A Plug For Planning, And a Call To Contribute

     This post is aimed at my readers in Montgomery County.  The County Planning Commission is now gathering information for their next comprehensive plan, entitled “Montco 2040: A Shared Vision,” and is seeking citizen input.  I’m here to support that request.

     It should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I support not just cooperative planning among local municipalities, but citizen input to the planning process.  A major theme of my work is that the problems confronting our municipalities are much broader than the borders of any one of them.  I encourage local citizen activist groups to communicate and plan together; I can hardly do otherwise for their municipalities.  Yet my true interest here is supporting any opportunity for individuals to speak directly to those who will have so much influence over our future, but who are not subject to voter recall.  Local municipalities are all going to participate; you should too.

     Planning has become an important part of community development.  The following quote from the Planning Commission reveals why it is so important in today’s complex, interlocking world:

            “The county plan provides an overall framework for local municipal

            plans and provides guidance on issues that transcend local boundaries,

            such as highways, public transportation, flooding, trails, growth trends,

            redevelopment trends, shopping needs, impact of large developments,

            overall housing needs, natural systems, and economic growth.”

     That pretty much covers local issues, don’t you think?  They effect everyone, and everyone has an opportunity to be part of planning how to deal with them.  The county is seeking the input of private citizens.  You can contribute in different ways:

--The County Planning Commission website has a questionnaire you can fill out at a third party site.  Here is a link directly to the questionnaire site (you don’t even have to go through the Planning website):  //www.surveymonkey.com/s/2040CompPlan

--Four public meetings are scheduled for the second half of this month, at different locations around the county.  You can attend in person and be heard.  Here is the list:

November 18, 7 – 9 PM, Steel River Playhouse, 245 East High Street, Pottstown

November 19, 4 – 6 PM, North Penn Community Health Foundation, 2506 North

    Broad Street, Colmar

November 20, 7 – 9 PM, Upper Dublin Township Building, 801 Loch Alsh Avenue,

    Fort Washington

November 25, 4 – 6 PM, Upper Merion Township Building, 175 West Valley Forge

    Road, King of Prussia

Here’s an interesting possibility: you can even request a speaker come to your organization, discuss the process and take your input.  This would be a great opportunity for a community activist group, or even a community discussion group, to get together and organize such a presentation at your locale.  It would help to build community spirit, and get that community better informed.   You need to fill out an online request form (or you can call them).  Here is a direct link to the request form (again, you don’t have to go through any other website):  http://www.montcopa.org/FormCenter/Planning-Commission-11/Montco-2040-Speaker-Request-Form-107

     Think of it this way:  in my previous post, I argued strongly that you should vote in local elections. In an election, you only get to choose between people already selected for you.  Contributing to the Comprehensive Plan allows you to say exactly what you wish, about the local issues that are important to you.  Shouldn’t you speak up, and if not, why not?

     Let me anticipate one comment about all this: How much will your voice count?  Just like in an election, that depends on how many voices speak up; if many speak, and many of them express the same thought, it will be noticed.  Rather like voting, your voice is individually anonymous, but potentially important.

     As a historian, I cannot resist commenting about how much of a sea change has taken place in the Philadelphia suburbs in its feelings about planning.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania first established a planning commission in 1934, at the urging of the Federal Government.  Acceptance of the concept in Republican-dominated Pennsylvania was not helped by the fact that its originator was the hated Franklin Roosevelt.  Montgomery County did not establish a planning commission until 1950.  Even then, as the county began to promote the concept of regional cooperation, it found itself surrounded by a center of opposition to the very idea of planning.  Norristown Borough Council staunchly declined to establish a Borough Planning Commission until late 1961, and then did so only over vociferous opposition and a mayoral veto of the original ordinance.  Council also abolished it in 1972, by the way.  Opposition was trumpeted in ideological terms about local freedom; the issue was actually local control.  Norristown Borough Council virtually worshipped the concept, and applied it down to the ward level.  The delay in establishing a planning commission was but one unfortunate result of this approach for Norristown as a whole.  There were many others.  Maybe such a delay affected your community.

     But that was then.  This is now, and things have changed.  Municipal resistance to planning has disappeared.  The reason was…wait for it…money.  The 1960s saw lots of it become available to municipalities, and the gravy train still continues its run.  From the beginning, however, its government conductors made it clear that the gravy train only stopped where planners had been appointed and had produced a plan.  Eventually even the recalcitrant fell in line.  The first County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1979.  Successive plans followed, at irregular intervals.  The most recent comprehensive plan was completed in 2005, and it’s time for the next one.

     Planning still faces an enemy, one it has faced from the beginning:  APATHY.  Back in 1966, the Montgomery County and the Norristown Planning Commissions together distributed a questionnaire to Norristown residents, seeking input to their local planning survey.  Of the 3,000 distributed, only 1,047 were returned, and most of those were the result of a last-minute decision to make it a project for the high school students (who had to turn it back in).  That pretty much tells you what you need to know, but for further reinforcement, the following were the three “prevalent attitudes”:
--Apathy and indifference to the planning process in the Borough.
--Suspicion as to how the data would be used.
--Cynicism, as expresses in such comments as “Nothing ever gets done in Norristown anyway.”

     This was a judgment about just the (then) Borough of Norristown, almost fifty years ago.  Now flash forward to today, and to your municipality.  Are things any different?

     Well, they should be.  You can do your part to make it so, and you don’t even have to leave your home computer, let alone your home.  Still, I would submit to you that even in this digital age, nothing beats real people saying real things directly to the faces of those who have some say over their lives.  Try it.

It’s Municipal Election Time: Get Out and Vote!

     In just a few days, each of you has an opportunity to make a statement about how you view your local community.  It’s municipal election time.  If you don’t read this post soon, it might be pretty much academic, and that would be a real shame.

    Let’s be realistic.  You probably won’t have a wide variety of opportunities, and you may be unhappy with the opportunities you do have.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make the best of them this time, and see what you can do to make next time better.

     Perhaps the saddest thing about the electoral process in our country is the low turnout; municipal elections see the lowest turnout, making them the saddest of all.  To the academic mind, this seems strange.  Local government is responsible, directly or indirectly, for community safety, street repair (and plowing), code enforcement, and a host of things of direct, personal interest to the voter.  It is also the smallest body politic in which we cast votes, meaning it takes fewer people to have a real effect.  This is the only redeeming corollary to the problem of low turnout:  if the total number of votes cast is small, the number needed to win is even smaller.  That makes the local odds the best anyone who ventures into politics will ever have to face.  Thus the occasional independent candidate does enter the lists, and the success rate in local elections is much higher than at any other level.

     For all that, the task of making an impact for good on the local level remains huge.  The numbers a candidate needs to win appear small, until you actually go out and try to find them.  A major part of the reason is apathy.  There is absolutely nothing new about this, of course, and apathy remains the real enemy, just as it always has been.  Some people just can’t be reached, but you keep on trying anyway.  I hope.  If local history suggested any differently, I would say so, but it doesn’t.  The more things change…

     Apathy may be the community activist’s primary enemy, but it is by no means the only one.  Another problem stems from what I castigated several posts ago as “the wrong attitude.”  That particular post produced the most negative comments of any (so far), but I stand by what I said.  Many of you may be tempted to “throw ALL the bums out,” and vote accordingly.  That is an attitude toward which I have greater sympathy these days, in view of recent events in Washington.  Still, I don't recommend you apply it even on the national level, and absolutely not on the municipal level.  Your vote counts too much.

     What is coming up shortly is an election, your constitutional opportunity to replace those who need replacing.  You make (or you should make) that decision after becoming acquainted with the local situation, on an individual basis.  An informed, selective “No” is always justified; an across the board “No” may on occasion be, assuming it is based on accumulated facts, but an uninformed, reflexive “No” never is.

   That’s why I find the efforts of the local community activist groups so encouraging.  They know full well the problems of apathy and attitude, and get involved anyway.  Each group is taking its own approach, because different communities present different conditions and require different approaches.  Each group of the Facebook Alliance, from the Schuylkill Valley to Bellevue in Western Pennsylvania and from Norristown to Allentown, are all active in making people aware of the election, what the issues are and who is running.  Some are endorsing or at least promoting specific candidates.  Others are not.  All, however, post appeals to vote on Facebook, and continue to inform their residents of the conditions the existing officials tolerate and the new voices that want change.

     Most important of all is how so many local groups are trying to educate people, making them not just voters but informed voters.  They post election information, organize events, and invite municipal officials, representatives and candidates to participate.  A most encouraging sign is that the different activist groups are doing this good work jointly, in addition to keeping each other informed.  I can’t mention each event in each town, but want to offer major kudos to Norristown Men of Excellence and Norristown Nudge for jointly organizing a Candidates Forum, as just one example.  There are many others.

     While I want to commend the usual groups for their more than usual effort, I also want to place a spotlight on those who have emerged from other groups to lead these information crusades.  The Facebook page “Bridgeport, Pa.” is a general discussion group, not primarily an activist one.  A few members of the group joined together to generate resident interest in the upcoming election (not to mention the appointment of a new Chief of Police).  This was not an attempt to take sides, but to inform borough residents of who their candidates are and where they stand on local issues.  They went about this the right way, openly discussing the process, and seeking input from other members of the discussion group.  They first asked other residents for the issues they want raised and the questions they want put to borough candidates.  They assembled the responses and cast them into ten questions.  They put the questions to the candidates for Council, then posted the questions and responses one by one.  The fact that each candidate answered each question is a tribute to just how open and fair the process was.  This judgment is reinforced by the fact that one current councilman responded, despite his not running for office again.  The online discussion they raised was the important thing, of course, and Bridgeport residents were the beneficiaries.  There are also signs that resident activism might continue after the elections, a very encouraging development.

     So, once again, dear friends, into the breach, even though this democracy thing can be really annoying.  Winston Churchill, who knew a little about the subject, once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government ever conceived by the mind of man, except for all the others.”  Win or lose, we should keep that in mind.

Is The “Good Old Days” a Myth?

     Given the number of Facebook pages that have “The Good Old Days” in their title, this may prove to be a controversial post.  Here goes.

     Let me begin by correcting a popular misconception:  “Myth” is not a euphemism for “Lie.”  Quite the contrary; EVERY myth has a grain of truth at its core.  Unfortunately, a number of people apply coats of “polish” to that grain, seeking to render it more as they wish it to be.  The result may be striking, quite well known and believed, as a myth, leaving its basic truth hopelessly obscured.  Over history, this process has usually taken time to accomplish.  In today’s world of hyper-communication, myths can emerge fully polished in almost no time at all. 

     I previously identified “Subsidized Housing” as such a myth, whose actual shape and community significance are much misunderstood.  In this post I focus on “The Good Old Days.”  The concept is an excellent example of a myth: a grain (or in this case, much more) of truth distorted by the unconscious workings of the human mind and the conscious manipulation of advertising agencies.  I’m not going to attack this myth; merely try to remove some of its encrustations, and better reveal its true shape. 

     Many professionals (and not just historians) recognize that there is nothing new about the belief that “The Good Old Days” were back when we were young, or at least younger.   This is a repetitive occurrence, a generation concluding that the significant events in local history—at least the bad ones—took place within their lifetime or that of their parents.  The oldest recorded laments about the decline of society and the younger generation follow shortly after the invention of writing, and were no doubt passed along verbally before then.  Many things have changed, but this still remains the same.  How many older people do you know who believe that things are better now than they used to be, regardless of all the evidence?  Even the fact that there are more of them living longer to complain doesn’t even seem to register.  It’s part of the generational aging process, apparently.  When you are young, the world is fresh and new; your experiences register deeply, largely because they are the first.  You age, things change, dreams die and those early experiences begin to take on a rosy glow.  It happens with every generation, and it always has.

     Remember how the TV show “All in the Family” opened?  Archie and Edith Bunker, sitting around the piano singing (off key) “Those Were the Days”?  When were their “Good Old Days”?  When you “didn’t need no welfare state, everybody pulled his weight”?  The 1920s?  The 1930s?  Does anyone still believe that “We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again”?

     Yet “All in the Family” was onto something; your early memories count, and will always take on a rosy glow, even about times like the Depression.  A lady named Mary Early, who I interviewed for my book, expressed it perfectly:  “If we were poor, we didn’t know it, because nobody else had anything more than we did.” Things will never be the quite like they were when we were young.  We are all Citizen Kane, dying with our individual “rosebud” on our lips.  Nostalgia will always sell. 

     Part of nostalgia’s attraction is its core of truth; “progress” is a very relative term.  Joni Mitchell has expressed this from both sides; while she has said that “You don’t know what you got till it’s gone,” she has also reminded us that “something’s lost but something’s gained, in living every day.”  The question is, have we gained more than we have lost?  It’s not an easy question to answer.

     And by the way, who is this “we” of whom I speak?  Are we really all one?  “The Good Old Days” may have been good for you, but were they good for everyone?  Here is the important distinction, the one that we must make if we are to let history—and not nostalgia—be our guide.  Let’s take our constant subject—community—as an example.  The unpleasant truth of history is that when you view an entire community, a pleasing overall appearance is more likely once the details are sufficiently obscured.

     I’ll begin with only the most obvious example.  Does anyone really think that any period up through the 1950s was “The Good Old Days” for African-American residents of our towns?  Old Norristown hands have great memories of the Norris Theatre, that monument to Art Deco excess (yes, I have been inside, and loved it).  But if you were black, you could only sit in the balcony.  In a cruel irony, the attendant who enforced that rule was likely black himself (they were okay as low-level employees).  Of course, the West-Mar theatre did not admit black people at all, so…  African-Americans for good reason lament changes in family and community, but certainly not their place in America’s legal or social fabric in days gone by.

     Or how about the earlier “Good Old Days,” before and after World War I, the greatest period of growth and prosperity in the history of pretty much every local urban community east of the Mississippi?  How “golden” was it for the children, perhaps all of ten years, who were small enough to fit among the whirring spindles, and thus allowed not just to work, but to work long hours?  After all, they lost fingers or arms only occasionally, and during these golden years the government definitely did not believe in regulating “job creators.”  Employing children this young was illegal by local ordinance (the dangerous working conditions weren’t), but in another characteristic of “The Good Old Days,” the inspectors would turn a blind eye.  Such things were understood.  Everybody knew their place, and those who didn’t were pretty much screwed.

     So, celebrate your memories, but don’t fall victim to your own propaganda.  History is always yes and no, good and bad, at the same time, because that’s the way life is.  A fundamental characteristic of our civilization is that we implicitly believe that “The Good Old Days” lie in the future, not the past.  That, not nostalgia, should motivate our lives.  Our children will some day look back on today, tomorrow and the day after as “The Good Old Days.”  Shouldn’t we try to make their memories the best they can be?

A Growing Number of Voices: Could They Become a Chorus?

More Community Facebook Pages

The response to my previous post has been outstanding; there is obviously a strong desire for urban revival in the Delaware Valley.  I am pleased to highlight other urban activist Facebook pages in this post, asking you again to learn about them and get involved with them.

I have been searching Facebook for pages focused on local community improvement, limiting myself for now to boroughs in the Schuylkill Valley.  I am sure that I am overlooking some, as the search criteria caught only those pages with the names of local communities.

There are a huge number of Facebook pages that focus on a specific community, and that is just looking at local possibilities.   I attempted to count the pages containing the word “Norristown,” for example, but eventually gave up.  I love the many local pages like “You Know You’re From [your borough] When...,” or “[borough name], The Good Old Days,” but I don’t list them here.  They have their own focus, and are worth checking out.  You could learn something; I know I have.

Even using a borough’s name in a Facebook search can yield confusing results.  There are, for example, several cities named “Bridgeport” that have one (or more) Facebook pages.    It’s Bridgeport, PA, however, that you should check out.  It’s a discussion group that attempts to both inform borough residents and encourage communication about the community.  It's an an excellent source of community news.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Pottstown and Norristown have the most pages devoted to community issues.  Emblematic of its current situation, Phoenixville appears to have none.  Did I miss any?

Pottstown’s activist Facebook pages demonstrate a commendable structure, in effect dividing up the work.  Crime in Pottstown has an obvious focus, and presses hard and often about the issue, featuring photos and facts.  First Suburbs Project takes a look at the several issues affecting our older urban neighborhoods, utilizing an excellent thematic structure.  There aren’t just rants, they are well-presented essays.  Both Talk Pottstown and Golden Cockroach (I mentioned them last time) spur community activism as well as discussion.

But Here’s The Best Part:  They ALL communicate with each other!

Can the Norristown activist groups say the same?

No borough should be too small to host an activist page.  Royersford has one; it’s called Royersford Residents for Revitalization and Renewal.  No one has posted on it for some time, and I hope the group still exists.  Let’s give it some encouragement.

That’s five more Facebook pages about which I offer the same advice I did last time:

Like them, join them and make people aware of them.

Once again, if you know of any relevant Facebook pages that I have not listed, contact me, and I will add them to my “links” section.

Facebook is Not Your Only Option

As much potential as I believe Facebook has for urban activists, exposure on it can have a downside, as many have discovered.  There is always a need for redundant channels of communication, and one may have just made its appearance.  A recent segment on the TV show 20/20 offered it up, and word is spreading on Facebook.  I am pleased to help.  The social site (and app) is called Next Door, and here is the link:  Nextdoor.com.  I recommend you check Norristown blogger Shae Ashe’s post on it.  He points out how useful it could be to develop community networks.  Here is the link his post: 

http://www.shaeashe.com/2013/09/join-nextdoor-in-norristown.html

Next Door markets to local communities, and emphasizes privacy and security, two high priorities.  I’m no techie, and have not explored its offering in any detail.  At this point I view a Next Door “private network” as complimentary to a Facebook presence, not as a replacement.  I say this because while the “local neighborhood” focus with both privacy and security sounds good for the local community, it does not seem to promote communication between communities or organizations.  That, of course, strikes a note of concern for me, because the whole basis of my pitch is open and frequent communication between communities and the people dedicated to improving them.  The last thing community activists need is to retreat further into their own neighborhoods, shutting out contact with others.  Facebook has helped to overcome that old problem, and should continue to be exploited, with care.

I need to learn more about how this “private network” might function, and how the protections it seems to offer would aid intra-community communication.  If any of you are considering experimenting with it, let me know.

One final (for this post, at least) point.  You will notice that my Links section is arranged by borough.  Next to every activist site I have so far discovered I have placed a link to the relevant borough government site.  I do this for the same reason I list the activist sites themselves:  Communication.  Your borough’s website should be your first stop for local information, although definitely not your last.  Find out what’s happening, and inform your friends.  I read frequently about failure to spread the word around a community about upcoming events that are important to it.  If that is the fault of the borough site, get on them about it.  They make it easy, and give you the phone numbers to call!