Community Voices

A Blog Recommendation:

A few posts ago I recommended two websites and a specific post from another site.  I now add another site to my “recommended reading” list.

Elena Santangelo, a lifelong resident of Norristown and a prolific author, publishes the blog Norristown Diary, in which she make incisive comments about her home town, what’s wrong, and what is needed to make it right.  She pays attention to what’s happening, does her homework, and is a passionate voice for Norristown.  I have carried a link to Norristown Diary on my blog site for some time (if you are viewing this on a Patch site, you won’t see it), and long ago meant to mention her work.  I highly recommend it.  Check it out, frequently.

A Growing Facebook Alliance

The Internet has been put to work for many causes.  It is capable of uniting people by enabling communication among those of like mind, regardless of the distance or obstacles between them.  One of the most exciting developments is its use by individuals and organizations that are dedicated to reviving their local communities.  For too long these people have struggled in isolation, their numbers and their passion largely negated by the combination of political and business interests that possess local power.  They too often buy into the belief—spread by those very same interests—that their cause is theirs alone, and that “outsiders” cannot contribute and are not welcome.

That is simply not so; such an attitude is merely a parochial view of one’s existence that seems to be a component of the human condition.  There is nothing so special about any community that a properly-informed outsider cannot grasp, and those who are properly informed grasp the fact that the afflictions of America’s urban areas are shared.  Those who share a common affliction have many reasons to band together, the best being that it increases their power.

There should be a network of websites and blogs that focus on individual urban communities, each with an awareness of each other.  A specific geographic area could be the nucleus of such a network, but there is no reason that the alliance of groups could not eventually spread across state boundaries.  The local area networks should, in turn, be aware and supportive of similar groups, regardless of how far away they might be. 

Facebook is an ideal location for such a movement to take root, and it looks like that is beginning to happen.  Major kudos here to Golden Cockroach from Pottstown, a primer mover in this effort.  They have begun to use Facebook to both promote improvement of their own community and to network with those from other communities.  I have recommended their website before, and now want to make people aware of their Facebook page also.  They take direct aim at the real causes of decay in Pottstown.  They mince no words, take no prisoners and accept no excuses.  Like them, join them and make people aware of them.

Another Facebook page that deserves major kudos:  Tenant Association of Allentown

This Facebook page also takes aim at the same causes of decay, the ones that exist in far too many urban areas.  Allentown is a city, not a borough, and much larger than the urban communities between it and Philadelphia.  Still, the problems of cities tend to be the problems of boroughs, writ large.  The people behind the Tenant Association are trying to organize the powerless victims of urban blight and expose the legal travesties of slumlords.  They also pull no punches, and do not cower when attacked.  They fight back, with the truth.  Like them, join them and make people aware of them.

What I like most about both these sites/pages is that they focus on the true culprits for the condition of our boroughs: slumlords and the municipal officials and administrators who allow them to avoid the law and profit by doing so.  It’s long past time we stopped talking about “the people who live in places like that,” and focus on the people who own places like that.  When you are looking for the real causes of events, always follow the money.  (Spoiler Alert:  I will have more to say on this subject in future posts)

As evidence that distance in this day of the Internet means nothing, let me also recommend Liberty of Bellevue, Pa., which operates both a website and a Facebook page.  Bellevue may lie west of Pittsburgh, but it is a borough on a river that dates from the mid-1800s.  Does that sound familiar, residents of boroughs along the Schuylkill?  Check it out; you might have more in common than you think.  You can find both its website and Facebook page in my “Links” section.

I’m Less Certain About This One:

I recently discovered a Facebook page entitled “Morethanthecurb–Conshy Voice.”  It is locally oriented, seeking posts about Conshohocken.  I was pleased to see it, Liked it and attempted to post on it asking Conshohocken residents to help me understand what is happening to their town.  Unfortunately, my posts were deleted immediately.

I’m going to recommend it anyway.  There is need for discussion about Conshohocken, where much is happening.  That’s why I previously recommended and still link to Conshy.org, and why I now recommend this page.  Concern about speeders on Fayette Street is a good start toward community awareness, and contributors can build on that, without taking away anything from the page’s purpose.  It’s new, and appears so far to be largely a solo effort.  When I last checked, it had only two Facebook friends and I was one of them.  You may not see anything from me on it, but I will continue to view it and learn from it.  You could too.

These websites and Facebook pages promise to be the beginning of a supportive inter-community network, an alliance of many determined to advance the common cause of all.  If any of you know of other such Facebook pages or websites, tell me about them, and I will help to spread the word.

How Far Back Does It Go?

It's all very good and well to speak, as I did in my previous post, of a century of growth and prosperity for the boroughs of the Schuylkill Valley and call them “The Good Old Days,” but can we select a date when they started to come to an end, a date after which “things began to go wrong”?  The long answer is no.  By this I mean that no carefully researched and inclusive academic study would ever allow itself to reach such a conclusion; there are just too many local variables.  The short answer, however, is yes, as long as we recognize that any such date—a boundary between historical eras—is both arbitrary and imaginary, and whose only reality is as a marker of very deep waters.  It’s a guide, not gospel, but it helps to put things in perspective.

So here is my thesis:  “things began to go wrong” for the boroughs along the Schuylkill River (and by no means them alone) after the Second World War.  It took time for this to show up on the local level, because the seeds were laid by actions of the Federal Government in the years immediately after the war.  In fact, borough downtowns seemed to undergo a revival just prior to 1950, with the end of rationing and the switchover from war to civilian production meeting the long-anticipated “pent-up demand” of people who had done without during the Depression and the war.  This was pure inertia, however, in the period when people had no more options than they had always had, and thus shopped in the same locations they always had.  An upcoming post will discuss the actions of the Federal Government in the post-war period, to outline just how badly the cards came to be stacked against our urban areas.

By 1950, the river boroughs had begun to notice that things were changing.  If you had driven across the DeKalb Street Bridge into Norristown in 1950, the first sight to greet your eyes would have been old, abandoned factories along the water’s edge.  They had once housed Norristown’s thriving textile industry.  Technological change (and the search for cheap labor) had long before hit that local industry hard.  The true nature of things had been postponed by the wartime demand for soldiers’ clothing, which had by then ended.  

You might be asking yourself “how can this be?”  Wasn’t the 1950s that era we refer to longingly when we point out unpleasant economic or social facts about today?  Wasn’t it the era of real men and real steel, the start of “The American Century,” when U.S. products and military might bestrode the world (except for the Communist world, of course)?  Don’t we long for the days when Ward Cleaver came home from his steady job in a good enough mood to appreciate stay-at-home wife June’s immaculate appearance, neat-as-a-pin  housekeeping and carefully prepared meals?  Back then “made in Japan” was a comedian’s punch line, and China an economic nonentity, right?

Actually, yes to all of the above, up to a point.  The late 1940s and early 1950s were the takeoff period for a time when a larger portion of the human race achieved an higher level of economic well-being than had ever happened before in the history of man.  The U.S. was at the center of this, and the prime mover.  That must not be forgotten, and should always serve as context for what I write later, but the economic prosperity and social stability of the 1950s that now casts such a rosy glow on our national psyche did not reach every level or location of society.  The unpleasant historical reality, in fact, is that for America’s urban areas, large and small, the engines of this economic miracle delivered not growth, but decline; not prosperity, but decay.

Some evidence of this thesis, again from Norristown history, and one of the reasons I choose 1954 as Norristown’s turning-point date:  in that year the Commissioners of Montgomery County purchased two buildings adjacent to the Public Square.  These were the very core of downtown.  They occupied the lots labeled #1 and #2 for the first sale of properties in “The Town of Norris” in 1785, and had occupied prize positions of place in a long-prosperous downtown.  As I relate in my book, this was not so much a decision on the County’s part as a decision to avoid making a decision; much uncertainly lingered around downtown for a long time, doing considerable damage.  Still, although continuing to examine other alternatives, the County Commissioners had elected to purchase Main Street properties.  These very same County Commissioners (two of them, anyway) were Republicans, who, if their claims for fiscal probity are to be believed, threw nickels around like they were manhole covers.  They were not about to pay much for property they were not sure they even wanted in the long run.  There were also no other reported bidders for the properties.

The actual numbers involved are unimportant, rendered moot by decades of inflation.  The implication, however, is clear: by the early 1950s even choice Main Street properties no longer had the value they had displayed for so long.

By the 1950s, that value was to be found in the suburbs, not the towns and cities.  The Cleaver family lived in the suburbs, as did the Andersons and the Nelsons (OK, the Nelsons were a little upscale).  Our national TV-inspired nostalgia over the 1950s derives from our memory of those too-good-to-be-real families in the equally idealized suburbs.  Even then, some reality could be found on TV, at least in how it represented life in the city.  The Kramdens lived in the city.  Compare the set representing their apartment to those representing the homes of the Cleavers, Nelsons and Andersons.  See the difference?  That difference would grow.

We have by now gone as far back in history as we are going to go.  This is an artificial stopping point to be sure, but I had to select one somewhere, and “after the war” has a sound factual basis.  From now on we will be moving ahead chronologically, but for the area’s urban centers, it will be all down hill.  The story begins with the Federal Government, but my next post on this subject will be one last look at “The Good Old Days,” and why the concept is a myth.

Putting a Myth in its Place

We have not yet determined when "the good old days” actually were, but by the end of this post I believe there will be no argument that any answer to the closely-related question “when did things begin to go wrong?” must be found long before 1975.  Both the specific “things” and the specific dates will vary location by location, but they were everywhere by the 1970s.  The numbers from the federal Census offer the most fundamental evidence that this was so. 

Each of the eight towns along the Schuylkill River between Philadelphia and Reading demonstrated constant population growth between the arrival of the railroad in their town in the 19^th century and the middle of the 20^th century.  This means that labor was in demand in the new factories or the expanding old ones, attracting new residents.  This labor had to walk to work, so the densely populated, urban-structured boroughs steadily sprouted new buildings.  These were truly “The Good Old Days,” a period of growth, prosperity and community.  Favorable locations at the intersection of railroads and local roads lay at the base of this prosperity, because this attracted the industries.  The larger boroughs augmented their industrial prosperity by developing a commercial sector that serviced both the local inhabitants and those in a trading area around it, utilizing both local roads and “light rail” (trolleys).

Then things began to change.  If a net rise in population indicates prosperity, then a net decline suggests the opposite.  West Conshohocken’s population peaked with the 1930 Census.  Conshohocken’s population peaked in 1950, that of Pottstown and Norristown in 1960, and that of both Bridgeport and Spring City in 1970.  Their populations began to decline in the years afterward.  The period between the 1970 and 1980 Censuses saw this decline become close to universal.  Even Phoenixville, which has demonstrated an overall population rise through the 2010 Census, lost population between 1970 and 1980.  In fact, of the eight towns in the Schuylkill valley between Philadelphia and Reading, seven lost population between 1970 and 1980.  Royersford, the exception, recorded a net gain of eight people.  Let's also not forget that during this decade Conshohocken and Royersford gutted their downtowns via Urban Renewal, with Pottstown not far behind.  In Norristown, various forms of private enterprise accomplished essentially the same result.  The disturbing trend of declining population was not confined to the Schuylkill valley by any means.  Lansdale, the area’s third largest borough, also steadily lost population after 1970.

Even an introductory assessment of these basic numbers demonstrates that the years 1950 to 1980 were rough for Southeastern Pennsylvania’s older towns, not just those along the river.  I would also submit to you that this period was equally as hard—and in some cases harder—on older communities across Pennsylvania and the rest of the nation as well.  We will not follow that trail because of our local focus, but the evidence is overwhelming.  Major economic and social forces swept over the United States during this period, permanently altering what many Americans had begun to assume was a natural and continuing condition of prosperity “the American way.”

The Census offers only the most basic guide to what was happening.  It population designation is a net number; it does not reveal how many left, or how many arrived, only the numerical difference between them.  It also does not indicate what kind of people left, why they left, what kind of people arrived, or why they arrived.  Once past the numbers themselves, this is the real story.  It is also a very misunderstood story.  I will deal with this story, about the economic and the social forces that had become pervasive by 1970 (at least in their local context), in future posts.

Even the basic numbers demonstrate that things had begun to “go wrong” long before 1975.  That year is actually late on our timeline, because it more correctly marks the time by when several local government were taking truly radical actions that had nothing to do with subsidized housing (agreeing to raze the core of one’s downtown counts as “radical”).  If there is one thing we can ALL agree on, it’s that by the time local government takes anything resembling radical action, the problem is already well established and everyone knows about it.

The post-1975 Federal program known as “Section 8,” which has survived as “subsidized housing,” was designed as a response to the combined economic and social forces that had been sweeping the United States since shortly after the Second World War.  It deserves a place in any discussion of the problems afflicting America’s urban areas after 1975, but not the fundamental one that so many ascribe to it, because so much had gone wrong before 1975.  The “good old days” were long gone by the time Section 8 appeared on the scene.

To Summarize:

--Subsidized housing is a SYMPTOM of a town’s decline; its arrival was a sign that decline was already well under way. 

--Subsidized housing may itself contribute to further decline; the question is how much.

P.S.  This is not the last you will hear from me about subsidized housing.  I promise.  It’s part of the story, but a part that needs to be understood in its proper context.  So let’s lay the myth of SUBSIDIZED HOUSING to rest.  We will return later to the subject of subsidized housing, assessing its rightful place in local history.

The Wrong Attitude

I actively solicit—and truly welcome—reader comments on my blog posts.  I make it a point to focus on controversial subjects, and the subjects themselves originate from what I learn from you.  A reader of this blog has responded to my question “When were the Good Old Days?” with an opinion that I consider significant, although I do not agree with it.  This gives me the opportunity to make a point long planned, except for its time of insertion in this blog.  That time is now.

 

The writer begins his reply to my question with an observation about the closing of Norristown State Hospital.  He is on solid ground with this, on a subject I shall discuss in the future.  He next shifts to national politics, and to his main point.  His phraseology makes him an extreme example of a type whose numbers give every appearance of being substantial.  People may not be comfortable with the totality of his claim, but what he says strikes a responsive and sympathetic emotional chord among many.

I reprint the fundamental point of his letter here in full:

“We must remember it’s not about Dems vs. Reps.  It’s about We the people vs. the Government.  It’s about an illegitimate government, and that is Federal and LOCAL.  It’s about government that has lost it’s rightful purpose, to serve and protect, and now is the enemy of free spirit.”

To hear such rhetoric about the Federal government is rather common these days, and that aspect of it shall not concern us here.  The writer did, however, go out of his way to capitalize LOCAL, so he clearly meant our municipal and township governments, both the elected and those who occupy the many boards, authorities and committees at the local and county level.  I can at least agree with the writer that in our municipalities it’s not “Dems. vs. Reps.”, or at least it shouldn’t be.  From that point on, however, we part ways. 

While it is unlikely that too many people would agree totally with his opinion (I hope), his blanket condemnation of those in government resonates with many.  I have attended a considerable number of local government public meetings over the decades, and the sight of residents angrily asking why the council/authority/board/committee is not working “for the people” has been commonplace. 

This blanket assumption that government is inherently oppressive, and that those in it are engaged in a behind-the-scenes plot to enrich themselves and fritter away everyone’s hard-earned tax money fatally skews the viewpoint of those who allow it to dominate.  Such an assumption processes life’s experiences through a very dark lens, one that predisposes far too many toward easy, soul-satisfying judgments about people and issues that deserve a more nuanced and balanced examination.  Those afflicted with this syndrome tend to be grouped among a community’s “apathetic” citizens, but they deserve a category all their own, for they exert an influence that is quite different from that of true apathy.  It is, in fact, much worse, because whereas a characteristic of the apathetic is that they don’t care enough to comment, let alone act, nihilists of this persuasion care too much to realize the negative effect of either.

I term this “The Wrong Attitude” for two reasons:

.     It’s not true.

.     It’s counterproductive.

I shouldn’t have to produce facts to substantiate my first point (remember, we are talking about LOCAL government here).  These people really are your neighbors; they are much more like you than any at the state or federal level.  Why would they join in this alleged massive conspiracy in our boroughs and townships?  What’s in it for them?  It certainly isn’t money.  We are after all, talking about governments caught between the rising costs of providing the services you all expect and the political death that results from raising taxes.  Where is the opportunity for self-enrichment?  Not all that many years ago the combination of better economic times, a more trusting public and a much less intrusive press did allow such activities, but those conditions have virtually disappeared.

Not only is it ridiculous to assume that local officials are both venal and incompetent, it is counterproductive to let them know you think along those lines.  Once you develop such a reputation, they will smile and politely give you your say, but they are not actually listening.  That can be unfortunate when you really do have a solid point to make. 

Please do not read the above as a blanket endorsement of any, let alone all, local elected or appointed government officials, but only as a denial of any claim that they are ipso facto venal and/or oppressive.  They may be lazy, they may have the wrong vision for your community, and they may actually be incompetent.  Each one deserves careful scrutiny on a regular basis, and should be called to account if the facts so warrant.  Distrust can be healthy, but beware of reflexive disbelief.  Blanket condemnation of and disassociation from your local governments can only lead to them being allowed to operate without the necessary scrutiny.  That, in turn, will only help those assumptions about lack of accountability and purpose become self-fulfilling.

While you are exercising the due diligence that today’s laws governing lawmakers give to you, you should begin by giving them the benefit of the doubt about why they sought election or appointment.  Then, as you examine their actions, recognize that they are very liable to see a situation in different terms than you do, often because of the requirements of their office or position.  They may be wrong, but they didn’t just suddenly go over to the dark side.  It is your right as a citizen to judge, but do so according the facts, as unfiltered as possible by some underlying assumption.

As a final point, let me further distance myself from those with “the wrong attitude” by encouraging any of you across the region that are dissatisfied with local conditions to actually run for office, or volunteer to serve on a board.  You, and your attitude of working toward community improvement are greatly needed.  Just don’t be surprised if, having achieved your goal, some people begin to view you in a different way, perhaps even those who know you well.  It’s part of the price you pay, and part of why that so-common attitude is wrong:  those who serve in local government are not takers, they are givers.

Further Thoughts About 1975

My previous post offered 1975 as an important date as we try to establish “when things began to go wrong” in the Delaware Valley.  The year marks the earliest appearance of a factor many people consider to be very important: “subsidized housing.”  The date is not so cut-and-dried as it seems, because Federal housing assistance programs appeared during the Great Depression, and a 1965 Act established the first housing subsidy.  However, the amendment to the Federal Housing Act known as “Section 8” that took the housing subsidy program to a new level and into the national discourse was passed in 1974; hence the significance of 1975:

If “things began to go wrong” before 1975, “subsidized housing” had very little to do with it.

As I also noted last time, my book What Killed Downtown? Norristown, Pennsylvania, From Main Street to the Malls pronounces downtown Norristown “dead” by that date.  Surely the collapse of the region’s largest center of retail commerce and services constitutes something going (very, very) wrong in Norristown.  Two conclusions must follow: (1) Norristown’s decline began before Section 8 ever saw the light of day, and (2) we must examine—and give serious weight to—other possible causes of Norristown’s decline.

1975 is certainly a significant dividing line date for Norristown, but what about the others in the Schuylkill Valley?  Can we extend the 1975 dividing line to other communities despite their individual differences?  For now, let’s shift our gaze both up and down the Schuylkill, to the other “river boroughs” (yes, I know that Norristown is no longer a borough).

There is considerable evidence that suggests yes, 1975 is important to other communities.  Consider Conshohocken:  the differences between it and Norristown are considerable, and size is only one of them.  Yet the much tinier Conshohocken also had a downtown, smaller but relatively as bustling and vibrant to the local community.   The record shows that the deterioration of its downtown had reached such a point by 1965 that the Conshohocken Planning Commission asked the Montgomery County Planning Commission to develop an urban renewal plan.  In 1974 the borough received a multi-million Urban Renewal Grant and proceeded to bulldoze the 25 core acres of downtown, leveling buildings and evicting residents in the process.  We should consider this evidence that things had started to go wrong before the arrival of Section 8.  Even a superficial look at Conshohocken’s history suggests that the decline of Alan Wood Steel and Lee Tire, and the jobs they offered, might lie behind downtown’s demise.  In the case of Conshohocken, therefore, we are looking at economic, not social reasons behind the beginning of the borough’s decline.  Does that make sense to you, veterans of Conshohocken?  In thinking about this, don’t rule out the possibility that after 1975 subsidized housing played a major part in the borough’s continued decline, just try to place it in perspective.

And what about Pottstown?  It is closer to Norristown in size than to Conshohocken, or any other river borough, for that matter.  It developed a commercial downtown second only to Norristown among Montgomery County river boroughs, one that was the hub of its own region.  Pottstown was, however, an industrial town, and thus more like Conshohocken, although not as tied to one or two major companies.  Still, the nationwide decline in our steel and automobile industries lies behind the declining fortunes of both, and those boroughs in between.  Pottstown did not engage in urban renewal to the extent that Conshohocken did, but the responses of both boroughs were more similar than that of Norristown, which repeatedly rejected the lure of government money during the time we are discussing (much to the dismay of its own planning commission, of course).  Pottstown has also experienced more population diversity than Conshohocken, and “subsidized housing” continues to be a hot topic there.  Those who remember Pottstown may simply have more (bad) options to choose from. 

There are many variables at play here.  Still, regardless of the specific date of this or of that, what we are searching for here is what people—that means you—believe to be the most important thing that happened, and when.  But what if you can’t decide on just one thing?

If you can’t, that may be because all the options you are considering actually qualify; there may be more than one event or trend, and they might be quite different, but each important in its own way.  That is why the When remains our focus for now.  It doesn’t mean we are done with subsidized housing as a suspect in our investigation.  Far from it.

So what say you veteran residents, advocates, those who moved out of either Conshohocken or Pottstown, or for that matter, any of the boroughs in between?  When did things “start to go wrong” in your town?  Was it before—or after—1975?  Remember, we said start to go wrong.  There doesn’t have to be only one thing, or even one thing at a time.  Tell me what they are, and we will get to them in this blog.