Issues regarding draft revitalization plan
Through August 12, 1999.

Adams Grove Block Unit, from June 17, 1999 meeting.

   Pages 51-53 of the March, 1999 draft give a number of directives about fencing, handicapped ramps for accessibility, outside lighting, and enclosures for dumpsters and extra structures. The standards given may be in effect in parts of the FPSE neighborhood, but are not right for all of the neighborhood. The actual design of fencing, access ramps, and so on, should be practical and appropriate at each individual location.

   The priorities are:

1. the effort for Manchester as the central corridor should be focused; there should be a report on the status of the CDC Commercial Grant, and existing businesses should be supported;
2. provide support home repair with remaining funds in current grants, with fewer restrictions and less red tape; names and addresses of candidates for home repair are being collected; and
3. the School / Community Center budget of $ 8 Million is hard to understand; start building towards the big community center and new school with immediate small steps like playground equipment this summer and support for existing programs.
   Sonda Thompson, from August 12 executive committee meeting
      The discussions should be focused and move toward what can be done now. The suggested five priorities are: reopen Adams School; the Community Council; drug usage; housing; and security.

   Bob Babione, from letter submitted to Vince Bennett June 14
      Will the revitalization plan, as set out in the March, 1999 draft, respect the neighborhood's present population or will it force gentrification on the whole neighborhood?

      I am uncertain because of the nine principles, the voting data, and the Norman Rockwell-like renderings of the future. Principle 1 refers to the "traditional, mixed income" character of the neighborhood; principle 2 recognizes housing prices "ranging from subsidized rental to home ownership from low income to market rate"; principle 3 supports "the ongoing process of rehabilitation of historic houses" and infill development; and principle 7 proposes to create streets "lined with houses with large windows, porches, and well-defined front yards." I think principle 7 does not fit very well with 1 or 2. Principle 3 is ambiguous, depending on whether ongoing rehabilitation is viewed as compatible with current socioeconomic status or as gentrification; it may fit with 1 and 2 or it may fit with 7. The plan speaks of "amenities" (pages 19 and 28, for example). Like principle 3, the amenities may be for current levels or for upward scale. The voting data seems to emphasize owner support and respect for low-income housing. I would edit the nine principles a little so that the drawings, the "rehabilitation of historic houses" and development of "amenities" will not ratchet everything upscale to the neglect of principles 1 and 2 and the voting data.