Pub Date : 2021-06-29DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0004
T. Gonzales
Chapter 3 looks at complementary aspects of trust and mistrust in community development. Using a framework of development from above versus development from below, the author analyzes the tactics, strategies, and programming practices implemented by two distinct types of community groups: nonprofit lead agencies and grassroots organizations. Whereas the lead agencies focused on the goals of the New Communities Program, including social service provision and relationship building, the grassroots organizations combined community development practices with community organizing to expand local development and increase the leadership skills of residents. Grassroots actions included expanding public transportation, holding aldermanic summits, and transforming negative perceptions of their communities. These processes highlight the growing divide between formal development policies, which aimed to transform the individual, and local responses, which aimed to transform structural inequities while also developing local leadership potential.
{"title":"“You Can’t Do It if You’re Mad, You Can Do It if You’re Organized”","authors":"T. Gonzales","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 3 looks at complementary aspects of trust and mistrust in community development. Using a framework of development from above versus development from below, the author analyzes the tactics, strategies, and programming practices implemented by two distinct types of community groups: nonprofit lead agencies and grassroots organizations. Whereas the lead agencies focused on the goals of the New Communities Program, including social service provision and relationship building, the grassroots organizations combined community development practices with community organizing to expand local development and increase the leadership skills of residents. Grassroots actions included expanding public transportation, holding aldermanic summits, and transforming negative perceptions of their communities. These processes highlight the growing divide between formal development policies, which aimed to transform the individual, and local responses, which aimed to transform structural inequities while also developing local leadership potential.","PeriodicalId":431728,"journal":{"name":"Building a Better Chicago","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129628808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-29DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0006
T. Gonzales
In the conclusion the author considers the value of trust and suggests new ways to engage residents and improve resident-led inclusion at all levels of redevelopment: research, planning, implementation, and assessment of results. The conclusion begins with a discussion of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation’s model of “comprehensive community development.” Despite the feel-good nature embedded in ideas of trust, evidence suggests that the corporation’s approach may actually continue a history of socially unjust urban development, with its documented inequities. The conclusion explains how collective skepticism can be used by marginalized populations to network and yield more equitable results.
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"T. Gonzales","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"In the conclusion the author considers the value of trust and suggests new ways to engage residents and improve resident-led inclusion at all levels of redevelopment: research, planning, implementation, and assessment of results. The conclusion begins with a discussion of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation’s model of “comprehensive community development.” Despite the feel-good nature embedded in ideas of trust, evidence suggests that the corporation’s approach may actually continue a history of socially unjust urban development, with its documented inequities. The conclusion explains how collective skepticism can be used by marginalized populations to network and yield more equitable results.","PeriodicalId":431728,"journal":{"name":"Building a Better Chicago","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129558195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-29DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0003
T. Gonzales
This chapter describes the New Communities Program as it sought to create a common culture, using particular language regarding development in the target neighborhoods. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation staff built deep relationships of trust between their partner lead agencies and powerful city elites who could steer resources into these communities. Although these partnerships did infuse money and technical expertise into the targeted neighborhoods, they also restricted advocacy and controversial development projects. Applying the discourse of professionalization and policy neutrality, the author argues, these trust networks socialized members into a single organizational culture—one that focuses on remedying the shortcomings of individuals—at a cost to local neighborhoods.
{"title":"A Seat at the Table","authors":"T. Gonzales","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the New Communities Program as it sought to create a common culture, using particular language regarding development in the target neighborhoods. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation staff built deep relationships of trust between their partner lead agencies and powerful city elites who could steer resources into these communities. Although these partnerships did infuse money and technical expertise into the targeted neighborhoods, they also restricted advocacy and controversial development projects. Applying the discourse of professionalization and policy neutrality, the author argues, these trust networks socialized members into a single organizational culture—one that focuses on remedying the shortcomings of individuals—at a cost to local neighborhoods.","PeriodicalId":431728,"journal":{"name":"Building a Better Chicago","volume":"32 37","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113973420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-29DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0005
T. Gonzales
By tracing coalition building among grassroots community organizations, chapter 4 identifies the high level of mistrust among the lead agencies, the intermediary, and grassroots groups unaffiliated with the New Communities Program. Still, this chapter explains, these organizations collaborated and shared ideas, resources, and information. Goal-focused collaborative relationships—what the author terms networks of opportunity—provided benefits to both local residents and community organizations, but rather than working toward building trust, grassroots groups in these networks used their collective skepticism of the New Communities Program, the lead agencies, local politicians, and other external organizations as a tool to ensure a more careful evaluation of what they could accomplish. They thus assessed the information they shared with a more critical eye toward project outcomes. As this chapter explains, such an approach to networking, while potentially difficult and time-consuming, allows organizations to connect their local causes to broader national issues and is particularly useful in networks that contain unequal power relations. Within Greater Englewood and Little Village, two unique approaches emerged—partnering with local agencies and partnering with a broad network.
{"title":"“Teamwork to Make the Dream Work”","authors":"T. Gonzales","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479839759.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"By tracing coalition building among grassroots community organizations, chapter 4 identifies the high level of mistrust among the lead agencies, the intermediary, and grassroots groups unaffiliated with the New Communities Program. Still, this chapter explains, these organizations collaborated and shared ideas, resources, and information. Goal-focused collaborative relationships—what the author terms networks of opportunity—provided benefits to both local residents and community organizations, but rather than working toward building trust, grassroots groups in these networks used their collective skepticism of the New Communities Program, the lead agencies, local politicians, and other external organizations as a tool to ensure a more careful evaluation of what they could accomplish. They thus assessed the information they shared with a more critical eye toward project outcomes. As this chapter explains, such an approach to networking, while potentially difficult and time-consuming, allows organizations to connect their local causes to broader national issues and is particularly useful in networks that contain unequal power relations. Within Greater Englewood and Little Village, two unique approaches emerged—partnering with local agencies and partnering with a broad network.\u0000","PeriodicalId":431728,"journal":{"name":"Building a Better Chicago","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115486265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：