Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
3﻽5﻽1﻽5
Increasing Participation
Even when new consultative processes have been created, low participation rates
in meetings and elections mean that many, particularly the poor, are effectively left
out, especially in existing democratic processes. This can be seen in the fact that
municipal voting rates are often well below a third of the eligible voters. There is
little doubt that too much complacency exists in modern urban society, although it
may be argued that family, work and leisure commitments leave many with neither
the time, nor the inclination to involve themselves in these activities, unless the
problem directly affects them. The result has been a decline in the participation lev-
els in most group activities as Putnam ( 2000 ) has shown in his aptly entitled topic
Bowling Alone . Altering this situation is not easy. One useful approach has been
promoted by community activists such as Alinsky ( 1971 ) who suggested that more
community cohesion can often be built by initially involving people in winnable
actions on relatively small matters, in order to build confidence for future, more
difficult tasks.
3﻽5﻽1﻽6
Fairness to Others
There is little doubt that some local communities or their leaders prioritize their own
interests or cultures and may be biased against outsiders. This is often seen in the
well-known NIMBY (Not In MY Back Yard)attitudes, where redevelopment that
may be beneficial to the city as a whole is opposed by local interests. Hence, effec-
tive and fair ways of resolving this type of problem must be created, especially in
the interest of the city as a whole, but without ignoring local concerns.
3﻽5﻽1﻽7
More Intra-Urban Community Powers
All of the above recommendations seem to assume that the decisions are made at
a city level, with local groups, such as those based on communities or neighbour-
hoods, having a mainly advisory or subservient role. However, greater democracy,
in the sense of real local influence and functioning, may be achieved if greater
powers are given to local community groups within the city that have been demo-
cratically elected. For example, they could be encouraged to engage in defined
tasks, together with a share of the city finances or tax powers to carry out such
functions. Some cities already practice this approach, but on an ad hoc basis and
without losing their over-all control. More radical changes would involve legal
decentralization of some functions to community groups, together with defined
tax revenues to provide greater access and control by a local population, although
there may be a loss of the benefits of economies of scale in delivery at a city
level. This is the typical 'access versus efficiency' trade-off in service delivery.
Given the current state of most municipal finances, such decentralization may be
unlikely, though there have been examples of tax-sharing at a community level in
Search WWH ::




Custom Search