Exhibit B
Port Commission Regular Meeting
of January 22, 2019


THE BRIEFING PROJECT
EPISODE 17 — The Myth of Engagement — January 22, 2019

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Steve Edmiston, | live Des Moines, I'm here for The
of engagement, and
Briefing Project. Today a bit of tough love. We'll discuss the myth
communities
particularly, the myth that the Port engages meaningfully with the airport neighbor
from overflight noise and emissions.
on the impacts to health and the environment

That is the core lesson
True engagement isnot just the right thing to do, but is legally required.
becauseit just checks a box,
from the City of Phoenix case. Where the engagement is a myth —
— then the action based on the engagement
or is a marketing campaign, or is simply inadequate
the sun you are flying, the Phoenix
is arbitrary and capricious. To get a sense for how close to
in flight frequency would not be
Court characterized the FAA's contention that a 300% increase
“highly controversial” as “implausible.” Which is spine-tingler, because your regular consultant
communities have recently
Steve Alverson stated last year that the flights over our 3 Runway
increased by — and you can’t make this stuff up — by 300%.

must engage, let's be
Now, hoping we agreethat just like Maverick at the end of Top Gun, you
candid about the myth of engagement so we can fix it.

the type of engagement the
First, the myth is perpetuated when the Port refuses to provide
direct request from Des
communities need. One example. This summer, the Port flat refused a
forced on the city, dozens of Port
Moines for a town hall engagement. Worse, under the format
from
staff stood for hours in front of blank story boards and refused to answer questions
citizens. | had my camera crew there. It's on film. It was surreal.

words “quality of life” from
Second, the myth of engagement was given oxygen by deleting the
from last year allows the Port to
the Port's bylaws and mission statement. This jaw-dropper
issues that don’t place airport growth at risk, such as
engage in selective environmentalism, on
to protect quality of life
biofuels, recycling, and shellfish, kelp, and eelgrass. Removing a duty
2018 Environmental
also allows you to ignore science like the World Health Organization's
blockbuster report in three months.
Noise Guidelines. The Port has made no comment on this

like START, Highline
Third, the myth of engagement is perpetuated at stakeholder groups,
control of the agenda and assuring
Forum, and the SCATBd, that appear predicated upon Port
Last week the Port refused to join
the Port can distance itself from unwanted change. Example?
for the simple creation of regional
15 other SCATB cities in a new legislative agenda calling
airport siting committee.
seminal 1969 “Arnstein Ladder” of
The Port's approach presents a textbook application of the
and therapy, the
community engagement. On the bottom rungs, labeled manipulation
powerless stakeholders are falsely engaged by placement on “rubberstamp advisory
their
committees or advisory boards” to educate them, or engineer their support, or change
shared decision-making.
views, instead of addressing the problem and providing top-rung
Sounding super-duper familiar? Maverick, engage.

Thank you for giving a citizen two-minutes to comment. | have copies of my own article on
the Phoenix case, and the Arnstein Ladder, for each of you.


www.thebriefingproject.com

     THE BRIEFING
THE BRIEFING YOU ASKED FOR BUT DID NOT RECEIVE -
IN TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENTS

PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2019
STEVE EDMISTON

     Episode 17 - The Myth of Engagement
1. Engagement - it’s the right thing to do.
2. The City of Phoenix and f ying to close to the sun?
3. The 300% coincidence.
4. The engagement we need but do not receive.
5. Deleting quality of ife to allow selective
environmentalism and ignoring science.
O. When good stakeho der groups go bad.
~ . Stuck on the bottom of the engagement ladder.

      CITY OF PHOENIX PLAYS “ROGUE ONE" TO FAA'S
DEATH STAR
Com me em em AN Du Ch ED RR GO EY OO me FS SD UD MM CR CD EN om OF ME WD SR £3 G3 SO GN ED 6D MG WR OE Mm FUKD ES Bh 4 B32 MD ON GD ER ER Em EReR Waom moa
medium.com/@steveedmistonQ45/city-of-phoenix-plays-rogue-one-to-faas-death-star-a15b71 ae3b05
Steve Edmiston                                                                                         August 31,2017

Steve Edmiston
Aug 31,2017
The Federal Aviation Administration's relentless nationwide rollout of
satellite-navigation-based airport expansions was dealt a significant
setback in City of Phoenix v. Huerta and Federal Aviation Administration, No.
15-1158 (D.C. Cir., August 29, 2017).














The Court of Appeals sent the FAA a powerful message —that the FAA's playbook for
implementing satellite-based route changes and frequency increases (sometimes known as
“NextGen") in Phoenix failed to adequately identify the potential harm to humans, the
environment, and historic neighborhoods, homes, parks, and sites, and it failed to give
sufficient notice of the impacts to, and provide for sufficient involvement of, city officials and
community groups. The FAA's actions—changing flight routes and increasing flight
frequencies at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport —were deemed “arbitrary and

             capricious” under three different federal statutes —the National Historic Preservation Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and the Department of Transportation Act. The
Court even admonished the FAA for tactics that appeared designed to seduce the City to delay
filing suit, in order to claim the City waited too long to file suit.

The case provides a useful roadmap for other airport neighbor cities, with a virtual step-by-
step guide for reviewing the FAA's actions to determine whether the FAA failed to provide
adequate notice and information to the proper individuals and groups, failed to collect needed
information, and otherwise failed to comply with three federal statutes, before rolling out its
satellite-based navigation procedures.

Along the way, the Court provides some truly remarkable holdings.

First, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) suddenly becomes a critical component
for community pushback against the FAA. The Court found the FAA failed to determine that no
historic structures were adversely affected and failed to notify required parties and provide
relevant documentation. The FAA's notice was deemed inadequate because the FAA was
required to confirm, and did not confirm, that the individuals notified were the correct
individuals for assuring compliance with the NHPA. Critically, for airport communities
suffering from NextGen in other cities, the FAA failed because it did not provide the public with
information about how action effects historic properties and seek public comment and input.

Additionally, unless confidential information is involved,
agencies must “provide the public with information about an
undertaking and its effects on historic properties and seek
public  comment  and  input.”  Id.  § 800.2(d)(2)  (emphasis
added). The FAA admits, however, that it did not make “local
citizens and community leaders” aware of the proposed new
routes and procedures, J.A. 364, and it does not claim that any
confidentiality concerns applied.

Further, by keeping the public in the dark, the agency
made it impossible for the public to submit views on the
project’s potential effects—views that the FAA is required to
consider.  See 36 CFR.  §  800.5(a);  see  also Am.  Bird
Conservancy v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(“Interested  persons   cannot  request  an   [environmental
assessment] for actions they do not know about, much less for
actions already completed.”).

The more you (don't) know.

Second, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the FAA wrongfully avoided a
more detailed environmental impact statement by erroneously applying a “categorical

            exclusion” to the route changes. The Court again provided the roadmap, holding no categorical
exclusion can apply if there are “extraordinary circumstances,” which exist when the action is
“likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds.” Perhaps the most excoriating
FAA's proposal would
quote in the case is this: “Common sense reveals otherwise. As noted, the
increase by 300% the number of aircraft flying over twenty-five historic neighborhoods and
buildings and nineteen public parks, with 85% of the new flight traffic coming from newjets. The
idea that a change with these effects would not be highly controversial is ‘so implausible’ that it
could not reflect reasoned decision-making.”

concerns.” FAA Br. 80. Common sense reveals otherwise. As
noted, the FAA’s proposal would increase by 300% the number
of aircraft flying over twenty-five historic neighborhoods and
buildings and nineteen public parks, with 85% ofthe new flight
traffic coming from jets. The idea that a change with these
effects would not be highly controversial is “so implausible”
that it could not reflect reasoned decisionmaking. See Motor
Vehicle Mfys. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

Common sense? What a concept.

The FAA was also called to task for failing to take into account its prior experiences in similar
circumstances at other airports. In other words, the FAA's divide-and-conquer strategy, claiming
each airport is different, was rejected. The FAA should have provided a “reasoned explanation
for... treating similar situations differently.”

The FAA also erred by deviating from its usual practice in
assessing when new flight routes are likely to be highly
controversial, without giving a “reasoned explanation for . ..
treating similar situations differently.” W. Deptford Energy,
LLC v. FERC, 766 F.3d 10, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2014). In assessing
proposed route  changes  at  airports  in Boston, Northern
California, Charlotte, and Atlanta, the FAA has relied on its
general observation that a proposal is likely to be highly
controversial if it would increase sound levels by five or more
decibels in an area already experiencing average levels of 45-
60 decibels. But here the agency said exactly the opposite and

If it looks like a duck...

                                                                                                          did
The practical implication? The FAA is being held to account for the Nixon question—what
it know and when did it know it—in relation to how bad the FAA NextGensatellite-based
all been bad, and
navigation rollouts have been in all prior cities. And because they have
be problems at
because the FAA did not explain why the prior problems were not likely to
Phoenix, the FAA's failure to conduct a full EIS was arbitrary and capricious.

of
Third, the Transportation Act holdings may provide the most unique and powerful roadmaps
whether new routes
all. The Court found the FAA failed to consult with the City “in assessing
to find the
would substantially impair the City’s parks and historic sites,” and “FAA was wrong
The key rationale that will cause
routes would not substantially impair these protected areas.”
consulted with these city
the FAA severe heartburn is this: “the FAA cites no evidence that it
officials on historic sites and public parks in particular.”

consultation  duties  required.  Besides, the FAA  cites  no
evidence that it consulted with these City officials on historic
sites  and  public  parks  in  particular.  Thus,  the  FAA’s
consultation process was arbitrarily confined.

the right people.
It's not just who you consulted with—it's whether you consulted with

because the devil is in
In other words, the FAA can’t go through the motions in a consultation,
the details and in the content of the consultation.

Also under the Transportation Act, if the use of a park is so negatively impacted by overflights
that it amounts to a taking, the FAA action can only proceed if there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using the park. Here, the problems for the FAA suddenly magnify exponentially.
50 Noise Study—may
Reliance on the FAA's go-to holecard—compliance with the NEPA Part 1
is a generally recognized purpose
not be sufficient to determine noise impact if “a quiet setting
that a Part
and attribute” of historic residences, neighborhoods, and sites. The Court agreed
this was true
150 alone does not provide adequate information on this required topic. Critically,
some neighborhoods might be
even where the sites were urban: “even in the heart of a city
recognized as quiet oases.”

Finally, the Court used the Transportation Act to hit the nail on the head for other impacted
that overflights
airport communities across the country. In addressing the FAA's argument
door with common
had already historically occurred in these communities, the Court shut the
that flew far less often so the homes
sense: “But those earlier flights involved propeller aircraft
other words—
beneath them might still have been generally recognized as “quiet settings. "In
historical uses are not the same as present uses and the FAA can't try to avoid its obligations
by claiming it has already made some noise.

                   Thus, it was unreasonable for the agency to rely only on
the Part 150 guidelines in concluding that noise from the new
flight routes would not substantially impair the affected historic
sites. As a result, that conclusion lacks substantial supporting
evidence. For both these reasons, we find that the agency’s
substantial-impairment analysis was arbitrary and capricious.
One Part 150 does not fit all.

all—that timing matters. The rule
It must be noted that this case comes with a dire warning to
action” issues. The problem in
is that a petition must be filed within 60 days after FAA “final
late. But the Court
Phoenix? The routes had been in effect for six months. They were too
it was
provided a yet another “save” because it found the FAA repeatedly communicated
wanted to work with
continuing to look into the noise problem, was open to fixing the issue,
“reasonable observers to
the City and others to find a solution. This led to the conclusion that
do so by a court.” In other
think the FAA might fix the noise problem without being forced to
The Court
words, the FAA led the community groups and city down a path of cooperation.
this is such
clearly did not like this tactic. “While we rarely find a reasonable-grounds exception,
“ To
identification of nefarious intent:
a rare case.” The Court finished with a truly remarkable
for
conclude otherwise would encourage the FAA to promise to fix the problem just long enough
sixty days to lapse and then to argue that the resulting petitions were untimely.”
and certainly, the FAA may
This case will require some ongoing thought and consideration—
well appeal. At first blush, on the outside looking in, it's a winner for long-suffering airport
One crew and
neighbor communities. Perhaps for now, like the impossible-odds-facing Rogue
Rebel Alliance that follows, the Force is now with us—for at least a brief period of time.











BIg

    A LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Sherry R. Arnstein


The heated  controversy  over  “citizen  participation,”   United States—has or can have.  Between understated
“citizen control,” and “maximum feasible involvement   euphemisms  and exacerbated  rhetoric,  even scholars
of the poor,” has been waged largely in terms of ex-   have found it difficult to follow the controversy.  To
acerbated  rhetoric  and  misleading  euphemisms.  To   the headline reading public, it is simply bewildering.
of
encourage a more enlightened dialogue, a typology        My answer to the critical what question is simply that
citizen participation  is offered  using examples  from
citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen
three fedetal social  programs:  urban remewal,  anti-
It is the redistribution of power that enables the
which is   power.
poverty,  and Model  Cities.  The  typology,             have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political
designed to be provocative,  is arranged in 2 ladder
and economic processes, to be deliberately included in
the extent of
pattern with each rung corresponding to                the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join
citizens’ power in determining the plan and/or program.
in determining how information is shared, goals and

The idea of citizen participation is a little   policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are
like eating spinach:  no one is against it in principle   operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are
parceled out. In short, it is the means by which théy can
because it is good for you.  Participation of the gov-
erned in their government is, in theory, the          induce significant social reform which enables them to
corner-
share in the benefits of the affluent society.
stone of democracy—a revered idea that is vigorously
applauded by virtually everyone.  The applause is re-
EMPTY RITUAL VERSUS BENEFIT
duced to polite handclaps, however, when this princi-
There is a critical difference between going through the
ple  is  advocated  by  the  have-not  blacks,  Mexican-
empty ritual of participation and having the real power
Americans, Puerto Ricans, Indians, Eskimos, and whites.
needed to affect the outcome of the process.  This
And when the have-nots define participation as re-
difference is brilliantly capsulized in a poster painted
distribution of power, the American consensus on the
last  spring  by the  French  students  to  explain  the
fundamental principle explodes into many shades of
student-worker rebellion.?  (See Figure 1.)  The poster
outright  racial,  ethnic,   ideological,  and  political   highlights  the  fundamental  point  that  participation
opposition.                                              without redistribution of power is an empty and frus-
There have been many recent speeches, articles, and
trating process for the powerless.  It allows the power-
books * which explore in detail who are the have-nots
holders to claim that all sides were considered, but
of our time,  There has been much recent documenta-
makes it possible for only some of those sides to benefit.
tion of why the have-nots have become so offended and
It maintains the status quo.  Essentially, it is what has
embittered by their powerlessness to deal with the profound
inequities and injustices pervading their daily
lives.  But there has been very little analysis of the
content of the current controversial slogan:  “citizen
participation” or “maximum feasible participation.”  In
short:  What is citizen participation and what is its
relationship to the social imperatives of our time?
Citizen Participation is Citizen Power
Because the question has been a bone of political conten-
tion, most of the answers have been purposely buried
in innocuous euphemisms like “self-help” or “citizen
involvement.”  Still others have been embellished with
misleading rhetoric like  “absolute control”  which is
something no one—including the President of the
Sherry R. Arnstein is Director of Community Development
Studies for The Commons, a non-profit research ‘institute in
Washington, D.C. and Chicago. She is a former Chick Advisor
on Citizen Participation in HUD’s Model Cities Administra-
tion and has served as Staff Consultant to the President's          FIGURE 1    French Student Poster, In English, I participate;
Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, Special Assistant to the
you participate; he participates; we participate;
Assistant Secretary of HEW, and Washington Editor of
Current Magazine.                                                     you participate . . . They profit.
216                                                                        AIP JOURNAL    JULY 1969

                                                                             can enter into 2 (6) Partnership that enables them to
negotiate  and  engage  in  trade-offs  with  traditional
Citizen control                                 powerholders.  At the topmost rungs,  (7)  Delegated
Power and (8) Citizen Conirol, have-not citizens obtain
Degrees
the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial
Delegated power                   of
citizen power     .power.
Obviously, the eight-rung ladder is a simplification,
Partnership                                   but it helps to illustrate the point that so many have

6                                    -—                   missed—that there are significant gradations of citizen

Placation                                    participation. Knowing these gradations makes it possi-
ble to cut through the hyperbole to understand the
§                                          Degrees         increasingly strident demands for participation from the
Consultation                —-  of
have-nots as well as the gamut of confusing responses
tokenism
4                                                        from the powerholders.
Though the  typology uses  examples  from federal
informing
programs  such  as  urban  renewal,  anti-poverty,  and
3
r—                 Model Cities; it could just as easily be illustrated in the

Therapy                                    church, currently facing demands for power from priests

2                                     ==   Nonparticipation   and laymen who seek to change its mission; colleges and
universities which in some cases have become literal
Manipulation
battlegrounds over the issue of student power; or public
schools, city halls, and police departments (or big busi-
list of
ness which is likely to be next on the expanding

FIGURE 2    Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Partici-   targets). The underlying issues are essentially the same
pation                                       ——“nobodies”  in several arenas are trying to become
“somebodies’ with enough power to make the target
institutions responsive to their views, aspirations, and
been happening in most of the 1,000 Community Action
needs.
Programs, and what promises to be repeated in the vast
majority of the 150 Model Cities programs.                                      LIMITATIONS OF THE TYPOLOGY
The ladder juxtaposes powerless citizens with the
Types of Participation and “NonParticipation”
powerful in order to                           di-
A typology of eight levels of participation may help in                          highlight the fundamental
analysis of this confused issue.  For illustrative        visions between them. In actuality, neither the have-nots
pur-
the powerholders are homogeneous blocs.  Each
in a ladder pattern   nor
poses the eight types are arranged                                                 of divergent points of view,
with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens’   group encompasses a host
significant cleavages, competing vested interests,  and
power in determining the end product.® (See Figure 2.)                          The
The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipala-   splintered subgroups.      justification for using such
tion and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels   simplistic abstractions is that in most cases the have-nots
as a monolithic “sys-
of “non-participation” that have been contrived by some   really do perceive the powerful
to substitute for genuine participation.  Their real ob-   tem,” and powerholdets actually do view the have-nots
of
asa sea of “those people,” with little comprehension
jective is not to enable people to participate in planning   the class and caste differences among them.
or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to
“educate” or “cure” the participants.  Rungs 3 and 4     It should be noted that the typology does not include
to achiev-
that allow the have-   an analysis of the most significant roadblocks
progress to levels of “tokenism™
nots to hear and to have a voice:  (3) Informing and   ing genuine levels of participation.  These roadblocks
(4) Consultation. When they are proffered by power-   lie on both sides of the simplistic fence. On the power-
holders as the total extent of participation, citizens may   holders’  side,  they include  racism,  paternalism,  and
indeed hear and be heard.  But under these conditions   resistance to power redistribution.  On the have-nots’
they lack the power to insure that their views will be   side, they include inadequacies of the poor community's
socioeconomic infrastructure and knowledge-
heeded by the powerful.  When participation is re-   political
and
stricted to these levels, there is no followthrough, no   base, plus difficulties of organizing a representative
“muscle,” hence no assurance of changing the status   accountable  citizens’  group  in the face  of  futility,
quo.  Rung  (5)  Placation,  is simply a higher level   alienation, and distrust.
tokenism because the groundrules allow have-nots to     Another caution about the eight separate rungs on the
advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued   ladder: In the real world of people and programs, there
right to decide.                                          might be 150 rungs with less sharp and “pure”distinc-
Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with   tions among them.  Furthermore, some of the character-
increasing degrees of decision-making clout.  Citizens   istics used to illustrate each of the eight types might be
217
ARNSTEIN

                      applicable to other rungs. For example, employment of     The signators are not informed that the $2 millionthe
have-nots in a program or on 2 planning staff could   per-year center will only refer residents to the same old
occur at any of the eight rungs and could represent   waiting lines at the same old agencies across town. No
either a legitimate or illegitimate characteristic of citi-   one is asked if such a referral center is really needed in
zen participation.  Depending on their motives, power-   his neighborhood. No one realizes that the contractor
holders can hire poor people to coopt them, to placate   for the building is the mayor's brother-in-law, or that
them, or to utilize the have-nots’ special skills and   the new director of the center will be the same old com-
insights,¢  Some mayors, in private, actually boast of   munity organization specialist from the urban renewal
their strategy in hiring militant black leaders to muzzle   agency.
them while destroying their credibility in the black     After signing their names, the proud grassrooters
community.                                          dutifully spread thé word that they have “participated”
in bringing a new and wonderful center to the neighbor-
Characteristics and Illustrations   hood to provide people with drastically needed jobs and
It is in this context of power and powerlessness that the   health and welfare services.  Only after the ribbon-
characteristics  of  the  eight  rungs  are  illustrated  by   cutting ceremony do the members of the neighborhood
examples from current federal social programs.          council realize that they didn’t ask the important ques-
tions, and that they had no technical advisors of their
1. MANIPULATION   own to help them grasp the fine legal print. The new
In the name of citizen participation, people are placed   center, which is open 9 to 5 on weekdays only, actually
on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards   adds to their problems. Now the old agencies across
for the express purpose of “educating” them or engi-   town won't talk with them unless they have a pink paper
neering their support.  Instead of genuine citizen par-   slip to prove that they have been referred by “their”
ticipation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the   shiny new neighborhood center.
distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle     Unfortunately, this chicanery is not a unique example.
by powerholders.                                        Instead it is almost typical of what has been perpetrated
This illusory form of “participation” initially came   in the name of high-sounding rhetoric like “grassroots
dinto vogue with urban renewal when the socially elite   participation.”  This sham lies at the heart of the deep-
seated  exasperation  and  hostility  of  the  have-nots
were invited by city housing officials to serve on Citizen
Advisory Committees (CACs). Another target of ma-   toward the powerholders.
nipulation were the CAC subcommittees on minority     One hopeful note is that, having been so grossly
groups, which in theory were to protect the rights of   affronted, some citizens have learned the Mickey Mouse
Negroes in the renewal program.  In practice, these                                         Asa result
game, and now they too know how to play.
subcommittees,  like  their  parent  CACs,  functioned   of this knowledge, they are demanding genuine levels
mostly as letterheads, trotted forward at appropriate   of participation to assure them that public programs are
times to promote urban renewal plans (in recent years   relevant to their needs and responsive to their priorities.
known as Negro removal plans).
At meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committees, it                                             2. THERAPY
was the officials who educated, persuaded, and advised   In some respects group therapy, masked as citizen par-
the citizens, not the reverse.  Federal guidelines for the   ticipation, should be on the lowest rung of the ladder
renewal programs legitimized the manipulative agenda   because it is both dishonest and arrogant.  Its adminis-
by  emphasizing  the  terms  ‘“information-gathering,”   trators—mental health experts from social workers to
“public relations,” and “support” as the explicit func-   psychiatrists—assume that powerlessness is synonymous
tions of the committees.
with mental illness. On this assumption, under 2 mas-
This style of nonparticipation has since been applied   querade of involving citizens in planning, the experts
to other programs encompassing the poor. Examples of   subject the citizens to clinical group therapy.  What
this are seen in Community Action Agencies (CAAs)
makes this form of “participation” so invidious is that
which have created structures called “neighborhood
citizens are engaged in extensive activity, but the focus
councils” or “neighborhood advisory groups.”  These
of it is on curing them of their “pathology” rather than
bodies frequently have no legitimate function or power.
The CAAs use them to “prove” that “grassroots  changing the racism and victimization that create their
people” are involved in the program. But the program   “pathologies.”
“the people.”  Or it     Consider an incident that occurred in Pennsylvania
may not have been discussed with
may have been described at                        less than one year ago. When a father took his seriously
a meeting in the most
ill baby to the emergency clinic of a local hospital, a                                                                                                              general terms; “We need your signatures on this pro-
him to take
posal for a multiservice center which will house, under   young resident physician on duty instructed
oneroof, doctors from the health department, workers   the baby home and feed it sugar water. The baby died
from the welfare department, and specialists from the   that afternoon of pneumonia and  dehydration.  The
employment service.”                                    overwrought father complained to the board of the local
218                                                                        AIP JOURNAL    JULY 1969

                   Community Action Agency.  Instead of launching an   the official, the citizens accepted the “information” and
investigation of the hospital to determine what changes   endorsed the agency's proposal to place four lots in the
would prevent similar deaths or other forms of mal-   white neighborhood.®
practice,  the board  invited the father to attend the
CAA's (therapy)  child-care sessions for parents, and                                       4. CONSULTATION
promised him that someone would “telephone the hos-   Inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be
pital director to see that it never happens again.”         a legitimate step toward their full participation. But if
Less  dramatic,  but  more  common  examples  of   consulting them is not combined with other modes of
therapy, masquerading as citizen participation, may be   participation, this rung of the ladder is still a sham since
seen in public housing programs where tenant groups   it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will

are used as vehicles for promoting control-your-child or   be taken into account. The most frequent methods used
cleanup campaigns.  The tenants are brought together   for consulting people are attitude surveys, neighborhood
to help them “adjust their values and attitudes to those   meetings, and public hearings.
of the larger society.”  Under these groundrules, they     When powerholders  restrict the input of citizens’
are diverted from dealing with such important matters   ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a

as:  arbitrary evictions; segregation of the housing proj-   window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived
ect; or why is there a three-month time lapse to get a   as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured
broken window replaced in winter.                       by how many come to meetings, take brochures home,
The complexity of the concept of mental illness in   or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all
our time can be seen in the experiences of student/civil   this activity is that they have “participated in participa-
rights workers facing guns, whips, and other forms of   tion.” And what powerholders achieve is the evidence
terror in the South.  They needed the help of socially   that they have gone through the required motions of
attuned psychiatrists to deal with their fears and to avoid   involving “those people.”
paranoia.’                                                 Attitude surveys have become a particular bone of
contention in ghetto neighborhoods.  Residents are in-
3. INFORMING   creasingly unhappy about the number of times per week
Informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and   they are surveyed about their problems and hopes.  As
options can be’ the most important first step toward   one woman put it:  “Nothing ever happens with those
legitimate citizen participation. However, too frequently   damned questions, except the surveyer gets $3 an hour,
In some
the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information   and my washing doesn’t get done that day.”
—from officials to citizens—with no channel provided   communities,  residents are so annoyed that they are
for feedback and no power for negotiation. Under these   demanding a fee for research interviews.
conditions, particularly when information is provided at     Attitude surveys are not very valid indicators of com-
a late stage in planning, people have little opportunity   munity opinion when used without other input from
for out of anti-
to influence the program designed “for their benefit.”   citizens.  Survey after survey  (paid
The most frequent tools used for such one-way com-   poverty funds) has “documented” that poor housewives
munication are the news media, pamphlets, posters, and   most want tot-lots in their neighborhood where young
children can play safely.  But most of the women an-
responses to inquiries.
Meetings can also be turned into vehicles for one-way   swered these questionnaires without knowing what their
options were.  They assumed that if
communication by the simple device of providing supet-                                          they asked for
ficial  information,  discouraging questions,  or giving   something small, they might just get something useful
irrelevant answers.  At a recent Model Cities citizen   in the neighborhood.  Had the mothers known that a
planning meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, the topic   free prepaid health insurance plan was a possible option,
was “tot-lots.”” A group of elected citizen representa-   they might not have put tot-lots so high on their wish
tives, almost all of whom were attending three to five   lists.
meetings a week, devoted an hour to a discussion of the     A classic misuse of the consultation rung occurred at
placement of six tot-lots.  The neighborhood is half   a New Haven, Connecticut, community meeting held to
black, half white.  Several of the black representatives   consult citizens on  a  proposed Model  Cities  grant.
noted that four tot-lots were proposed for the white   James V. Cunningham,  in an unpublished report to
district and only two for the black.  The city official   the Ford Foundation, described the crowd as large and
responded with a lengthy, highly technical explanation   “mostly hostile:   ®
about costs per square foot and available property.  It
Members of The Hill Parents Association de-
was clear that most of the residents did not understand     manded to know why residents had not  partici-
his explanation. And it was clear to observers from the     pated in drawing up the proposal. CAA Loe
Office of Economic Opportunity that other options did     Spitz explained that it was merely a proposal for
exist which, considering available funds, would have     seeking Federal planning funds—that once funds
brought about a more equitable distribution of facilities.     were obtained, residents would be deeply involved
Intimidated by futility, legalistic jargon, and prestige of     in the planning. An outside observer who sat in
219
ARNSTEIN

                       the audience described the meeting this way:           (in a few cities) as a result of the provision stipulating
“Spitz and Mel Adams ran the meeting on their     “maximum feasible participation” in poverty programs.
own. No representatives of a Hill group mod-     Therefore, HUD channeled its physical-social-economic
erated or even sat on the stage.  Spitz told the     rejuvenation  approach  for  blighted  neighborhoods
300 residents that this huge meeting  was  an     through city hall. It drafted legislation requiring that
example of ‘participation in planning.’  To prove     all Model Cities’ money flow to a local City Demonstra-
this, since there was a lot of dissatisfaction in the     tion Agency (CDA) through the elected city council.
audience, he called for a ‘vote’ on each component     As enacted by Congress, this gave local city councils final
of the proposal. The vote took this form:  “Can I
veto power over planning and programming and ruled
a health
see the hands of all those in favor of
out any direct funding relationship between community
clinic?  All those opposed?’  It was a little like
groups and HUD.
asking who favors motherhood.”
HUD required the CDAs to create coalition, policy-
It was a combination of the deep suspicion aroused at   making boards that would include necessary local power-
this meeting and a long history of similar forms of   holders to create a comprehensive physical-social plan
“window-dressing participation” that led New Haven   during the first year. The plan was to be carried out in
residents to demand control of the program.             a subsequent five-year action phase. HUD, unlike OEO,
By way of contrast, it is useful to look at Denver   did not require that have-not citizens be included on the
where technicians learned that even the best intentioned   CDA decision-making  boards.  HUD's  Performance
are often unfamiliar with, and even in-                                                     among them                                            Standards for Citizen Participation only demanded that
sensitive to, the problems and aspirations of the poor.   “citizens have clear and direct access to the decision-
The technical director of the Model Cities program has   making process.”
described the way professional planners assumed that     Accordingly,  the  CDAs  structured  their  policy-
the residents, victimized by high-priced local storekeep-   making boards to include some combination of elected
The resi-
ers, “badly needed consumer education.” **             officials;  school representatives;  housing, health,  and
dents, on the other hand, pointed out that the local
welfare officials;  employment and police department
storekeepers performed a valuable function.  Although   representatives; and various civic, labor, and business
they overcharged, they also gave credit, offered advice,   leaders. Some CDAs included citizens from the neighand
frequently were the only neighborhood place to   borhood. Many mayors correctly interpreted the HUD
cash welfare or salary checks.  As a result of this con-   provision for “access to the decision-making process” as
sultation, technicians and residents agreed to substitute   the escape hatch they sought to relegate citizens to the
the  creation  of  needed  credit  institutions  in  the
traditional advisory role.
neighborhood for a consumer education program.         Most CDAs created residents’ advisory committees.
An alarmingly significant number created citizens’ policy
5. PLACATION   boards and citizens’ policy committees which are totally
It is at this level that citizens begin to have some degree   misnamed as they have either no policy-making function
of  influence  though tokenism  is still  apparent.  An
or only a very limited authority.  Almost every CDA
example of placation strategy is to place a few hand-   created about a dozen planning committees or task forces
picked “worthy” poor on boards of Community Action   on functional lines: health, welfare, education, housing,
Agencies or on public bodies like the board of educa-   and unemployment.  In most cases, have-not citizens
tion, police commission, or housing authority.  If they                                                    with
were invited to serve on these committees along

are not accountable to a constituency in the community   technicians from relevant public agencies. Some CDAs,
and if the traditional power elite hold the majority of                                                      of
on the other hand, structured planning committees
seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed.   technicians and parallel committees of citizens.
Another example is the Model Cities advisory and     In most Model Cities programs, endless time has been
planning committees.  They allow citizens to advise or   spent fashioning complicated board, committee, and task
plan ad infinitum but retain for powerholders the right   force structures for the planning year.  But the rights
to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. The   and responsibilities of the various elements of those
degree to which citizens are actually placated, of course,   structures are not defined and are ambiguous.  Such
depends largely on two factors:  the quality of technical   ambiguity is likely to cause considerable. conflict at the
assistance they have in articulating their priorities; and   end of the one-year planning process. For at this point,
the extent to which the community has been organized   citizens may realize that they have once again exten-
to press for those priorities.                              sively “participated” but have not profited beyond the
It is not surprising that the level of citizen participa-   extent the powerholders decide to placate them.
tion in the vast majority of Model Cities programs is at     Results of a staff study (conducted in the summer of
the placation rung of the ladder or below.  Policy-   1968 before the second round of seventy-five planning
makers at the Department of Housing and Urban De-   grants were awarded)  were released in a December
velopment (HUD) were determined to return the genie   1968 HUD bulletin.’*  Though this public document
it
of citizen power to the bottle from which it had escaped   uses much more delicate and’ diplomatic language,
AIP JOURNAL    JuLy 1969
220

                                                                            It also urged CDAs to experiment with subcontracts
attests to the already cited criticisms of non-policy-
under which the residents’ groups could hire their own
making policy boards and ambiguous complicated struc-
trusted technicians.
tures, in addition to the following findings:
negotiate citizen par-     A more recent evaluation was circulated in February
1. Most CDAs did not
ticipation requirements with residents.              :      1969 by OSTI, a private firm that entered into a con-
Citizens, drawing on past negative experi-   tract with OEO to provide technical assistance and train-
2.
with local powerholders, were extremely sus-
ences                                                   ing to citizens involved in Model Cities programs inthe
northeast region of the country.  OSTT's report to OEO
picious of this new panacea program. They were legiti-
corroborates the earlier study.  In addition it states: **
mately distrustful of city hall's motives.
3. Most CDAs were not working with citizens’     In practically no Model Cities structure does citi-
groups that were genuinely representative of model     zen  participation  mean  truly  shared  decision-
neighborhoods and accountable to neighborhood con-     making, such that citizens might view themselves
stituencies.  As in so many of the poverty programs,     as “the partners in this program. .  . .”
those who were involved were more representative of       In general, citizens are finding it impossible to
the  upwardly  mobile working-class.  Thus  their  ac-     have a significant impact on the comprehensive
quiescence to plans prepared by city agencies was not     planning which is going on. In most cases the staff
likely to reflect the views of the unemployed, the young,     planners of the CDA and the planners of existing
the more militant residents, and the hard-core poor.         agencies are carrying out the actual planning with
citizens having a peripheral role of watchdog and,
4. Residents who were participating in as many
of their     ultimately, the “rubber stamp” of the plan gen-
as three to five meetings per week were unaware             erated.  In cases where citizens have the direct
minimum rights, responsibilities, and the options avail-     responsibility for generating program plans, the
able to them under the program. For example, they did     time period allowed and the independent technical
not realize that they were not required to accept techni-
resources being made available to them are not
cal help from city technicians they distrusted.                adequate to allow them to do anything more than
5. Most of the technical assistance provided by     generate very traditional approaches to the prob-
CDAs and  city  agencies  was  of  third-rate  quality,     lems they ate attempting to solve.
paternalistic, and condescending.  Agency technicians        In general, little or no thought has been given
did not suggest innovative options.  They reacted bu-     to the means of insuring continued citizen partici-
reaucratically when the residents pressed for innovative     pation during the stage of  implementation.  In
approaches.  The vested interests of the old-line city     most cases, traditional agencies are envisaged as the
agencies were a major—albeit hidden—agenda.             implementors of Model Cities programs and few
in planning     mechanisms have been developed for encouraging
6. Most CDAs were not engaged
that was comprehensive enough to expose and deal with     organizational change or change in the method of
for in-
the roots of urban decay. They engaged in “meetingitis”     program delivery within these agencies or
and were supporting strategies that resulted in “proj-     suring that citizens will have some influence over
these agencies as  they implement Model Cities
ectitis,” the outcome of which was a “laundry list” of
. . .
traditional            to  be  conducted  by traditional     programs.
programs                                    By and large, people are once again being
agencies in the traditional manner under which slums     planned for.  In most situations the major  plan-
emerged in the first place.                                  ning decisions are being made by CDA staff   and
7. Residents were not getting enough informa-     approved in a formalistic way by policy boards.
tion from CDAs to enable them to review CDA de-
veloped plans or to initiate plans of their own as re-                                         6. PARTNERSHIP
quired by HUD. At best, they were gettingsuperficial   At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed
information.  At worst,  they were not even getting   through negotiation between citizens and powetholders.
copies of official HUD materials.                oe       They  agree  to  share planning  and  decision-making
8. Most residents were unaware of their rights   responsibilities through such structures as joint policy
to be reimbursed for expenses incurred because of par-   boards, planning committees and mechanisms for re-
ticipation—babysitting, transportation costs, and so on.   solving impasses.  After  the groundrules  have  been
9. The training of residents, which would en-   established through some form of give-and-take, they
able them to understand the labyrinth of the federal-   are not subject to unilateral change.
state-city systems and networks of subsystems, was an     Partnership can work most effectively when there is
did not even consider.                                                                  the
item that most CDAs                                     an organized power-base in the community to which
These findings led to a new public interpretation of   citizen leaders are accountable; when the citizens group
HUD's approach to citizen participation.  Though the   has the financial resources to pay its leaders reasonable
requirements for the seventy-five “'second-round” Model   honoraria for their time-consuming efforts; and when
the group has the resources to hire (and fire) its own
City grantees were not changed, HUD's twenty-seven
citizen participation repeat-   technicians, lawyers, and community organizers. With
page technical bulletin on
edly advocated that cities share power with residents.   these ingredients, citizens have some genuine bargain-
221
ARNSTEIN

                                                                             cies.  It has a veto power in that no plans may be sub-
ing influence over the outcome of the plan (as long as
mitted by the CDA to the
both parties find it useful to maintain the partnership).                              city council until they have
been reviewed, and any differences of opinion have been
One community leader described it “like coming to city
hall with hat on head instead of in hand.”               successfully negotiated with the AWC. Representatives
of the AWC (which is a federation of neighborhood
In the Model Cities program only about fifteen of the
into  sixteen  neighborhood
so-called  first  generation  of  seventy-five cities  have   organizations  grouped
reached some significant degree of power-sharing with   “hubs”) may attend all meetings of CDA task forces,
residents.  In all but one of those cities, it was angry.  planning committees, or subcommittees.
citizen demands, rather than city initiative, that led to     Though the city council has final veto power over the
sharing of power.?®  The negotiations   plan  (by federal        the AWC believes it has a
the negotiated                                                             law),
citizens who had been enraged by   neighborhood constituency that is strong enough to
were triggered by
previous forms of alleged participation. They were both   negotiate any eleventh-hour objections the city council
refuse to be “conned”                     it considers such AWC proposed in-
angry and sophisticated enough to                        might raise when
again.  They threatened to oppose the awarding of a   novations as an AWC Land Bank, an AWC Economic
planning grant to the city.  They sent delegations to   Development Corporation, and an experimental income
HUD in Washington.  They used abrasive language.  maintenance program for 900 poor families.
Negotiation took place under a cloud of suspicion and
rancor.                                                                                   7. DELEGATED POWER
In most cases where power has come to be shared it   Negotiations between citizens and public officials can
citizens, not given by the city.  There
was taken by the                                        also  result  in  citizens  achieving  dominant  decision-
is nothing new about that process. Since those who have
making authority over a particular plan or program.
onto
power normally want to hang      it, historically it has   Model City policy boards or CAA delegate agencies on
had to be wrested by the powerless rather than proffered   which citizens have a clear majority of seats and genuine
by the powerful.                                         specified powers are typical examples. At this level, the
Such a working partnership was negotiated by the   ladder has been scaled to the point where citizens hold
residents in the Philadelphia model neighborhood. Like
the significant cards to assure accountability of the pro-
most applicants for a Model Cities grant, Philadelphia   gram to them.  To resolve differences, powerholders
it
wrote its more than 400 page application and waved     need to start the bargaining process rather than respond
at a hastily called meeting of community leaders. When   to pressure from the other end.
those present were asked  for an endorsement,  they     Such a dominant decision-making role has been at-
angrily protested the city’s failure to consult them on   tained by residents in a handful of Model Cities includ-
preparation of the extensive application. A community   ing Cambridge, Massachusetts; Dayton, and Columbus,
spokesman threatened to mobilize 2 neighborhood pro-   Ohio;  Minneapolis,  Minnesota;  St.  Louis,  Missouri;
test against the application unless the city agreed to give   Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut; and Oakland,
the citizens a couple of weeks to review the application   California.
and recommend changes. The officials agreed.
In New Haven, residents of the Hill neighborhood
At their next meeting, citizens handed the city offi-   have created a corporation that has been delegated the
cials  a  substitute  citizen  participation  section  that
Cities plan. The city,
power to prepare the entire Model
changed the groundrules from a weak citizens’ ad-
which received a $117,000 planning grant from HUD,
visory role to a strong shared power agreement.  Phila-   has subcontracted $110,000 of it to the neighborhood
delphia’s application to HUD included the citizens’
corporation to hire its own planning staff and consul-
substitution word for word.  (It also included 2 new
tants. The Hill Neighborhood Corporation has eleven
citizen prepared introductory chapter that changed the   representatives on the twenty-one-member CDA board
city's description of the model neighborhood from a   which assures it a majority voice when its proposed plan
paternalistic description of problems to a realistic analy-   is reviewed by the CDA.
sis of its strengths, weaknesses, and potentials.)
Another model of delegated power is separate and
Consequently, the proposed policy-making committee   parallel groups of citizens and powerholders, with pro-
of the Philadelphia CDA was revamped to give five out   vision for citizen veto if differences of opinion cannot
of eleven seats to the residents’ organization, which is
be resolved through negotiation.  This is a particularly
called the Area Wide Council (AWC). The AWC
interesting coexistence model for hostile citizen groups
obtained a subcontract from the CDA for more than
too embittered toward city hall—as a result of past
$20,000 per month, which it used to maintain the neigh-
“collaborative efforts” —to engage in joint planning.
bothood organization, to pay citizen leaders $7 per
Since all Model Cities programs require approval by
meeting for their planning services, and to pay the
the city council before HUD will fund them, city coun-
salaries of a staff of community organizers, planners,
cils have final veto powers even when citizens have the
and other technicians. AWC has the power to initiate
In Richmond,
plans of its own, to engage in joint planning with CDA   majority of seats on the CDA Board.
committees, and to review plans initiated by city agen-   California, the city council agreed to a citizens’ counter-
AIP JOURNAL    Jury 1969
222

                     veto, but the details of that agreement are ambiguous   to develop a series of economic enterprises ranging from
and have not been tested.                                 a  novel  combination  shopping-center-public-housing
Various  delegated  power  arrangements  are  also   project to a loan guarantee program for local building
emerging in the Community Action Program as a result   contractors.  The membership and board of the non-
of demands from the neighborhoods and OEO’s most   profit corporation is composed of leaders of major com-
recent instruction guidelines which utged CAAs  “to   munity organizations in the black neighborhood.
exceed (the) basic requirements” for resident participa-          2. Approximately $1 million ($595,751 for the
tion.’¢ In some cities, CAAs have issued subcontracts to   second’ year)  was awarded to the Southwest Alabama
resident dominated groups to plan and/or operate one or   Farmers Cooperative Association (SWAFCA) in Selma,
more decentralized neighborhood program components   Alabama, for a ten-county marketing cooperative for
like a multipurpose service center or a Headstart pro-   food and livestock. Despite local attempts to intimidate
included the      of force to
gram.  These contracts usually include an agreed upon   the coop  (which              use             stop
line-by-line budget and program specifications.  They   trucks on the way to market), first year membership
also usually include a specific statement of the significant                                                 the sale
grew to 1,150 farmers who earned $52,000 on
for example:
powers that have been delegated,               policy-   of their new crops. The elected coop board is composed
making;  hiring and firing;  issuing subcontracts for   of two poor black farmers from each of the ten economi-
building, buying, or leasing. (Some of the subcontracts   cally depressed counties.
so broad that they verge on models for citizen
are                                                             3. Approximately  $600,000  ($300,000  in  2a
control.)           :                                     supplemental grant)  was granted to the Albina Cor-
poration and the Albina Investment Trust to create 2
8. CITIZEN CONTROL   black-operated, black-owned manufacturing concern us-
Demands for community controlled schools, black con-   ing inexperienced management and unskilled minority
trol,  and neighborhood control are on the  increase.                                     district.  The profit-
group personnel from the Albina
Though no one in the nation has absolute control, it is   making wool and metal fabrication plant will be owned
be confused with
very important that the rhetoric not                     by its employees through a deferred compensation trust
intent.  People are simply demanding that degree of   plan.
power (or control) which guarantees that participants          4. Approximately $800,000 ($400,000 for the
be
or residents can govetn a program or an institution,      second year)  was awarded to the Harlem Common-
in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be   wealth Council to demonstrate that a community-based
able to negotiate the conditions under which “outsiders”   development corporation can catalyze and implement an
may change them,                                      economic development program with broad community
A neighborhood corporation with no intermediaries   support and participation.  After only eighteen months
between it and the source of funds is the model most   of program development and negotiation, the council
frequently advocated. A small number of such experi-   will soon launch several large-scale ventures including
mental corporations ate already producing goods and/or   operation of two supermarkets,  an auto service and
social services.  Several others are reportedly in the
repair center  (with built-in manpower training pro-
development stage, and new models for control will
gram), a finance company for families earning less
undoubtedly emerge as the have-nots continue to press   than $4,000 per year, and a data processing company.
for greater degrees of power over their lives.             The all black Harlem-based board is already managing
Though the bitter struggle for community control of   a metal castings foundry.
the Ocean Hill-Brownsville schools in New York City     Though several citizen groups (and their mayors)
has aroused great fears in the headline reading public,   use the rhetoric of citizen control, no Model City can
less publicized experiments are demonstrating that the   meet the criteria of citizen control since final approval
have-nots can indeed improve their lot by handling the                                             council.
power and accountability rest with the city
entire job of planning, policy-making, and managing a     Daniel P. Moynihan argues that city councils are
that they can do
program. Some are even demonstrating                  representative of the community, but Adam Walinsky
all this with just one arm because they are forced to use   illustrates the nontepresentativeness  of this  kind  of
their other one to deal with a continuing barrage of local   represeatation: **
opposition triggered by the announcement that a federal
grant has been given to a community group or an all     Who .  . . exercises “control” through the repre-
sentative process? In the Bedford-Stuyvesant ghetto
black group.
of New York thete are 450,000 people—as many
Most of these experimental programs have been capi-
as in the entire city of Cincinnati, more than in
talized with research and demonstration funds from the
the entire state of Vermont. Yet the area has only
Office of Economic Opportunity in cooperation with
one high school, and 80 per cent of its teen-agers
other federal agencies.  Examples include:                  are dropouts; the infant mortality rate is twice the
1. A $1.8 million grant was awarded to the     national average; there are over 8000 buildings
Hough Area Development Corporation in Cleveland to     abandoned by everyone but the rats, yet the area
plan economic development programs in the ghetto and     received not one dollar of urban renewal funds
223
ARNSTEIN

                       during the entire first 15 years of that program’s     helpful:  B. H. Bagdikian, In the Midst of Plenty:  The Poor
in America       York:  Beacon,  1964); Paul Jacobs,  “The
operation; the unemployment rate is known only
(New
Brutalizing of America,” Dissent, X1 (Autumn 1964), p. 423-8;
to God.                                              Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power: The
Random House,
Clearly,  Bedford-Stuyvesant has        special     Politics of  Liberation in America (New York:
some
es: Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice (New York:  McGraw-Hill,
needs; yet it has always been lost in the midst of     1968); L. J. Duhl, The Urban Condition; People and Policy in the
the city’s eight million.  In fact, it took a lawsuit     Metropolis” (New York:  Basic Books, 1963); William H. Grier
and P. M. Cobbs, Black Rage (New York:  Basic Books, 1968);
to win for this vast area, in the year 1968, its
Michael Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United
first Congressman.  In what sense can the repre-     States (New York:  Macmillan, 1962); Peter Marris end Martin
sentative system be said to have “spoken for” this     Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action
in the United States (New York: Atherton Press, 1967); Mollie
community, during the long years of neglect and     Orshansky, "Who's Who Among   the Poor: A Demographic View
decay?                                                of Poverty,” Social Security Bulletin, XXVII (July 1965), 3-32;
and Richard T. Titmuss, Essays on the Welfare State (New Haven:
Walinsky’s point on Bedford-Stuyvesant has general   Yale University Press, 1968).
2 The poster is one of about 350 produced in May or June 1968
applicability to the ghettos from coast to coast.  It is
at Atélier Populaire, a graphics center launched by students from
therefore likely that in those ghettos where residents   the Sorbonne's Ecole des Beaux Art and Ecole des Arts Decoratifs.
of a more crude typology I
have achieved
3This
a significant degree of power in the            typology is an outgrowth
circulated in March 1967 in a HUD staff discussion paper titled
Model Cities planning process, the first-year action plans   “Rhetoric and Reality."  The earlier typology consisted of eight
call  for the creation  of                          levels that were less discrete types and did not necessarily suggest
will                           some new community
a  chronological progression:  Inform,  Consult, Joint Planning,
institutions entirely governed by residents with a speci-   Negotiate, Decide, Delegate, Advocate Planning, and Neighbor-
fied sum of money contracted to them.  If the ground-   hood Control.
4For an article of some possible employment strategies, see,
rules for these programs are clear and if citizens undet-   Edmund M. Burke, “Citizen Participation Strategies,” Journal of
pluralistic   the American Institute of Planners, XXXIV, No. 5
stand that achieving a genuine place in the                                                          (September
1968), 290-1.
scene subjects them to its legitimate forms of give-and-      570.5,  Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development,
take,  then these kinds of programs might begin  to   Workable Program for Community Improvement, Answers on Citi-
zen Participation, Program Guide 7, February, 1966, pp. 1 and 6.
demonstrate how to counteract the various corrosive     6 David Austin, “Study of Resident Participants in Twenty
political and socioeconomic forces that plague the poor.   Community Action Agencies,” CAP Grant 9499.
7 Robert Coles, "Social Struggle and Weariness,” Psychiatry,
In  cities  likely  to  become  predominantly  black
XXVII (November 1964), 305-15. I am also indebted to Daniel
through population growth, it is unlikely that strident   M. Fox of Harvard University for some of his general insights into
citizens’ groups like AWC of Philadelphia will even-
therapy being used as & diversion from genuine citizen participation.
8 See, Gordon Fellman, “Neighborhood Protest of an Urban
tually  demand  legal  power  for  neighborhood  self-   Highway,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXV,
government.  Their grand design is more likely to call   No. 2 (March 1969), 118-22.
9 James V. Cunningham, “Resident Participation, Unpublished
for a black city hall, achieved by the elective process.   Report prepared for the Ford Foundation, August 1967, p. 54.
In cities destined to remain predominantly white for the    On Interview with Maxine Kurtz, Technical Director, Denver
foreseeable future, it is quite likely that counterpart      11S, Department of Housing  and  Urban Development,
groups to AWC will press for separatist forms of   “Citizen Participation in Model Cities,” Technical Assistance Bulle-
neighborhood government that can create and control   tin, No. 3 (December 1968).
12 Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Six-Month
decentralized public services such as police protection,   Progress Report to Office of Economic Opportunity, Region 1,
education  systems,  and health  facilities.  Much may   February 1, 1969, pp. 27, 28, and 35.
18 In Cambridge, Massachusetts, city hall offered to share power
depend on the willingness of city governments to enter-   with residents and anticipated the need for a period in which a
tain demands for resource allocation weighted in favor   representative citizens group could be engaged, and the ambiguities
of authority,
of the poor, reversing gross imbalances of the past.                  structure, and process would be resolved. At the re-
quest of the mayor, HUD allowed the city to spend several months
Among the arguments against community control are:   of Model Cities planning funds for community organization activi-
ties.                                           office also
it supports separatism; it creates balkanization of public
During these months, staff from the city manager's
helped the residents draft a city ordinance that created a CDA com-
services; it is more costly and less efficient; it enables   posed of sixteen elected residents and eight appointed public and
minority group “hustlers” to be just as opportunistic   private agency representatives. This resident-dominated body has
the power to hire and fire CDA staff, approve all pv  review all
and disdainful of the have-nots as their white prede-   model city budgets and contracts, set policy, and  so forth,  The
ordinance, which was unanimously passed by the city council also                                                                                                             cessors; it is incompatible with merit systems and pro-   includes a requirement that all Model City plans must be approve
fessionalism; and ironically enough, it can turn out to be   by a majority of residents in the neighborhood through a refer-
endum. Final approval power rests with the city council by federal
a new Mickey Mouse game for the have-nots by allowstatute.
ing them to gain control but not allowing them suffi-      141.8, Office of Economic Opportunity, OEQ Instruction,
cient dollar resources to succeed.*® These arguments are   Participation of the Poor in the Planning, Conduct and Evaluation
of Community Action Programs (Washington, D.C.: December 1,
not to be taken lightly. But neither can we take lightly   1968), pp. 1-2.
the arguments of embittered advocates of community     15 Adam Walinsky, "Review of Maximum Feasible Misunder-
standing” by Daniel P. Moynihan, New York Times Book Review,
control—that every other means of trying to end their                                            t
February 2, 1969.
victimization has failed!                                    16 For thoughtful academic analyses of some of the potentials
and pitfalls of emerging neighborhood control ‘models, see, Alan
Altshuler, “The Demand For Participation in Large American
for the Urban Institute,
. Cities,” An Unpublished Paper prepared
December 1968; and Hans B. C. Spiegel and Stephen D. Mitten-
NOTES
thal, "Neighborhood Power and Control, Implications for Urban
1 The literature on poverty and discrimination and their effects   Planning,” A Report prepared for the Department of Housingand
on people is extensive. As an introduction, the following will be   Urban Development, November 1968.
224                                                                       AIP JOURNAL    JuLy 1969