Page 8 RAIN July 1981 is the answer. As Bruce Stokes indicates: The opportunity will always exist for the establishment to manipulate self-help programs, and to use them to absolve those in power of responsibility for problems that t;ire manifestly beyond individual and community control. The inherent political potential of self-help efforts is the bes_,t insurance against this prospect. As individuals and communities solve local problems they gain power. Morever, citizens learn political skills-how to organize a meeting, how to build a coalition, and how to e~ert their influence. They can use this power and these talents to assert their legitimate role in the solution of society's problems and to force governments to act in the public interest. Finally, a host of issues dealing with the private sector need to be explored. It will mean holding the Reaganomics tric;kle-downers to their promise. We have to at least try to turn the empty rhetoric into community realities since the lack of government funds have to be dealt with. Pressure must be put on corporations and foundations to support local self-help initiatives. Additionally, incentives (credits and deductions) would increase individual contributions, and workplace solicitations (Alternative United Ways) could work in some communities. It will take many more innovative ideas since it is highly unrealistic to expect the private sector to pick up the government's slack in a time of increased unemployment and continued inflation. The Reagan rise to power was clearly related to public disillusionment with the status quo. When the last hurrah of the "supply • side" begins to fade, many more people will realize that our problems are not simply a result of a big government but rather a system that emphasizes wealth and power instead of people and human values. Out of the midst of this very immediate threat will rise an unprecedented opportunity for us to be prepared with an alternative. OD Neighborhood Improvement .Voucher Plan There's lots of talk about a Reaga.n Neighborhood Policy, but so far very little, if anything, has actually been proposed. Even the new buzz-word, "Enterprise Zone" -the so-called supply side cure for stopping urban decay-seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle for now. One of the more intriguing possibilities on the horizon concerning neighborhood fiscal empowerment is the Neighborhood Improvement Voucher Plan. This option is being pushed primarily by John McClaughry, a member of the White House Domestic PMicy Staff and former coordinator of the Reagan-Bush Neighborhood Policy Advisor.y Group. It's interesting to note that McClaughry, a strong decentralist ideologue, was formerly the director for the Institute for Liberfy and Communiti in Vermont and a member of the New World Alliance. Although no action has been taken on this plan as yet, here are the basics of the plan as described in a fact sheet from the ReaganBush Committee. On October 17, 1980, Governor Reagan proposed that the Department of Housing and Urban Development in his Administration would carry out a neighborhood improvement voucher demonstration project. The purpose of the voucher plan is to put tax resources back into the pockets of neighborhood residents and let them-not bureaucrats-decide how the money can best be used for neighborhood improvement projects. Under the present Community Development.Block Grant program some $3.8 billion a year is granted to cities, which in turn use the money for broadly defined community developmenfprojects subject to federal program requirements. In many cities neighborhood organizations have been supported by CDBG funds from the city government.. There are, however, problems with this approach. There is the , legitimacy problem-deciding whether the organization really represents neighborhood people. There is the accountability problem-policing the use of the funds to comply with extensive federal and city guidelines. There i~ the cooptation problem-destroying the political independence of the neighborhood organization by making them financially dependent on City Hall for their funds. Where Washington makes a grant directly to a neighborhood group, as in the Neighborhood Self Help Program, all of these problems are present along with the additional problem of coordination with City Hall. The Neighborhood Improvement Voucher Plan solves all these problems by channeling the funds back to individual residents, and letting them decide which of many public and private projects in their neighborhood is worthy of their support. As presently envisioned, each resident would receive a voucher which, when partially matched by the resident's own contribution, could be deposited to the account of any of dozens of self-help projects or public programs aimed at direct neighborhood benefit. For example, suppose'the federal matching ratio was 4: 1 in a given neighborhood (it could vary with the income level of the neighborhood). A resident could take the voucher, add $10 of his or her own m<?ney, and deposit it at a local bank, savings and loan, or credit union to the account of a favored project. When the deposit period closed, the bank would distribute funds collected among the various organizations or projects, as directed by ~he depositors. The federal government would add $40 for each $10 deposited. The range of projects or organizations which might Ve eligible to receive funds under this program is practically boundless. It could include Neighborhood Housing Services, a local economic development corporation, neighborhood chamber of commerce, Police Athletic League, church youth programs, drug abuse prevention programs, city st~eet lighting program, police foot patrol, firefighting improvement, community beautification, appropriate technology projects, recycling centers, community gardens, urban land trusts, wall murals, youth centers, tool libraries, library enrichment programs, crime patrols, neighborhood newspaper, multiseivice centers, neighborhood assemblies, small business support programs, cooperatives, etc. It is anticipated that the availability of voucher funds'would stimulate a great outpouring of neighborhood improvem·ent activity. ' Organizations would campaign actively for the "votes" of neighborhood residents. In so doing, they would make residents aware of the ongoing activities and encourage them to join in making their neighborhood a better place. We have lots of questions about this type of approach. Are there any eligibility requirements? Any targeting to low-income neighborhoods? Do low-income citizens have the ten dollars to be matched in the first place? Will the net effect be to support neighborhood country clubs for the rich? And what about the positive aspects of government funding? Mc_Claughry doesn't deal with the fact that HUD's Neighborhood Self Help Development program (already killed by the Administration) did an admirable job in leveraging private funds. It's estimated that for every million dollars it invested, $16 million was contributed from local resources. Isn't that a pretty good return on public money? -SR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz