« Kitten Adoption Alert | Main | Newest State House Member »
July 17, 2007
On (Re)Forming A Neighborhood Association
A flier went around the neighborhood a couple of weeks ago or so, stating that a neighborhood association was in need of creation, and announcing an organizing meeting for tonight. So far so good, right?
Trouble is, there has been an association here for some years. It bands together when there's a problem, and remains semi-dormant without a formal structure or officers when nothing's going on. Many of the neighbors communicate with each other on a regular basis. I decided to go to the meeting to voice my opinion that what we already have is working pretty well. I wasn't the only one of that opinion; and, in fact, I heard that one person decided to hold a "pre-meeting" with a few friends, in order to come up with an agenda to defend against those who, it seemed, wished to foist a top-down structure on us.
I planned to simply show up for the regularly scheduled session, given that the two organizers are friends of ours, and I didn't want to come across as entering a faction. (I'm an individual to the end, so there's a reason not to do so right there, let alone hurting someone's feelings.)
When I got there, I found out that word of the "pre-meeting" must have leaked to the organizers, one of whom had (somewhat understandably) become offended at having clandestine opposition and had canceled the meeting, just hours before it was to begin. (That part is less understandable, but I haven't yet spoken with them to hear their thoughts.) The problem with that is that a good number of people received no notice of the late-breaking cancellation (myself included), and somewhere above thirty people overall showed up.
Then the most amazing thing happened. There we all were, and everybody stayed. We had a good group discussion, heard from our City Council member (Marti Rutherford, who made arrangements to be absent from Council to be there tonight), and decided to meet again in about a month, when we will talk about how the group should evolve, and into what kind of body. In an especially ironic twist, the primary "don't tread on me" guy and I both found ourselves in a breakout group, with one other neighbor I hadn't met, to come up with a draft "mission statement," or what-have-you, for the whole group to mull over next time.
It is my sincere hope that the original (re-)organizers can move past whatever slight they (again, understandably) felt was dealt them, and will join the next meeting. I know I'll be there. Even though I regard with much suspicion the military-like sound of "block captains" and a "chain of command," I think the best way to combat (uh, oops) those notions is to be an active participant. By doing so, I can work to convince as many as possible to remain focused on the benefits that a more formal association can bring, while keeping a vigilant watch against the forces of homogenization and petty control that I abhor.
It's a fair point that newcomers to these streets were probably not aware that an association existed, and so we probably need to step up our communication mode to an effective level. That's one of the aforementioned benefits. The point was also raised that, as a collective, we perhaps have a stronger petition with local government. I reluctantly acknowledge the truth in that, even though I prefer to deal with my officials as an individual, whether they hear me or not.
It will be an interesting experiment, to be sure. The one evident thing on most people's minds tonight was crime, and how to keep our neighborhood alert, safe, and livable. That's okay with me, as we're one of many families who have small children. But the minute someone comes up with the idea of telling me what I can or can't do with my property, I'll be just about first in line to vehemently oppose them.
Community | By joe lance | 11:22 PM