The Mission Valley Planning Group meeting was held on October 5th, 2016 at the Mission Valley Branch Library, lasting approximately one hour and six minutes, beginning at 12pm and concluding at 1:06pm. Besides the members of the Mission Valley Planning Group, planners on the city staff, as well as a local law enforcement official, staff from local government officials, such as congresswoman Susan Davis, and few community members and residents were in attendance. The members of the planning group each had different roles (chair, treasurer, etc.), and different members served as leaders on different sub-committees, such as “parks” and “public health, safety, and welfare”. An overwhelming majority of individuals were white, with very few people …show more content…
Furthermore, a majority of the MVPG’s members were over 40 years old and male, but it was worth noting that the group’s chair was female. Similarly, the audience consisted predominantly of white males, presumably aged 40 and older. The Mission Valley Planning Group meeting agenda was brief, as aside from reports from different sub-committees and input from the audience/community members, one of the new items on the agenda, “Housing Our Heroes”- an informational presentation by Erica Snyder, had been cut. The main focus of the meeting was the sub-committee update report for the Mission Valley Community Plan. The presentation was led by planner Nancy Graham, as well as planning group members, Andrew Michajlenk and Elizabeth Leventhal. The sub-committee update report highlighted themes identified by members of the Mission Valley community, such as improved access to parks and open space, improved pedestrian and bike experiences, increased affordable housing, and an increased urban experience. These themes were accessed through an online survey that asked for input from the community, …show more content…
The planning group chair, Dottie Surdi, facilitated the meeting well, encouraging public input and ensuring that issues were discussed in a civil manner. As the meeting focused on potential opportunities for updates in the community, no decisions were made regarding agenda items, however the fervent discussions about the Qualcomm Stadium issue and the issue of homelessness in the Mission Valley community highlighted the importance of political approval and socio-economic analysis as components of the planning process. In her presentation, Nancy Graham defended the decision to refrain from addressing the possible relocation of Qualcomm Stadium by noting that it would be unfair to the public if the city were to present opportunities and visuals of a redeveloped Qualcomm site, as doing so would garner the assumption that a decision had already been made. As the possible relocation of Qualcomm and the subsequent redevelopment of the site both encompass various socioeconomic issues and have the potential to impact the Mission Valley community as a whole, the meeting’s discussion abut these issues highlights both the necessity of political and public approval, as well as the impact of political approval on the planning process. The political climate must have favorable conditions in order for the planning process to progress, and therefore the length of the planning
Mission San Juan Capistrano is in the center of the small town named for it. Shops and restaurants also named for it are found on the streets in front of the entrance to the mission. A high adobe wall surrounds the mission grounds. There are many restored buildings in the inner patio, and the great stone church. Across the fountain there is the bell wall that sits beside the ruined church. Near the bell is a statue of Father Junipero Serra. The ruins of the original stone church are in front of the mission. Only the sanctuary and parts of the church remain, but that’s enough to have an idea of how big it was. The church walls are made of large stones and birds have build nests between them. Mission San Juan Capistrano was one of many Spanish
Community elected home owners association officials are constantly involved in complex decisions regarding the state, safety, and welfare of the property of our small community and solving community problems. Effective ways to solve problems faced by Deer Crossing Homeowners’ is to conduct a needs assessment of the community in an effort to provide feedback for the community elected officials.
Stressors in the community is the real estate developer who proposed the development plan. The plan has added conflict between community organizations that don’t agree on the plan. Some members of community see that the plan can bring change to the community that will better life for the community. They see the plan will lead to a reestablished community with new order and hope. They also see that there will be new employment opportunities and stabilization in the areas. Those against the plan feel like there is a lack of trust with the developer since he has been buying properties from the community for several years without consulting the residents. They also don’t agree with the design of the plan and the for-profit real estate agent. The
A journal article’s goal is to inform the reader of a subject, but it also attempts to conjure a response or thought of any kind. “Housing, Baseball, and Creeping Socialism The Battle of Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles, 1949-1959” by Thomas S. Hines causes a reaction from the start by failing to include an abstract to aid the reader. Had I not had a background in Chavez Ravine, this would be a crucial negligence. Once the essay begins, Hines delves straight into Chavez Ravine, the architects behind the housing project there, and the socialist controversy that doomed the project, provoking a number of responses from me ranging from frustration to sympathy.
Years ago, there was once a small town called Chaves Ravine within Los Angeles, California and this town was a poor rural community that was always full of life. Two hundred families, mostly Chicano families, were living here quite peacefully until the Housing Act of 1949 was passed. The Federal Housing Act of 1949 granted money to cities from the federal government to build public housing projects for the low income. Los Angeles was one of the first cities to receive the funds for project. Unfortunately, Chavez Ravine was one of the sites chosen for the housing project, so, to prepare for the construction work of the low-income apartments, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles had to convince the people of the ravine to leave, or forcibly oust them from their property. Since Chavez Ravine was to be used for public use, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles was able seize and buy Chavez Ravine from the property owners and evict whoever stayed behind with the help of Eminent Domain. The LA Housing Authority had told the inhabitants that low-income housing was to be built on the land, but, because of a sequence of events, the public housing project was never built there and instead Dodgers Stadium was built on Chavez Ravine. Although Chavez Ravine public housing project was the result of the goodwill and intent of the government, rather than helping the people Chavez Ravine with their promise of low-income housing, the project ended up destroying many of their lives because of those in opposition of the public housing project and government mismanagement.
This Paper will describe and analyze three articles pertaining to the ongoing debate for and against Glen Canyon Dam. Two of these articles were found in the 1999 edition of A Sense of Place, and the third was downloaded off a site on the Internet (http://www.glencanyon.net/club.htm). These articles wi...
"Building Partnerships to Revitalize America's Neighborhoods." HBCU Central (Winter 2002): 1-6. Winter 2002. Web. 2 May 2012.
The Phoenix City Council meeting stood packed with attendees ranging from council men and women, lawyers, (basically elderly) interested citizens, neighborhood representatives, owners of businesses, and many others firm on playing a undeviating role in the due process of local government. The meeting began with an invocation from the pastor of a local church invited to pray by the Mayor Stanton. Then following was a pledge to the flag and then the mayor carries the motion. The Mayor reads for the council while passing them several agendas. This series of formalities set the tone for the arrangement and flow of the summit as a whole. Things steered quickly and professionally thanks to the succinct language of both the City Clerk and the Mayor, who led the agenda of the assembly. In general, each agenda entry was introduced by the Clerk, and then led through the agenda by Mayor, who asked for each item’s approval by the Council. The executive order of the agenda acted mostly as a general guideline, as the meeting swerved from the stated order with relative occurrence. Instead of a stringent order, the items seemed to be litigated first, in terms of how straightforwardly they might be permitted. Entire swathes of application were approved if the Council did not obtain any requests for dialogue concerning the item, and if the Council was expected to endorse the item unanimously. In theory, most of these items had already been hashed out in the various other committees through which any agenda item must pass before reaching the City Council.
The initial community meeting has a great impact on the tone of the community. During the meeting, I would like to tell my residents our ultimate goal, having a good community. Then I would explain what a good community is. A good community is one where we share the resources and seek to improve the environment. Characteristics of a good community would include clean and safe environments, equity and social justice, diversity, mutually-supportive relationships and eager participation of residents. I will achieve this by encouraging residents to be part of the process of establishing expectations. By this way, they would become more invested in the expectations as they help create them or otherwise they may see these expectations as imposed from above.
#gentrification #densification #non hierarchical systems #crowd funding #non profit organization #participatory design
San Antonio’s Complete Disregard for the Homeless and Impoverished Sleeping in a cramped one-room apartment with six or even seven other people, or even worse, sleeping in the gutter; these are major problems faced by millions of Americans everyday. Especially in our city of San Antonio, the problems of poverty and homelessness are rampant. The poor are looked at by the middle class and upper class as second class citizens. Often times policies are made that inconvenience or even severely hurt the impoverished. Although San Antonio has several programs to help the homeless and impoverished, the city has shown time and again that it does not care as much as it should about helping the needy; even actively trying to sabotage the poor and individuals without homes.
A very big loca issue in Oakland and The Bay Area is and has continued to be Gentrification. Gentrification is, “The process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste” (Google). Gentrification has displaced and continues to displace many low-income minorities. As prices of houses and rent costs have gone up many have been forced to flee. This has made this problem is increasingly recognized among my community as it has affected many of us. Gentrification is caused in order for higher income residents to move into a neighborhood. This topic matters because many people that live in Oakland or The Bay Area in general are low-income minorities,
One of the major themes throughout this book is the need for more collaboration, coalitions, and alliances at the regional level dealing with major political, economic, social, and environmental problems our metropolitan regions face. One example the book provides for increasing collaboration between regional actors is to create a dialogue to establish “mutual understanding through a process that suspends judgment, reveals assumptions on both sides, and includes diverse perspectives..” A dialogue replaces the inefficient process of debate with a collaborative one that builds trusts and helps to reconcile difference between seemingly competing interests. In San Diego for example, in the 1980’s civic leaders had UCSD set up an organization to spell out all the regions problems and bring the community together to help work at solving the region’s challenges. The San Diego dialogue was noted for helping to build connections that broke down borders between different groups and the shift in focus from individual grievances to community solutions.
Los Angeles was the first product off the assembly line of American urban planning. Turned on in the late 19th century, the city-making machine was fueled by an immense immigration of people who sought to create a new type of city out of the previously quaint pueblo. They also strove to craft the first major city developed primarily by Americans and outside of European archetypes. As a result, Los Angles is not only incredibly diverse, but also nearly impossible to define. Since it is a product of the American machine, understanding the community of Los Angeles becomes vital to understanding the United States. But to fully comprehend the present Los Angeles, one must look at the process that created it. Specifically, Los Angeles was created by upper class Anglo citizens of the 20th century, who strove to materialize their imagined reality of a rural city by establishing a process where affluent citizens fled to the suburbs and left the lower class residents their more urban rundown leftovers. This created world then became the setting for resistance from various groups, such as minorities and youth, who began to undermine the Anglo infrastructure through social interaction.
Glenn, Stacia. "Youths Push for New Park." Student Research Center. N.p., 22 Aug. 2006. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.