Also in those days, and prior to Chris Delaporte, the City Planning Department decided to do a comprehensive plan for seven neighborhoods surrounding central downtown, highlighting their historical nature, and establishing historic zones for preservation development. The idea was visionary - so far so good. However, what did the planners know about the people? However, soon afterwards I developed great respect for this department.
Don’t get me wrong, the Director of the Department of Planning and his Assistant Director were nice people and very professional. As your neighbors, or if you met them at church or frequented their clubs, you might find they’re your very best friends, perceiving them as honest, trustworthy, and hardworking, which they were, but something happens when you become a professional. It spoils you for life, while at the same time it provides you with a source of income. Some of the worse professionals are in real estate as developers. They are equal to architects. However, nothing compares to attorneys, who undergo the worst transformations from idealistic to mercenaries. For example, architects learn how to design, but from that point on, they design for themselves. Clients are a necessity to see income come their way, but when have you seen an architect who, besides using pretty words, truly paid attention to his clients’ needs and desires? They are few and far in between. Worse than the attorneys are the lobbyists. They influence lawmakers to pass laws benefiting those the lobbyists represent and often at the expense of others. Even worse are long-term national politicians - who later become lobbyists. They are not really professionals in the beginning, but in time, with the excuse that lobbyist save them time and provide valuable information, they pass laws that benefit themselves above all other citizens, including their own constituents, and they are in bed with the lobbyists. The more effective lobbyists are, the more they are paid by very large companies, placing them out of reach of the smaller companies. Then as they lobby more and more for the conglomerates, it results in legislation full of regulations rigged in favor of the large pharmaceuticals, insurances, the media, and others corporations who can pay for the legal advice needed to understand them, not to forget creating tax loopholes. The payoff comes in campaign contributions, perks, and money under the table to family members. At the top, politicians and CEOs of corporations begin to talk, but long-term politicians know little about normal business, they have no experience. Only their take.
For example, insurance and health care lobbyists may not always offer paybacks in cash, but they offer incredible family health care bonuses in exchange for such favorable regulations as preventing competition across state lines. Health care decisions at a political level are seldom, if ever, really about what is best for you and me. If we benefit, it is simply by default. The ‘know how’ knowledge is buried in producing what is called bacon. It’s all about hording power and money. I know a person who has found the formula by which politicians can get payback without showing it. He is very sought after, but very selective as to who he helps. I wish I knew how he does it, but I don’t. Some well-known inconspicuous ways are that you write a book, any book, and some source buys thousands of them. Another is through foreign aid. You get to the head of a trade committee and you assure a foreign ruler he will get American foreign aid by the millions - for a payback. We know that a very small amount of that money goes to where it is intended, for there is not much in requesting results. In corrupt countries, and it is not merely third world countries that contains corrupt people, besides ending in the pockets of the corrupt, much of the money finds its way back to the proper American politician and bureaucrats and their families, including ambassadors and family member in untraceable ways, sometimes through lucrative business ventures to relatives. Have you ever noticed how we give more foreign aid to corrupt countries? Why? It's simply; they claim that such money is to help stop corruption. The operative word is claim. But does it? Both Democrats and Republicans are in it. Name a country where the foreign aid that the United States has paid has ended corruption in that country or their endless war on drug. It will never happen. And there is no accountability.
Honest politicians do not get paid extra for their honesty. Same for bureaucrats. In fact, semi-honest politicians turn corrupt as necessity to keep up, or they are frozen and crushed out of the game of politics for not participating. Take term limits for example, and think of what would happen to a fresh member who advocates ending the political life of the senior politicians.
Fortunately, in our case, these two planners were very honest and ethical.
There were several public meetings in which the planners and their consultants came to meet with the neighborhood to ask questions and offer suggestions. Ha! I wrote down the questions, answers, suggestions, and objections. You could see how the most important questions, suggestions, and objections were slowly buried underneath a lot of mumble-jumble that sounded good and impressive but was heading in the direction that our professionals believed to be the best for everyone.
Let me give you two examples. The first one was the intent to give the Barrio the honor of Historic Zoning. The second was called Increment Financing. I did not know at first that the two together were a poison pill for the people in the Barrio. Just in case some of us went to some of the other neighborhood meetings as well, we learned that no other neighborhood had Increment Financing in their plans.
Increment Financing can be a powerful tool for economic enhancement of a depressed area that is ready and strategically located for such a concept. Barrio Libre was not such an area. Thus, the Planning Department, in their wisdom, as strongly recommended by their consultants, proposed an Increment Financing concept for our Barrio, among other details. If you do not know what Increment Financing is, your ignorance was the best point for the Planning Department.
Increment Financing is a special form of taxation to encourage accelerated development. On a map, you draw a line around the area. You fix the tax level at that time for all the property values and call it year zero. The city provides better and reasonable supportive services and fixing the infrastructure, streets, etc. You encourage development of commercial, residential, retail, whatever many come into that zone. It results in increased demand in buying and selling taking place. Property values begin to increase. Commercial and residential development blossoms. Normal tax formula gradually increases the tax level of all properties. Then any amount above the year zero goes into a special account, not into the City tax pool, only for that area for promoting more development and public boost, which then brings more desirable investments into the area. Usually, done for ten to twenty years. At the end of that time, the much higher level of taxes goes back to the general pool. Compare it to a temporary turbo engine. However, by then poor people are gone.
At first, I didn’t know what Increment Financing meant or why it would be good or bad. Attached to Historic Zoning any benefits would be premature, many present day residents could not hang on to their properties if taxes increase, which is a killing condition that affects most low-income home owner families barely making ends meet. Once into tax delinquency, in three years, an investor can take their property from underneath them by paying the back taxes. Or they lose their mortgage for none payment, a choice between delinquent taxes or foreclosure. Either is a financial death penalty, since a bank will foreclose if you don’t pay your taxes or mortgage, or if renting, to raise the rent could mean the eviction of the present renter who can’t pay the increased rent.
We asked for seven years of protection AFTER funding, before the Barrio could compete in the open market. The Planning Department ignored this request. Their proposal simply sidestepped our request. So much for planners knowing people. Naturally, complaining at Public Meetings was to no avail.
The big day the Comprehensive Plan came before the City Council, we organized fifty people to attend the meeting. One by one the other neighborhoods said they approved the plan for their area. When our turn came, we all stood up in complete opposition to the portion of the plan for our area. Our objection was heard loudly and clearly. We didn’t even get to detail our opposition. Mayor Murphy was livid. He turned to the Planning Department Director and for the first time, I got to see that dignified, white haired gentleman red with anger.
“You told us that you had complete and full support of all the neighborhoods. This doesn’t look to me like any kind of support. GO BACK! AND DON’T RETURN WITH YOUR PLAN UNTIL YOU HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS!”
Wow! A Republican mayor? Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Before leaving the council meeting room, I got the ugliest get-rotten-look from the Director and the Assistant Director of the Planning Department that I have ever gotten from anyone. If looks could kill, I would not be here today. From then on, I think we would have to communicate by telephone through secretaries and intermediaries, but never give up. Against my better judgement, I tried to approach them, but they avoided me by sneaking out the fire escape door. Why me? I wasn’t even the one who understood what Increment Financing was, but they knew I was behind the organized opposition. Our work had just begun.
Ellen and I got to work. The effort became the best example of how well we integrated our thoughts and actions to get input from the community and sharing the power. If you want to control a group, any group, no matter the size, you only need three people working in harmony, and we had wise Bertha[xxiv].
You may wonder why I am talking about controlling a group. In a democracy, organizing a neighborhood should be a democratic process. There are three things to keep in mind. The first one is that the Planning Department made the mistake of sending only two people to our meetings and they lost. The second is that for democracy to work, you must thoroughly understand the information presented, which means that whoever controls the information also controls the outcome. Most of the time do we really have free and accurate information? Not even the newspapers publish free and truthful information. They almost always have an agenda and a slant despite all they ever do to deny it. Journalist are paid agents of a political ideology or agenda. The papers must cater to their readers and advertisers who pay to read it. If I didn’t know all the ins and outs of the plan as it had been proposed, how could the residents.
The third thing was, and make no mistake about it, that community organizing is simply and purely MANIPULATION. He who does the manipulation determines the quality of the outcome. Think about it this way: you can’t organize without manipulating because if you don’t, others will. Period.
There are two types of manipulation in this context. There is people manipulation and environmental manipulation. Calling for a meeting is environmental manipulation. Writing an agenda can go either way. Controlling the results is people manipulation. Pushing an ‘unwritten agenda’ is people manipulation, but much depends on who is doing it. To pursue this further, next incident is an example of environmental manipulation in action rather than people manipulation. The manipulation we did as follows was to counteract the one the Planning Department had unconsciously imposed on our community.
We developed an outline for four meetings twice a week. In half a month, we would have a response for the City Council. “Not possible,” we were told. Our manipulation was to control the process, not the outcome, the outcome grew as we proceeded and that makes a big difference. We passed out flyers to all the houses in the Barrio. A kid named Enrique loved to pass out flyers. I never knew why, but he did. You could give him three hundred flyers and he would smile and take off. Before the day was over, every household in the Barrio had the same information. We told him he could not put them on mailboxes, as it’s not legal. Little things like that make a world of difference.
“Impossible!” We were told again. “You can’t get Barrio people to come to that many meetings. It’s hard to get them to come to one meeting, let alone four on the same subject.” Therefore, I will go into detail on how we succeeded because these meetings reflected the heart of community organizing. Please pay attention; often community organizing, using similar controls, is done for pure evil: violence, aggression, and intimidation.
Additionally, we sent a written invitation to the Planning Department, with copies to the Mayor, the City Manager, and the Deputy City Manager inviting them to attend all four meetings. We scheduled it for 5.30 PM at the local school, after work hours so everyone could make it. Thirty-two people showed up, including two from the Planning Department, the Director, and the Assistant Director.
The night before, I had thought about how to direct this meeting, in other words how to manipulate it, and there were several environmental ingredients that were crucial for its success. Firstly, what were our positive priorities or goals? Second how to obtain maximum participation? Thirdly, how to insure you have open discussions without a few outspoken people dominating the group? Four, to insure the proper amount of time for participants to vent frustration but not too much time. Five, separate some time for thinking and exploring alternatives, while reserving equal time for action. The first meeting was to be 80% discussion and 20% action oriented. The last to be 2% discussion and 98% action oriented. And the sixth point was to do ‘reality checks’ every so often. Keeping them in the proper sequence was crucial.
Reality check is where at critical junctures the issue is worded in neutral tone, and one by one around the room, each person gives their short response with no reference to other’s opinions. It is amazing how this simple action takes away the negative influence of the loudmouth. Everyone is heard, and they all know it.
As the meeting started, the intent was to get a final consensus in an action we all could agree on. The trick was to accept every complain, comment, or idea by writing them down on a tablet and hanging the pages along the wall. One rule was that no negative comment on previous statements were allowed, instead offer better suggestion. Full open chance for participation before concluding the venting and exploring part. When people saw we heard what they said, the discussion soon moved on its own from complaints to ideas and suggestions. We identified for which areas we needed more information. We summarized all in columns, combining similar issues into one. Next, we categorized and prioritized them in a grading scale from least controversial to most controversial. To try to resolve the most important or controversial first, it could tie you up for four days. When the time came, out of twenty items, we could resolve at least fifteen before arguments would consume our time. By then, a clear picture of how it all fit together was shaping up.
Pure manipulation: you may agree with the process or not, but it was manipulation. How else could we counteract the previous manipulation by the City? If you don’t, someone else will[xxv].
The two planners were the only city employees who came, sitting together in the back of the room with their arms closed tightly over their chest, lips sealed not wanting to be there. Planners are used to public meetings where it becomes a bitching session with no resolutions. Everybody just bitch at the planners. They just wanted to go home. In our meeting, no one said a word against the planners. As we went around the room during ‘reality check’, when their turn came, the director was hesitant to say anything expecting criticism. There was none, his comment was received and written down like everyone else’s.
At first, I took the notes on the tablet and on to the wall. Whoever controls the magic marker can control the direction and results of the meeting. My agenda: to share the power.
After the warm-up, we tried the reality check strategy, each person was to tell us what were the one, two, or three most important things for them. No interruptions and no responses to previous comments by others. We wrote everything down. When one or two people have been monopolizing most of the arguments, and this ‘reality check’ is done, you can easily find that the group’s concern may really be elsewhere. By the time we got to the two planners at the back of the room, we had noted twenty-two responses. The Director was still hesitant to say anything. He expected criticism, so he played it safe,
“That we arrive at a conclusion that we all can agree on…” I wrote it down.
“Next!”
Then the Assistant Director stated his part. It was recorded just like everyone else’s. Equality. Everyone was aware the two planners were simply two more people in the room whose ideas were recorded on the wall equally for everybody to see. As people repeated some, the best liked suggestions from thirty-two opinions began to emerge towards the top. Thanks to reality check, every single person in that room had participated and their voices publicly recognized. Equality.
The next step was to group comments by themes: planning, traffic, utilities, crime, schools, zoning, dilapidation, and on. This took some time as everyone was heard. The planners made a few suggestions along the way, which were incorporated just like everyone else’s. The pattern had been set. We stopped with a cliff hanger. Then we set the next meeting in three days, in the same location, but before we totally finished, we had a final ‘reality check’. Equity, not equality. Each person got a fair and impartial opportunity to express their level of satisfaction with the way the meeting was proceeding. We wrote the responses down. Only two responses criticized the process as too inclusive. Thirty were very positive. The two planners, hesitantly, said that they were surprised, but the meeting was better than they had expected. How a question is asked makes a world of difference.
At the second meeting the same two planners came. They were the heads of their department, the decision makers. This time, together, they sat in the middle of the room. Thirty-four people came to the second meeting.
At first, Ellen wrote what was said with the magic marker. During the second part, we asked for a volunteer to write things down. Education is a critical part of organizing. Often overlooked, the most important part of community organizing is sharing the power, exposing and promoting leadership. Invisible most of the time, the person with the magic marker has the power. You must be careful and control when to share it and with whom. In sharing the power you need to teach environmental manipulation, not people manipulation, that would be control. Notice the word control has dual meaning in this context, the yin and the yang.
That second meeting was quick. We developed a questionnaire to pass out for voting by everyone in the neighborhood. We wanted complete consensus on the wording of each question to express that idea, not on agreement with the idea. If we reached no consensus, we tried ‘reality checking’ one by one to see precisely where the objections was. This tended to clear things up. It made you realize what was really there. It is amazing how a very small minority can monopolize a disagreement and make it look as if it is widespread. It’s also amazing that when specifics are identified precisely, the words can be found that will result in everyone’s acceptance. Additionally, it’s amazing how quickly and easily the wording on a question about a very controversial issue, but not the issue itself, can gain a consensus, and in doing so, the issue becomes clearer to everyone concerned. Again, I don’t mean acceptance of the same idea, or mind control, but acceptance on the wording for presentation of the idea, environmental control. Professional hecklers will prevent this from happening at all cost. It’s amazing how easy this simple tactic can flush out anyone who think they can control your group, most disagreements are caused by intent, or miscommunication.
Do you want better schools, yes or no? is a very poor open-ended question. Do you want the principal to be able to fire bad teachers to make the school better, yes or no? is a much better question. Do you want to be able to select which school to send your child to, yes or no? is a superlative question for a parent, it gives them the control. Ask questions that gives people the control; share the power. I never answer telephone questionnaires because all of them are biased. The question always leads to the answer that the questioner wants - tricky. When I do respond, we never finish because I always try to change their questions for better and more accurate ones.
The third meeting three days later was even quicker. This time we had twenty-eight people. The Director and the Assistant Director of the Planning Department also attended. They sat with everyone else and were now an integral part of the crowd, not more important nor less. The respect shown to them was exactly equal to the respect shown to everyone else, like Carmen or Maria. No special treatment and no bickering about their performance. Even Carmen, who could not read the writings on the wall, made comments which were treated with respect and her words were written up on the wall as well, as were those of Panchita’s, who was very outspoken on a one-on-one basis but very shy when speaking in public. She was learning to speak up, thanks to the reality check, and with peer support.
No idea was forgotten. We went back one by one, asking if the person who gave the comment felt it had been properly implemented in our last draft. ‘Yes or no’. None were left out. I could see that the planners were flabbergasted. They had never experienced that done before.
At the fourth meeting, we brought refreshments, a typewriter, stencil machine, ready for the longest meeting, again twenty-eight people came, including the two planners. So much for the nay-sayers.
One by one, we organized the results into twenty-three questions from most acceptable to least, until the most controversial at the end. Once the wording was accepted, it was typed on the stencil. When all done, the stencil was run through the machine and four hundred copies were made.
We had kids and adult volunteers directed by Enrique to go with a pen to every block in the Barrio, marked on a map, for each homeowners to respond with name and address. While they were gone, we made jokes, argued some, sang songs, played games, and within the hour the answers began to arrive.
By the time we had 80% of the responses back, we voted preliminary approval of the results, so most people could go home. The planners stayed until the end. It was not surprising that the first eighteen questions had almost 100% the same positive response. These were their questions about their Barrio. There is usually a voice of dissent on everything, but it was not until the nineteenth question that a few separate objections were included. The last few had more dissent, but never reaching more than 25%. Only the very last one was split. We highlighted the last one and made a point up front of telling the City Council that the Barrio could not reach a consensus on that issue.
In sixty seconds, we went around the room one by one to see if everyone was happy with the result. We all shook hands, and the planners were shaking hands with more enthusiasm than anyone else. They were witnesses and they had taken full participation and their opinions were given the same respect as that of Carmen, Panchita, and Bertha, and Maria, and all males and females in the room. After the meeting, all the responses were on hand, we printed the full tally and delivered it to the Planning Department next day. Counting the votes per household, we had a 90% response from all the households in the three sections of the neighborhood, renters, and owners. It was unheard of.
The neighborhood result eliminated the Increment Financing portion, kept the Historic Zoning Denomination but with some modifications for the sake of protection by adding many colorful elements and pertinent details that the Planning Department had ignored, such as the few years of protection we had previously requested, details supporting existing ownership, lowering property taxes and taxes on historic restoration sales as compared to historic qualification sales, reinforcing inheritance rather than sales, plus recognition of women’s inheritance despite change of name, implementing a seven years buffer for certain historic incentives, and extending the implementation time to allow for financing mechanisms for repairs compared to just quality restorations. However, it reflected a very similar direction and the same spirit the Department’s Plan had originally intended but from an internal protective perspective. The Planning Department, now thanks to the mayor’s mandate, allowed us to share the power in the Plan.
We were back on time for the next City Council meeting. It took less than five minutes. Twenty people came to the meeting and stood in unison supporting the new Planning Department recommendation, which now incorporated instead the page of twenty-two points, we had given them. Bertha got up to the microphone and praised the Planning Department for their professionalism. The City Council approved unanimously the complete Comprehensive Master Plan of all the neighborhoods together. Everyone was happy.
From that day, we had the strongest support from the Planning Department on everything that the Tucson Barrio Association did, a big difference for our future.
We now had the Planning Department as a friend and the Community Development Department as a declared foe. Furthermore, we had four Democrat Council members behind us and three Republicans looking toward us favorably.
Did anyone ever tell the mayor the details of what had just transcribed after his outburst? I never knew, but I think he might have figured it out. We owed him gratitude, but not enough yet to make me change my negative impression about Republicans which he had inspired in me previously. Republicans are weird, they have the right approach, but they seldom know how to use it. They never (?) go into neighborhoods to educate people, do they?
As a result of these meetings, I began to look at El Membrillo as part of the Barrio from a new perspective, which until now had been generally overlooked. Mostly built around 1931, the area still had surrounding original vegetation consisting of local species, such as mesquite, desert willow, and small cacti, as well as a very few imports, mainly palm and mountain juniper. Plants in the district include chinaberry, pepper trees, tamarisk, rhuslancia, cottonwood, fruitless mulberry, and palm. Plus major shrubs such as oleander and elderberry, and many passing-by tumble-weeds. No matter the shape or condition of the house, all rooftops had evaporative coolers, and very few locks on doors. The residents of El Membrillo had all grown up together and were therefore a close-knit group of family oriented, proud of their heritage and happy to be left alone. They held religious ceremonies and celebrated baptisms and marriages with large gatherings and colorful costumes. Despite the area’s reputation, the people were mostly kind and generous but also easy to arouse and did not hold back when angered. The young males tended to be hot headed, until the day they found themselves with a wife and a newborn with enough years of hard experiences. The happy spark however was dwindling, the adventurous and the brightest had moved away. If it were not for family support, many of the owners who were living on the edge of homelessness, would continue to do so. And yet, El Hoyo offered the greatest hope.