Page4 RAIN / "The'Corbett Compact: Bl~eprint for Community Renewal," is excerpted with permission from the Jan./Feb. 1980 issue of Small Town, subscriptions with membership $15/yr. for individuals, $25/ yr. for professionals and institutions, from Small Towns Institute, P.O. Box 517., Ellensberg, WA 98926; copyright 1980. . "Too much "realism would have led to the conc1usion that no project was po~sible." We've been plugging away ai realist,ic alternatives, measurable goals, an-d monitoring efficacy of projects for so long·that most of us·have forgotten how to simply do things, taking the inherent risks of appearing foolish. Can the money ventured on an "unsuccessful" experiment possibly compare with all the money spent on feasibility studies? Times are hard. Let's get on with it. -CC by Harold Williams and Natalie Hawley - ' ' . ONE SMALL TOWN FO~ SALE, FULLY OCCUPIED, proclaimed the headline in the Sunday New York Times one fall Sunday in 1976. This "town-for-sale" began life as a company_town, to house workers at an acid factory. When the factory'shut down in 1934, this Catskill Mou,ntain village lost its economic base. Most residents, however, continued to live there, paying rent to the defunct company which continued to be.its landlord. The sense of community declined, and the village gained a reputation as being "antisocial"-a place where indiviguals and families were constantly bickering and fighting·. In 1976, the Stuart family was forced to sell' Corbett. Several prospective purchasers suggested special purposes for the town, but , not one would accommodate Corbett's 170 residents, some of whom had lived in the community since birth, and whose only option was displacement. ' Renewal in Corbett \ At this point,.the Institute on Man and Science was invited to con- ·sider renewal opportunities in Delaware County by the executive director of the A. Lindsay and Olive B. O'Connor Foundation. The Institute was specifically interested·in finding a small village interested in a comprehensive renewal program to build a process , model f9r. small town revitalization. For four months, Institute staff met with Corbett residents to explore the idea of a renewal project. Excitement and commitment grew as the Institute's feasibility study, which incluqed an assessment of resident capacity and desire, suggested a reasonable prospect of success. • • The idea of shared "sweat equity" as the primary motor for progress was soon accepted since the outcome most desired by residents was the "at cost" purchase of the houses that they had always rented. As agendas of both parties became clea'r an_d compatible, a ' bargain was struck, objectives defined, some funding secured, and the project was officially launched on January 1, 1977; termination was envisioned at the close of 1979. . For both Corbett residents and the Institute, the project was seen as a high risk proposition. Many residents doubted whether.they could work successfully together. Pride in their capacity to disagree , and a penchant for solving disagreements physically was more char-· acteristic than self-esteem and a sense of efficacy. The key problem for the Institute was overcoming half a century of ownership and • control, in which virtually no community decisions had been made . by community members. We questioned the amount of actual change which could take place in three short years, no matter what the strength of our.intervention. • • f Building the Co~pact Given these anxieties, it was decided to develop a document which would.offer some guiding principles. It was established early that • • this document would not be a project design which began with ac- ·tivities and timelines, but would begin with a more general statement of purpose from which operational details would be derived. It was also determined that the document should be written iri words that all Corbett people could understand, and include ideas that • most could accept. Corbett residents were strong on the latter point. Many had never been involved in community affairs or had experience in working with an outside partner in other than "top down" terms where the ~ntervenors had all the power. It was important in this new experience to state as clearly as possible what would be expected ... and what would be sought. During the winter months of 1976-77, some eight persons came tqgether for hours at a time-often sitting near an old wood stove in Corbett's abandoned schoolhouse. Initially, the process went as. follows: ideas were brainstormed until an anticipated issue emerged--'-such as, Corbett people make comments that hurt others and th1s would lead to blowups which would stop the project. Then, the issue,was discussed until consensus was reached-e.g., • that it was really important that people reduce the level of verbal abuse. Then, a Corbett resident would summarize the agreement on a sheet of paper, often in the form of a fruism-e.g., "Think before.you speak." Finally, an Institute person would help the group to phrase the thought in conversational terms. As a resolution neared·on all spec_ific role questions, the talk turned to hopes, fears, and above all aspirations. It was from this discussion that the preamble emerged, transforming the working agreement into a compact with emotional as well.as cognitive di-' mensions. It"states : , • ... we give our pledge to rebuild Corbett as a small community in which people help each other . . . in which ioe_ can get a good night's sleep ... in which our children can range safely .. . in which we can feel good about our town, our f!eighbo·rs·, and ourselves ... in which we do not waste. At the same time, we seek a community'in which people live and let live, respecting the rights of others to be different. We want people to grow. Some will grow out and stay. Others will grow and leave. But fo'r all of us, Corbett.will always be home. As the draft of the agreement was completed, the Compact group decided that the document was sufficiently important that it should be presented to the community for reactions and comments. Each . Corbett household received a copy for ,careful review and suggestions for changes. While a few concerns led to minor rewording, no major.issues were raised in this process. The Compact, now ready for execution, was hand-lettered on five large sheets of paper and signed into being at a community supper on March 8, 1977.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz