for action. The way things went down, as described in the ECCO minutes:

“Kay Anderson read a prepared statement regarding letters that appeared in the March and April issues of the UNN [Uptown Neighborhood News]. The March letter was written by Robert Kean, who was identified as an ECCO Board member. The April letter was written by Tim Prinsen who was identified as an ECCO Board member and chair of the Zoning committee. Kay was concerned that these letters would be perceived as an official statement of the board, and, as such, would represent a violation of the bylaws (since they were opinions of individuals, not the consensus of the board). After lengthy discussion, a motion was made and passed to hopefully resolve the issue. The motion states that when publically expressing personal opinions, current or former board or committee members should include a disclaimer clearly indicating that the statement represents their personal opinion and does not represent the position of the board.”

Both letters should definitely be on the reading list for anyone interested or concerned about current or future development issues. Kean’s letter appeared in the March Uptown Neighborhood News under the banner “Save the Uptown Small Area Plan,” and argued that the proposed Lake and Knox development was in violation of the USAP. Prinsen’s letter came the following month, running under the headline “Responsible Common Sense Development,” and was a direct response to the issues raised by Kean. Prinsen supports both the Knox development as well as the USAP-guided process, and disagreed with Kean’s conclusions – certain to get him in hot water with some of ECCO’s most vocal residents. The author descriptions, the ones that Kay Anderson and her friends thought were so confusing? “Robert Kean is on the ECCO Board and lives in ECCO” and “Tim Prinsen is a member of the ECCO Board, chairs the Zoning Committee, and lives in ECCO.”

I suppose that the headline of this post shouldn’t really be “ECCO Thinks You’re Stupid.” It would perhaps be more accurate, although not as pithy, to say “Some ECCO Residents and Board Members are Mad at Tim Prinsen Because he Dared to Suggest That Not EVERY ECCO Board Member Believes New Development is ALWAYS Inherently Evil.” Because really, that’s what happened here. Word on the street (I was, unfortunately, not able to attend the meeting itself) is that the real discussion at the meeting was not about the letters written by Kean and Prinsen; it was specifically about Prinsen and his letter.

I don’t have the exact wording of the new motion (note to all boards: good minutes always record the formal wording of the voted-upon motion, as well as record who voted for it and who voted against it), but based on the description I think it’s a ridiculous rule. ECCO Board members shouldn’t, of course, represent their personal opinions as that of the Board without Board approval. Besides the fact that it was the Uptown Neighborhood News that added the descriptions to the bottom of the letters, and not the authors themselves, there was nothing in either to suggest that the authors were expressing official ECCO Board opinions. A formal disclaimer is a waste of time and a waste of newspaper space. Most Uptown Neighborhood News readers aren’t stupid; they don’t need Kay Anderson’s burdensome regulations to help them identify formal ECCO stances versus the viewpoint of individual neighborhood residents who also happen to be on the ECCO Board.

Even more concerning, this motion attempts to force this new motion on former Board members. Presumably that means only future former members; anyone (including Kay Anderson) who has previously served as an ECCO Board member should be able to ignore the motion, as it didn’t apply to them while they were involved. ECCO might be within bounds to force this silly rule on current Board members, but is it really realistic to think that every ECCO Board member will have to slap this disclaimer on every neighborhood-related opinion piece or letter for the rest of his or her life?

I believe that this sort of public debate, meaning discussion in the form of publicly-available letters and writings accessible to all residents, not just those who can or want to attend meetings, can only be a good thing for the neighborhood. It’s important for residents, developers, politicians, and every other local stakeholder to realize that there is a diversity of opinions out there. Debate, as long as kept civil, could also encourage increased community involvement at the neighborhood level. It serves as a reminder that neighborhood Boards aren’t just casual social clubs, and that local residents, board members or not, can have an impact on decisions that will shape the future of the neighborhood. That’s powerful stuff, and should be encouraged, not stamped out.

I do believe, though, that board members should be recognized as such in their public statements; given that they are given power to vote on decisions impacting the neighborhood and that official Board resolutions carry some weight with the city it’s only fair that neighborhood residents know exactly who it is that they’re trusting to carry out this duty. That doesn’t mean that a formal disclaimer is needed every time someone expresses his or her opinion in public. The Uptown Neighborhood News’ author descriptions were sufficient. But then, of course, this motion isn’t really intended to clarify things for a presumed-stupid or easily confused public. It’s about trying to crack down on discussion and to punish an ECCO Board member who spoke his mind. Protest a new building, fine; write anything in opposition to the NIMBY crowd’s viewpoint, get yourself censured.

Uptown Crime: All About Your Neighborhood Policing Plan

The Minneapolis Police Department compiles annual neighborhood policing plans for all of the city’s neighborhoods; these community-based plans allow the department and neighborhood to zero in on the specific issues faced by each individual neighborhood. These plans lay out specific goals, and evaluate the successes and failures of the previous year’s plans. 2009 plans are not yet available for Uptown’s neighborhoods, but the 2008 plans are compelling reading. Once the 2009 report is out I’ll spend a little more time investigating how things went in 2008. You can read the details for yourself on the city’s website, but to save you some reading I've listed the main goals/targets for each Uptown neighborhood. How do you think the neighborhoods stacked up in the end?

LHENA (the Wedge)

• Robbery suppression: Among other items, two new beat cops attempted to decrease the number of robberies in the neighborhood.
• Reducing residential burglaries: According to the report, there were 165 burglaries in the Wedge in 2007. The majority (approximately two-thirds!) did not require force, suggesting a lot of local residents leave their garages and homes unlocked. The department dedicated some of their time and resources in educating residents in the basics of common sense.
• Reducing theft from motor vehicles: As with burglaries, much of the prevention tactics focused on education. In case you missed the police department’s messages, I’ll repeat it here: please do not leave your purse, laptop, wallet, or valuables in your car.
  Other highlights: The MPD was also planning on working to expand the block club program, and to expand the concept of e-block clubs and the use of technology as an outreach tool. There was also discussion of the creation of a citizen block patrol.

CARAG

• Burglary prevention: The Department had the ambitious goal of eliminating all non-forced-entry burglaries. Education was an important element in this plan, as was an increase of nighttime patrols.
• Reducing drug trafficking: The 2008 goal was to reduce local drug sales by five percent.
• Increased curfew and truancy enforcement: Exactly what it sounds like: get kids off the streets and in bed or at school.
• Other highlights: Community involvement and engagement continues to be the common thread between all of these plans. In CARAG that means involvement with neighborhood meetings, encouraging block clubs, the continuation of a citizen “stroll patrol,” a group formed following the 2006 murder of Michael Zebuhr.

EAST ISLES
Interestingly, although perhaps understandably, despite the very low rate of violent crime in East Isles (nearly all crime is property-related), the report notes that residents are focused on the scarier stuff.

• Reducing residential burglaries: As with other local neighborhoods, two-thirds of residential burglaries did not involve forced entry. Lock your doors, people!
• Reducing theft from cars: Also like other area neighborhoods, East Isles gets a lot of people, residents and otherwise, who leave their valuables in their car.
• Other highlights: Continued block club expansion, the use of technology for communication with the community, and the creation of a citizen block patrol were all discussed.

ECCO

• Reducing theft from vehicles and car theft: The police intended to address the car theft (both from and of) through increased patrols and education.
• Reducing burglaries: While 2007 crime mostly went down, burglaries actually went up. The 2008 plan attempted to address this problem through increased and targeted patrols as well as increased enforcement of curfew and truancy laws.
• Other highlights: The Police Department expected to continue to strengthen and expand community relations, as well as to increasingly use technology to enhance communication.

Overall, Uptown is a pretty safe place. There is crime, of course, and residents and visitors alike need to take the standard basic precautions, but overall Uptown seems to be in pretty good shape. I might complain at times about the neighborhood organizations, but they have taken on a strong role in working hand-in-hand with the police to help keep the area’s streets safe and crime at bay. Given that crime – or even the perception of crime – can really impact a neighborhood in negative way (let alone the people it directly touches), it’s essential that community members and the police continue to come together to address crime of all types, from the broken car window to the more serious and scary crimes like robbery or assault.

And please, please, remember to lock your garage, your house, and your car.

The Traffic Issue in Uptown's Own Backyard (or Garage)

One of the complaints we all frequently hear about Uptown is that there’s too much traffic. I agree that the cars speeding through Lake or other major thoroughfares are a source of frustration. There are also many people driving to Uptown, and I do wish that more of those people would consider taking the bus, biking, or, when possible, walking. That said, too much of the traffic focus tends to be on the problem of “outsiders,” whether it’s the people coming to Uptown to shop or dine, those who drive to their Uptown jobs, or the people who are driving through Uptown on their way from and to places elsewhere. These groups of people are admittedly a major component of any traffic “problem,” but we can’t forget the group of people most likely to be on Uptown streets on a daily basis: Uptown residents themselves.

The 2000 census sheds some interesting light on Uptown residents’ commuting patterns (“Uptown” in this case defined as CARAG, ECCO, LHENA, and East Isles, with the numbers based on “workers 16 years and over). Some highlights:

• 52 percent of Uptown residents drove to work alone, a five percent increase over 1990.
• Six percent of Uptowners carpooled to work, the same percentage as in 1990.
• A mere 17 percent took public transportation to work, a decrease from 22 percent in 1990.
• Four percent walked to work in 2000; five percent walked to work in 1990.
• Two percent of workers took “other means” (I’m assuming this means bicycles, plus perhaps the occasional skateboard or set of roller blades thrown in for good measure) versus less than one percent in 1990.
• Two percent of Uptowners worked at home in 1990, three percent worked at home in 2000.

There were, of course, statistical differences between neighborhoods. The percentage of local workers commuting alone by car (in 2000) broken down by neighborhood are:

• 58 percent in the Wedge
• 61 percent in CARAG
• 64 percent in East Isles
• 72 percent in ECCO

I realize that not everyone can bike, walk, or take the bus to work. Still, these numbers leave a lot of room for improvement. The majority of those people - and we're talking thousands of Uptown residents - are driving to and from work five days a week, many of them in the same general morning and evening timeframe. Instead of focusing our energies on parking permits and battling new developments we can and should identify the most efficient ways to get people out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, onto bikes, or on the bus (and at some point, I hope, LRT). Some worthwhile potential goals:

• Cut down number of cars per household. Not every adult member of every family needs a car, and some households can live without any car.
• Decrease the use of each car. If even a relatively small number of current residents switched to, say, biking to work one day a week in the summer it would have an impact. So, too, would be if some current drivers switched to taking the bus to work one or two days a week instead of driving. And once at home, if more residents walked to local stores for their errands (including grocery store runs) we’d decrease local traffic even further.
• Provide support for residents to get by without owning a car. Uptown has a car share service (HOURCAR); with time and increased usage we could expand the locations, making it an even more convenient option for those who don’t want a car yet still want to have access to one from time to time. And, of course, an Uptown LRT alignment, good (and affordable) bus service, and a bike- and pedestrian-friendly environment are also essential.

Traffic and parking are always going to be issues facing Uptown; it’s part and parcel with urban living. An equally important element of urban neighborhood life should be the ready availability – and embrace – of a car-free lifestyle. By all means continue to address through traffic and parking, but don’t forget the simple fact that in many cases the traffic problem is not just “them” – it is “us.”

Is the Uptown Small Area Plan in Danger of Dying?

Those of you following Uptown development news have probably heard about the four to six story building proposed for Lake and Knox. The land lies within the Shoreland Overlay District and is also addressed in the Uptown Small Area Plan (USAP). Needless to say, the anti-height people are having a fit. I’ll go more into the building itself in a future post, but for now I want to look at the issue from the viewpoint of what this means for the USAP. It appears that battle lines are being drawn, the opposition is gearing up, and this is going to in all likelihood be an issue in the coming Ward 10 City Council races.

ECCO board member Robert Kean has a recent opinion piece on the issue, published in the March issue of the Uptown Neighborhood News. He frames the Lake and Knox building issue in terms of the Uptown Small Area Plan, an argument that on the surface makes a lot of sense. In short, he says that the USAP was created so that the community did not need to constantly fight the same battles over and over, and that the USAP would serve as a “guiding rule for Uptown development.” He warns his readers that the USAP will be “rendered pointless” if the height suggestions are not enforced – pretty potent stuff.

Similarly, Ward 10 City Council candidate Lara Norkus-Crampton, an active member of the USAP process and now a Minneapolis Planning Commissioner (and a dedicated opponent to height at all costs), seems to take a similar stance on her campaign website. She states emphatically that “together, neighborhoods working with their partners in City Hall can make sure that two years of work on the Uptown Small Area Plan and the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan are fully and consistently implemented with every development proposal, every time.” (emphasis mine)

The problem? The USAP is not a zoning document. It offers suggestions, and presumably carries some weight with the Planning Commission and other government bodies, but it does not mandate that every project within Uptown must conform to its standards. Councilmember Ralph Remington understands this; he recently reminded Southwest Journal readers that the plan “has built in flexibility,” and that “if the plan were rigid and finite, it would never have been approved.” Norkus-Crampton’s comments are particularly concerning, given her current political goals. It shows either a lack of understanding of the USAP’s purpose, or – more likely – a willingness to subvert the process to ensure that the end result meets the needs of a small but vocal minority, rather than those of the neighborhood (and not just their boards) and the city as a whole.

The Shoreland Overlay District itself offers the City plenty of flexibility. While it does limit the height of buildings near the water, it also gives the City the opportunity to provide conditional-use permits to taller projects. The USAP, too, is not set in stone. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a useful or worthwhile document. It is, again, not a formal zoning document.

The rigid positions of Lara Norkus-Crampton, Robert Kean, and other NIMBY-types such as Aaron Rubenstein (CARAG board president) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all, or even most, Uptown residents and business owners. I, too, want new developments in Uptown to be carefully considered and to meet the needs of the neighborhood. In this case, maybe a mid-height building, done well, would be just the ticket for that particular location. If approved, it doesn’t mean the end of the Uptown Small Area Plan or its goals. It just means that the plan worked. It will have provided a framework for discussion, and if the project is indeed approved it will have been done so only after careful consideration of how this specific site and this specific project fit into the larger picture. Yes, it could be devastating if this balloons into a huge controversy that leads some to decry the ruin of the USAP. But it's a two-way street, and just as developers should be willing to listen to the neighbors, so must the neighbors be willing to listen to the developers. In the end it's the open communication that matters, and it's open communication that's really at risk when the threats start flying.

The Edgewater Irony

When the historic Edgewater apartment building was demolished and a fancy new condo built in its place, Uptown residents had a fit. I can understand - I liked the old Edgewater apartments, and wish that they were still there (in livable condition, of course). I know that there were legitimate concerns and questions raised during the broader community discussions. Still, some of the controversy really rubs me the wrong way, and illustrates some of the conflict bubbling under the neighborhood's surface.



Take, for instance, a January 2007 Uptown Neighborhood News article titled "The Edgewater: Gateway to Uptown or Uptown's First Gated Community?" The article, although filled with details about the new Edgewater project, never actually explains how it qualifies as a "gated community." Given the attention lavished by the authors on the condo building's luxury finishes, I'm guessing it's because the condos were to be inhabited by rich people.



I'm not going to get into the details of the Edgewater itself or whether or not it should have been built. I just think it's rather silly for a group of ECCO residents, most of them homeowners, few, if any, exactly poverty-stricken, bashing the Edgewater for being expensive. Prices for other ECCO lakeview homes, if they hadn't noticed, were also sky-high. In some ways one could argue that a condo building is more egalitarian than are the large single-family homes lining the lake; at least at the Edgewater more people can be stacked in the same land footprint.


Uptown does have a housing problem. It can be difficult for some people to afford to buy or rent in the neighborhood. But for the residents of ECCO to bash, even indirectly, the future owners of Edgewater condos for being elitist or too flush with cash is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Neighborhood Board Diversity that REALLY Matters

We like to talk about diversity a lot. Uptown in particular likes to pride itself on its "diversity," even if the reality is that it's not all that diverse. Usually when people are talking about diversity they're talking about race and ethnicity, but here in Uptown - as with elsewhere - diversity can and should be a great deal more than just race or ethnicity alone.

Some other examples of diversity to consider in Uptown:

• Age
• Marital Status
• Households with children
• Income level
• Type of work
• Political party
• Sexual orientation
• Nationality
• Language spoken at home

I'm sure there are many more categories you could add to the list. The biggest diversity in Uptown, though, isn't just race or age or income; the biggest issue, particularly when it comes to the neighborhood boards, is renter versus owner.

Uptown and its neighborhoods are inhabited primarily by renters. Shouldn't it follow that the neighborhood boards are dominated by renters? In reality, renters are few and far between. Relatively new ECCO board member Anders Imboden (brother to former CARAG renter and board member Thatcher Imboden) is the only, or at least one of a very few, renters on that neighborhood's board. The other neighborhood boards have equally dismal renter participants, although some neighborhoods have been more successful than others. CARAG, for example, has 2 renters and 8 homeowners (plus one board member living in a parish). In a city system that looks towards these boards as the local voice of the masses, this skewed renter/owner schism is obviously a major problem.

Why don't renters join the board? Or should the question be why do home owners join the board? It makes sense if you think about it. While both owners and renters have an investment in the neighborhood, owners have a long-term economic motivation. A desirable neighborhood increases their home value. Conversely, a crime-ridden, unpleasant neighborhood means home values will go down and homes will be harder to sell. A renter wants a nice neighborhood, too, but they have the option of bailing out cheaply and easily if the neighborhood becomes dangerous or just unpleasant. They also face the opposite risk of putting in too much work, dramatically improving the neighborhood, and then seeing their rents go up as a result. I doubt most renters or owners think it through in this much detail, but it's obvious that there are more incentives for owners to get involved.

Renters, too, are diverse in perhaps a broader sense than are Uptown's homeowners. Renters range from young college students living with roommates to old people who have lived here for many decades. Renters, especially the younger ones, might be more likely to have jobs with evening hours; if you're waiting tables at night, for example, you're not going to be able to make it to regular board meetings no matter how much you love the neighborhood. A larger percentage of renters do probably just see themselves as temporarily passing through; for every longterm renter there is another who see Uptown as a fun place to live for a couple of years before settling down somewhere else.

It's also worth noting that renters and homeowners have many of the same concerns. Crime, environmental issues, transportation, parks, among other things, all impact everyone. Also, just because someone owns a home does not mean that they aren't concerned about the issues facing renters, or vice-versa.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the neighborhood boards would gladly welcome more diversity in their ranks. The time has come to go beyond just openness and towards active recruitment. Every neighborhood should have a nomination committee, as well as a renter outreach committee. It's possible that many interested renters may never have even considered joining a neighborhood board. Perhaps there are some renters who think you have to own a home to participate. In any case, it's the job of the neighborhood to go out to their residents and make sure that everyone feels involved and welcomed. The result would not just be a more diverse board, but also an overall increased sense of larger community.