A Haven for Community-based Problem Solving

Several years ago I was doing some research on civic innovation at the local government level. It wasn’t hard to find good examples, but many of them were old and out of date, or already familiar to the practitioners and researchers in the field of democratic governance and deliberative democracy. Part of my job was to find new examples, and one of the very best examples I found was River Haven.

For as long as anyone could remember, homeless people have camped out in the dry bed of the Ventura River, but with El Niño sitting off the coast of California, the weather was a lot wetter than usual, and the risk of flooding was high. Local officials decided they would have to more strictly enforce local ordinances against people camping in the Ventura River.

“The law, in its majestic equality,” quipped Anatole France, “forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” The law is the law, but in this case, city officials decided to do more than just enforce the local ordinances.

They also convened a public planning process to deal with the larger issue of homelessness. All the usual “stakeholders” (public safety, business owners, service providers and, of course, the homeless people themselves) were invited, but so were “non-stakeholders,” that is, ordinary citizens who were simply interested in helping address a critical community issue.

The problem was this: many homeless people in Ventura and elsewhere don’t want to stay in shelters. The rules are too strict. They can only be there for certain hours and they keep their things and pets. What’s more, some of the homeless people who camped in the riverbed thought of themselves as part of a community—and they didn’t want to lose that connection.

After a series of what Ventura City Manager Rick Cole described to me as a series of “non-productive meetings with deadlines growing ever-closer,” a local artist with a studio near the river, one of the non-stakeholders, made a suggestion. Why not set up a camp for the homeless somewhere other than in the riverbed?

A philanthropic organization called the Turning Point Foundation stepped forward to be the fiscal agent, and the city made available some land near the harbor. Patterned loosely on similar efforts in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, the camp was called “River Haven,” a self-governing tent village with more than two-dozen residents. The rules were clear—no drugs or alcohol, for instance, and there would be an elected council of residents to enforce them.

I was wondering recently, what had become of River Haven? But I was almost afraid to find out. Some inspiring stories are just too good to be true. Recently, however, I phoned Clyde Reynolds, executive director of the Turning Point Foundation, to find out.

He told me River Haven is still going strong, albeit with some significant changes. Tents have been replaced by geodesic domes, and the screening of residents has become more careful. People have to be serious about wanting to transition out of the camp and into a more permanent kind of housing. Also, and this isn’t surprising, really, the camp isn’t entirely self-governing. Today there is more direct regulation by foundation management.

Self-governing or not, River Haven was one of the most vivid and interesting stories of civic engagement and collaborative problem solving I found. Homelessness is a perfect example of what deliberative democracy types call a “wicked problem,” that is, a persistent, complex challenge for which there is no easy solution. Citizens met together, including the homeless themselves. They deliberated on a complex issue and came up with a list of proposals, River Haven being one of them, and that is community problem-solving at its best.

Mike McGrath is senior editor and chief information officer for the National Civic League. A former newspaper reporter and magazine writer, he is editor of the quarterly National Civic Review, which will be beginning its centennial year of publishing this spring.

Mike’s posts will appear every Thursday on the State of the Re:Union website.

Winter is well on its way, as many living in the north east can attest to. So, in the spirit of creating warmth and wellness, State of the Re:Union is highlighting an unusual community-led effort to go green that started in Washington D.C., but is sparking interest around the country.

Source: Weatherize DC - http://www.weatherizedc.org/about/photos

Just a short while ago, seven families near the Washington D.C. area (Silver Spring, MD) decided to pursue a Neighborhood Weatherization Project in an team effort to conserve energy. After a meeting with Weatherize DC, a nonprofit advising people in the weatherization process, these families signed up for the process as a group. With Weatherize DC’s assistance, requests were sent out to five local businesses, choosing the best company for the job. (To read this article in its entirety, click here.)

Going green as a neighborhood really helped keep the cost down (they saved 15 percent or more on the process, with an average reduction in energy bills by 15 to 25 percent). Cracks in walls and ceilings were repaired, gaps were closed and additional insulation pumped into walls, all at a reduced cost.

This project was the first of its kind, but is gaining in popularity for families who want to save some green while becoming green. A few additional D.C. neighborhoods have followed suit and created their own neighborhood projects, including the Hill neighborhood near Capitol Hill. Bulk purchasing of energy improvements, services and products is trending, not just for neighborhoods, but churches and other community organizations are getting in on the actions.

Source: Weatherize DC - http://www.weatherizedc.org/about/photos

As if saving money and the earth wasn’t enough incentive and being comfy and cozy, there is an added bonus that badly-needed jobs are being produced with these projects. Weatherize DC’s Director of Communication Elizabeth Condon stated, “People like the idea of lowering the costs of home energy efficiency upgrades, having the momentum of working with others to make sure they get it done, and creating local jobs for people from disadvantaged communities in the process.”

And as Condon says, “The Hill neighborhood also provides a nice juxtaposition — being in the shadow of the actual Capitol building which represents top-down change — and these small community-led efforts which can have a profound impact in individuals’ lives.”

There are quite a few reasons to consider going green together. Cost is certainly one, but more than that, as the old adage says, “There is strength in numbers.” This meaning that banning together and committing to make small changes in your neighborhood can ignite a spark and be the change that’s needed for your community. If you could keep costs down, is this a project that you might consider? Do you know of projects similar in nature going on in your community? Is this something that can work for everyone? Send us your thoughts, comments and/or inquiries to let us know.

State of the Re:Union contributor Rich Harwood of the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation proposes what would happen if community truly came first in the realm of political agendas. Stripped of political hyperbole and getting down to brass tax, what would two leading groups have to say about and do for we the people? After all, public and community is the bedrock of democracy, and in a perfect world, what is good for every community would come first.

Source: money.cnn.com

Like you, I have watched as the Tea Party has taken shape and now as the Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading – and my desire is to bring them both together around a single table for a real conversation. My experience tells me that they probably share some important things in common, and the nation would do well if those things could be uncovered and explored.

When I “Google” the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street what appears is the well-worn and typical frame of how to view these two groups. The stories go in for the kill: how the two groups are doing battle against one another, which one has raised more money, and how they each seek to out muscle the other.

Recently, in the Washington Post, a new survey only underscores and deepens this divide and sense of gridlock. Here is what the paper said about the poll results: “Although newly minted movements, Occupy Wall Street and the tea party have been thoroughly absorbed by the preexisting, all-too-familiar partisan divide.” In other words, the two groups are just reflections of what we already tend to believe: everything can be explained by the Red/Blue Divide. But rather than try to explain away the groups, I want to bring them together.

Now, before going on, I could understand if you said at this point, “What, Rich, are you crazy? There’s no way anything positive could come of this.” What’s more, I can hear people saying, “I just don’t trust the other side. They’re nuts!” But, please, read on, and you’ll see why I think we must take this step.

My goal is to bring people from both groups together for an extended, in-depth conversation. In this conversation, I would not focus on questions about their party affiliation, or who they plan to support in the 2012 presidential race, or ask them to raise their hands in quickie surveys to gauge which pre-existing policy positions they support on key issues. Each of these questions would be off limits, as would others like them.

Source: cchronicle.com

The point is to create a space in which we would sweep off the table all the icons and triggers and stereotypes that are often used to quickly categorize people, their beliefs, and their positions. My intention here is never dismiss or temper people’s passions – but to hold at arms’ length the all-too-familiar, knee-jerk shortcuts we use to describe people and ideas that we may revile or detest or wish to push away or, simply, fear.

I would start with a simple question about their aspirations for their community. I would then ask them what their chief concerns are. I would want to know how they experience their lives and what they hope to create in them – and for the country.

From there, the conversation would go to what kinds of actions can be taken – by citizens, political leaders, and others – to reflect these aspirations and start to address their concerns. These lines of inquiry enable people to see and hear one another – something that is in short supply these days. For when opposing groups are forced into political clusters and language that demonizes the other, the possibility to find a different path is squeezed out. It is shut down.

I hold faith in the possibility of bringing these two groups together because, over the past six months, my colleagues and I have been traveling across the country asking people from all walks of life, and across all political affiliations, these types of questions. What we’re discovering is that amid all the differences, noise and finger pointing, people actually do share enough aspirations and common concerns that there is a basis for moving forward; and they are able to articulate basic steps that could be taken to kick-start a different trajectory for the county. Taking such steps would begin a process of building greater trust, and helping to restore people’s faith in themselves and one another that it is still possible to get things done together.

Source: attackthesystem.com

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that there aren’t deep splits between these groups on some fundamental concerns. But, the truth is, there are also emerging differences within each of these movements. Each movement is not monolithic, nor do people within them walk in lock-step. And even if they were monolithic and in lock-step, the change each wants  can only come about through action taken with others beyond their groups. This is the fundamental challenge within a democracy.

The urgent step I want to take is to bring folks from both movements to the table to see and explore what areas of commonality do exist, and what those openings might suggest for how to get the country moving forward.

Now’s the time.

No matter your political agenda, preference or lack thereof, many issues concerning our communities surface during times such as these. Were Rich able to achieve a peaceful meeting of party members, what type of positive result do you think could be achieved? What question/s would you ask concerning any issue/s in your community?  We would love to know.

A dynamic public speaker, Rich Harwood is a frequent keynote for foundations and national organizations. He is an expert contributor on national and syndicated media outlets including MSNBC, NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Inside Politics, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Special Report with Brit Hume, C-SPAN, and many others. He is also the author of Hope Unraveled: The people\’92s retreat and our way back (2005), Make Hope Real: How we can accelerate change for the public good (2008) and numerous studies, articles and essays chronicling vital issues of our time. His most recent written work, Why We\’92re Here: The Powerful Impact of Public Broadcasters When They Turn Outward, is being published and distributed in Spring 2011. You can follow him on twitter @RichHarwood and facebook.com/richharwood

.

You can read Rich’s posts every Tuesday on State of the Re:Union’s website.