Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) - Case Study
SECTION 1: CASE SUMMARY
“White flight” and the economic depression that followed it became an unwanted, but demonstrative American trend during the latter half of the twentieth century. As suburban development flourished on the boundaries of metropolises, the middle and upper classes, predominantly white, left the inner cities to gain more “living space.” However, those left behind, the non-white minorities, could not sustain their economy and their once solid neighborhoods deteriorated. In southern Boston, the Dudley Street area is an excellent example of a minority community that strove to reverse the neighborhood decline. Dudley Street’s vacant lots became havens for illegal and legal dumping of various types of waste. Uninterrupted neighborhood deterioration from the 1950s to the 1980s left the Dudley Street area in ruin. Streets littered with abandoned cars, hardly any businesses, and no local bank or grocery store added to the community’s plight.
In the grip of agony the Dudley neighborhood residents took matters into their own hands to improve their community and control its future. In the mid 1980s, the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) formed to mobilize residents and to facilitate a “plan for an urban village that included affordable housing, small businesses, parks, community gardens, and a town common.” The DSNI was created with the help of the Riley Foundation. Once the Dudley street neighborhood dilemma was brought to the trustees’ attention, several of the foundation’s small grants were combined to provide a grant sufficient for the creation of the DSNI. To keep residents informed, the DSNI created a multilingual newsletter; and it provided translation equipment to demonstrate the DSNI’s willingness to incorporate every resident into the neighborhood’s revitalization program.
The DSNI’s first campaign was “Don’t Dump on Us,” which aimed to push for environmental justice by eliminating illegal as well as legal dumping sites that were scattered throughout the neighborhood. The DSNI wanted to show the public that these sites were not just “health-threatening eyesores,” but that they could be transformed into viable spaces for “homes, businesses, community services, parks, and playgrounds.” Over one hundred residents, the majority of whom were children, in addition the Public Works Department participated in widespread community cleaning. Resident actions provoked Boston Mayor Ray Flynn to pledge local government support to address the area’s issues, such as towing away the neighborhood’s abandoned vehicles. In spite of this, the city began dragging its feet, demonstrating to the residents that they were a low priority. So the DSNI organized residents to block the entrances of the dumpsites in protest. This garnered media attention and encouraged the Mayor to live up to his promise by padlocking the gates to the illegal dumping sites.
Next, the DSNI set out to redevelop the neighborhood’s physical infrastructure. In 1986 the DSNI used foundation grants to work with consultants to establish a thorough proposal for the Dudley area. The plan that was developed consisted of not just construction, but included a common area for the neighborhood that would be “a place for meeting, strolling, sitting, watching, and living.” The plan’s estimated price tag was $135 million and it would stretch over a five-year period. The DSNI had the daunting task of persuading city officials to allow development concerning zoning codes. An array of lawyers, activists, and community developers contributed their services pro bono to this effort. Alone, even large grants, such as were received from the Ford Foundation, could not push the DSNI’s plans into construction. The DSNI was granted eminent domain, which enabled the organization to obtain certain plots from the city for their construction plan. Additionally, the DSNI had to build coalitions with various organizations to get low-income housing built and convince local banks to provide loans to minorities.
Although the DSNI was successful in eliminating illegal dumping sites, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection identified fifty-four sites that still contained hazardous wastes. Lead was the most threatening because of its known health effects on children. Relief and funding came when the EPA’s New England regional office offered to finance the clean up of the area’s “brownfields” as a settlement for the EPA’s participation in disposing of hazardous wastes. In 1996, tests confirmed that the land was suitable and the DSNI turned the sites into gardens, parks, and greenhouses in order to help their economy by growing their own produce.
DSNI’s twenty years of progressive actions have transformed a once undesirable area into an economically affordable community and has retained its multicultural diversity. By organizing the community, the DSNI was able to achieve its goals through the political process. The DSNI could not have achieved what they have without enormous support and help from the community, external financial assistance, and the expertise of professionals provided free of charge. A once dark and depressing neighborhood now flaunts “brightly colored townhouses with neat lawns and gardens and well-tended parks and playgrounds.” Nevertheless, crime and poverty are clear reminders that the DSNI and the community will need to continue seeking improvements to ensure a prosperous future. Gus Newport, former DSNI director, asserted that what pleases the residents is not solely the area’s economic success, but also is its beauty. In his words, “Beauty—no matter how small it is, just a few flowers—is what matters most.”
SECTION 2: THE STAKEHOLDERS
Regarding the environmental case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), the outcomes of revitalization concerned the community the most. In addition to the community, its political representation, and the DSNI, several other stakeholders were interested in the outcome of the DSNI’s plan. One of these stakeholders was the city of Boston. The city not only owned much of the land, including vacant lots where dumping sites existed, it also had to finance such undertakings as clearing the streets of abandoned vehicles. Although a revitalized Dudley area would look good for the city of Boston, there was much political weight that needed to be thrown around in order for the community to get what it wanted. The essential outcomes meant more to the Dudley community than to the other stakeholders, since it was their ambition that would set in motion the area’s revitalization.
Since the residents cared most about the outcome, it was up to them to build the necessary coalitions within the community and with financial backers such as the Riley and Ford Foundations. As the DSNI represented the community, it wanted to ensure the closing of dumpsites and the continued maintenance of both low-income housing and the area’s multicultural diversity. Because of the importance of diversity, to reinforce the community’s cultural identity, the DSNI created the annual Multicultural Festival to promote and celebrate the neighborhood’s diversity.
The revitalization of the Dudley Street community had a hefty price tag. Most of the funding was provided by grants from the Riley and Ford Foundations, with additional support from State and Local governments, which helped finance construction of the area’s housing project. Since their money was now part of the revitalization effort, the State and Local governments were interested in the best possible housing plan, one that would maximize the use of their funds and provide substantial low-income housing. The city of Boston also wanted to make sure that some of the legal dumping sites remained open.
I don’t think there were many alternatives to the course of action taken in the Dudley Street area. Anything that might have been done to improve the neighborhood can be considered progressive. Restoring the neighborhood so that it was again a suitable place to live was the DSNI’s main goal. As for the other stakeholders, I think the federal government could have played a more prominent role. It could be argued that there should have been some federal aide once the DSNI demonstrated both its political power and the community’s commitment to revitalize the area. And, in fact, there was some federal aide; the EPA’s New England regional headquarters did finance the restoration of contaminated hazardous waste sites, which would have been difficult for the DSNI to find funds for.
I think that the DSNI performed well, moving its programs forward mostly by generating public support. One way the DSNI generated support was by using the media to inform the public. Not only did it publish its own multilingual newsletter, it also benefited from numerous favorable articles in the local Bostonian newspapers. News coverage served to foster external support from local and state governments as well as to gain foundation grants. Another key reason the DSNI and the residents were successful at dictating favorable outcomes was their ability to organize and maximize their political power. Once the community was assembled as one united group, they were able to gain much more than several individual groups might have. In the end, the most central stakeholders were the residents represented by the DSNI: it was their lives that would be improved. Measured against the impact to the residents all other stakeholders can be regarded as fairly minor.
SECTION 3: POLICY MODEL
An examination of the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, indicates that the “group theory” policy model is much more applicable than the “elite theory” policy model. In elite theory, policy is driven by the dominant few; those with money, power, and political influence shape public policy. By contrast, in the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, the community dominated the political process of neighborhood rejuvenation by organizing its residents and working cooperatively with local government, business, professionals, and other non-profit organizations.
By coordinating the populace under the direction of the DSNI, the Dudley Street area was able to influence local policy performing environmental feats and keeping the DSNI’s vision at the forefront of the community’s interests. The Dudley Street district was bound to restore their community’s vitality and economic potential after decades of deterioration from white flight and economic depression, which followed after. Failed aide attempts such as the federal Model Cities program could not deliver any assistance in order for the Dudley Street district to jumpstart neighborhood rejuvenation.
Group theory can be applied to the Dudley case study because there is no “elite” involved in this environmental policy account. Groups, such as the DSNI, the Riley and Ford Foundations, local government, businesses, and professionals, helped fund and guide the DSNI conduct to properly transform their dream into a feasible reality. The DSNI had to convince and incorporate other local groups to subscribe to their plan for neighborhood rejuvenation. Some of these local groups feared that a revitalization of the area could lead to increased taxes and possibly dislocate the poor due to the swelling of the neighborhood’s worth. Additionally, some groups were nervous about the DSNI’s plan, which could jeopardize the district’s rich multicultural diversity.
Because the community represented by the DSNI has the largest interest in the outcomes of the revitalization process, they are the most important and influential group. There are many other smaller groups with small concerns, but on the whole, it is the DSNI, which pedals much of the policy process concerning the Dudley Street area. Smaller groups, such as local government do play an important role. Since the city of Boston would still like to retain some of its legal dumping sites, they must work with the DSNI to find compromises, which will benefit each party. Because the DSNI wanted to especially eradicate the area of illegal dumpsites, the local government supported that proposal by padlocking the sites. The city of Boston also was interested in helping to restore the area because the prospect of beneficial businesses as well as improving the image of Boston.
Groups such as the Riley and Ford Foundations were also critical in helping fund the revitalization process. The interests of these groups are to improve conditions with an aim to reduce poverty. These groups were eager to help the DSNI with its proposals because it promoted human achievement and demonstrated democratic values such as the residents organizing to increase their political influence.
Additionally smaller groups such as, local businesses and professionals had an interest in the outcome because a more improved area would help stiffen economic growth. Professions, for example lawyers, offered their services to the DSNI free of charge in order to give guidance, but as well as push their ideas upon the process. Local businesses were able to influence some of the DSNI’s policies in order for current establishments to maintain and grow, but also have plenty of room for competition, which would help, boost the area’s economy.
Another group with an interest in the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative was the state of Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection. They insisted on the clean up of contaminated hazardous waste sites. They were able to get the EPA to fund the clean up because of that group’s participation in the dumping of hazardous wastes. The EPA was interested in doing this to conceal their own wrongdoing and reinforce the EPA’s position on environmental justice.
Possibly one of the most difficult groups to get “onboard” the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative’s plans was the financial industry. Particularly the lending and banking areas had to be convinced to give loans to low-income residents so that they could purchase the newly built low-income housing. Additionally, the DSNI had to persuade banks to branch out into the Dudley area. The DSNI achieved this by gathering and publishing testimonies from residents about how inconvenient it was not having a local bank within their district.
Lastly, the local media played an important role in promoting the DSNI’s agenda. Although the media did not have a significant interest in the outcome, it covered the community’s restoration efforts favorably, and in turn helped draw attention to their needs. In the end, group theory is the essential policy model for the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative case study. It was one large group with a vision, which lacked certain powers, but harnessed the potential of group theory in order to gain political weight and sought the financial aide from various other small groups, which in turn helped make the DSNI’s dreams come true.
SECTION 4: PUBLIC AGENDA
There are several issues that were on the public agenda for the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). Various issues that were debated consist of cleaning up the area’s hazardous waste sites, closing illegal dumping facilities, the towing of abandoned cars, obtaining eminent domain, keeping the area affordable for residents, maintaining the rich multicultural diversity, clearing the area of drug dealers, convincing banks to lend to low-income families, and finding sufficient financial assistance from grants and foundations to promote and implement the DSNI’s plans. One issue that received a great deal of debate was the remodeling of the Dudley Street bus terminal. The city of Boston required that it be remodeled because of its deteriorating condition; however, the city found immense dissent from the Dudley residents.
The city of Boston asserted that by remodeling the bus station, it was directly contributing to the improvement and rejuvenation of the area. Yet, although the residents agreed with the city’s good intentions, they became concerned that the construction requirements and duration would impede economic recovery of the Dudley area. Most notably m Dudley district merchants protested the station’s remodeling due to the fact that since the project would take 21 months to complete and that one of the area’s business’ vital roads would be closed to become the interim bus terminal. This would therefore cause a parking shortage and would drive potential costumers away from the area’s businesses. The DSNI and the area’s residents wish to see improvements rejuvenation for the their community, however, they concur that the merchants’ contention is valid and confirm that the neighborhood already has a shortage of parking spaces and any loss of space could send residents outside the community to conduct their daily business. Consequently, diverting money from the community where it is needed most. An additional issue that was highly debated was the proposal that the Dudley area print its own money, which could be used within the community and therefore keep money within the neighborhood. Advocates of a “Dudley” currency claimed that it was fully legal and that other towns had successfully implemented during the Great Depression. Although the solutions to these issues were high contended, some alternative elucidations were not nurtured.
A possible solution to the issue regarding the remodeling of the Dudley bus station could be that the DSNI with their right to eminent domain could obtain financial support to help build a parking structure on a vacant lot, which would alleviate the problem and would not hinder remodeling. The DSNI was the first non-profit organization to be granted eminent domain. The DSNI has a variety of vacant lots, which they use to improve the community’s vivacity by providing low-income housing. Then again, one or more of these vacant lots could easily be converted into a parking structure, or if too expense, simply a parking lot. Concerning the printing of a “Dudley” currency, a possible solution to the debate could be a publicity campaign aimed at informing and convincing the area’s residents to keep their money within the community. Through the medium of the DSNI newsletter and their promotional speeches, the residents could learn the benefits of keeping their money within the area and alleviate the need for a community currency.
The media played an important role in shaping public opinion concerning the DSNI, what their vision was, and more importantly how things were playing out in the Dudley street area. The media favorably covered every aspect of the DSNI and their efforts to rejuvenate the Dudley street area. When newspapers such as the Boston Globe discussed debatable issues, they provided their readers with a non-bias position. The media presented both sides of the debated issues and gave all arguments similar and sufficient coverage. I think that the media most effectively drew attention to the Dudley street district and all that was being accomplished there. Newspapers also heralded the DSNI for becoming the first non-profit organization to gain the right of eminent domain. And although the goals of the DSNI are achieved by long-term action, the media celebrates each and every small stride, strengthening the community’s image and their ambition to control their own destiny. The media gave equal attention to all the issues from what I have researched. I have also found that the media covered issues from clearing the playground of drug dealers to the area’s ability to grow its own crops. The media effectively communicated the community’s desires and fears. The constant overtone of the Dudley street case is that the citizens were in control. In a Boston Globe article, Ray Everdell is quoted upholding the community’s aspiration to self-success, “Residents have made it clear that they want this to be a bottom-up development, not a development where the master plan comes from someone outside the community who has no investment in the neighborhood.”
Mainly the issues that were prevalent were placed on the public agenda through community and organazational initiative. Additionally, the consensus over contested issues grew and was shaped by media coverage. Furthermore, the media helped create popularity for the community’s achievements and their representatives, the DSNI. Most of the issues were debated and received vast community influence over what decisions would be reached. Overall, the community worked together and found willing financial assistance from foundations and celebrated support in the media.
SECTION 5: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
It is not hard to judge the overall outcome of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative’s policies as positive. Based upon the DSNI case study, it is easy to conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs; however, to say that there were not substantial costs incurred would be untrue. One of the most obvious and significant costs related to the implementation of the DSNI’s plans was financial. The expense of building new homes was enormous, but the DSNI was able to fund the construction through grants and loans from the Riley and Ford Foundations. Although these groups footed the bill, they, too, benefited from their actions. The Riley Foundation’s grants are primarily designed for the benefit of Boston youths and, by providing funding for the DSNI, the Riley Foundation profited in that it achieved its purpose and reinforced its mission statement. Considering that the Dudley district was advocating democratic principals, challenging economic and environmental injustices, and improving the quality of life within the community, the assistance provided by the Ford Foundation served the Foundation’s stated goal to “strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement.”
Another cost exposed in the Dudley case study is related to the right of the DSNI to invoke the concept of eminent domain. The DSNI was the first non-profit organization to be granted eminent domain, which it was able to use to seize properties such as vacant or deteriorated lots on which the DSNI could then build low-income housing. While this was, no doubt, viewed by some as a great step in revitalizing the area, it had a downside: it cost some property owners the right to either retain their property or sell it freely on the open market. It is true that the majority of the properties seized were abandoned, vacant lots for which the owners were indebted to the city for back taxes. Nevertheless, the loss of ownership and control on the part of the property owners can be viewed as a cost. Another example is the impact of remodeling the Dudley bus station. While this initiative was an effort by the city to help rejuvenate the area, it also caused problems. For example, the closing of a main street in the area’s business district cost businesses customers due to the reduced number of available parking spaces. The initial concern pertaining to the area’s redevelopment was that, by improving the Dudley district, it would inadvertently create an inhospitable place for the area’s low-income families and, thus, destroy the area’s rich multicultural diversity. However, having the residents fully involved in setting the agenda mitigated this fear, by establishing a process through which changes were dictated from the bottom up, instead of from the top down.
Although there were costs incurred, the fact is that the area was in such a shambles that the district could only benefit from any improvement. The first real gain experienced by the district was related to the DSNI’s success in prohibiting illegal dumping sites within the Dudley area. No doubt this had a negative impact on those who were dumping, but since the dumping was illegal, the individuals involved hardly need to be considered in the equation. The city of Boston was affected by the Dudley area residents’ demand for environmental justice. By acknowledging that the DSNI’s claims for environmental justice were legitimate, the city obligated itself to take action, and absorb the related expense. One financial cost incurred by the city in cleaning up the Dudley Street area was funding the removal of abandoned cars. The city also had to give up some of its legal dumping sites in order to avoid appearing hypocritical. When the DSNI was granted eminent domain after a four-year court battle, the city lost ownership of numerous properties, which it had obtained through abandonment and repossession for back taxes.
When the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection declared parts of the Dudley area to be hazardous wastes sites, the EPA bore the brunt of the responsibility for remediation. The community as a whole would benefit from the EPA action, but, most importantly, the health of children would be improved due to the clean up of large amounts of lead, the cost of which would be picked up by the EPA. By accepting the fact that they had used the Dudley area as a dumping ground for hazardous materials and the equipment used for clean up of such materials, the EPA admitted that it had been environmentally discriminatory. The majority of the costs related to the Dudley area initiatives were assumed by the Riley and Ford Foundations and the city of Boston. The majority of the benefits were enjoyed by the residents. The case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative is a wonderful example of a community taking its destiny into its own hands and putting the burden for financing the rejuvenation not on the Dudley Street residents, but on the city, with additional funding raised through grants and loans from private organizations.
It is quite difficult to propose an alternative policy for the Dudley street area. Incremental policy has occurred in the area to implement changes. Basically, small steps and feats have more of an effect than one single all-encompassing policy shift. If I were to propose that the Dudley area take any alternate route, I would still rely on incremental changes. However, I would propose having a much greater idea of what goals the community was striving for. For example, I would gather data from the community and try to understand the residents’ greatest aspirations and grievances. Then I would create an agenda made up of a series of goals ranging from small to large. This agenda would then have time frames and identify multiple paths for achieving the goals. If one route failed, there would be others to try before moving on to another goal. In the case of the remodeling of Dudley station, I would have encouraged the DSNI to use its right of eminent domain to pave one of two properties close to the business district, to provide the needed parking spaces while the construction was underway. I would also have lobbied the businesses in the area to contribute a small amount to the cost of the parking lots, since it would be to their benefit and would improve the chance of keeping their businesses operational. For funding projects such as construction of low-income housing and a town center, I would not only look for grants, but would also canvas the prosperous businesses of Boston for contributions. As business people they would benefit from the enhancement of the city’s image and the positive press they would accrue by being generous. Furthermore, I would push for more political representation by having the residents write to their representatives.
Needless to say, the policies implemented in the Dudley street case study demonstrate the power of group theory, especially in situations where there is no money for start up and no political clout. The residents of the Dudley area took the initiative and drove revitalization of their community. I feel that the policies that they pursued were crucial to the area’s rejuvenation and created a better living for the residents. Considering the level of success that was achieved, I would propose many of the same policies with only minimal differences. The area is not completely rehabilitated and crime and drug use are still persistent in the neighborhood, however, the progress of the DSNI has begun to eclipse the negative aspects of the neighborhood. In order to continue progress in the area, the community must never give up its hope for a better neighborhood, because the forces that brought the Dudley street area to ruins still exist and could once again impede progress if problems are left unattended.
REFERENCES
A Roxbury development plan gains currency; CITY WEEKLY. The Boston
Globe, September 7, 1997.
Area merchants fear Dudley Station construction. The Boston Globe, August 15, 1989
Building demolition in Roxbury spurs fears of more blight. The Boston Globe, August 8,
1993.
Becoming good neighbors; One step at a time, residents of Dudley Street are establishing
their own rules of the game. The Boston Globe, September, 17, 1991.
City panel names two developers to begin Dudley Triangle projects. The Boston Globe,
December 22, 1989.
Dudley Street’s vision for a village. The Boston Globe, July 16, 1997.
Layzer, Judith. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. Washington
DC: CQ Press, 2006.
Opportunity on Dudley Street. The Boston Globe, November 16, 1993.
The Ford Foundation: www.fordfound.org
“White flight” and the economic depression that followed it became an unwanted, but demonstrative American trend during the latter half of the twentieth century. As suburban development flourished on the boundaries of metropolises, the middle and upper classes, predominantly white, left the inner cities to gain more “living space.” However, those left behind, the non-white minorities, could not sustain their economy and their once solid neighborhoods deteriorated. In southern Boston, the Dudley Street area is an excellent example of a minority community that strove to reverse the neighborhood decline. Dudley Street’s vacant lots became havens for illegal and legal dumping of various types of waste. Uninterrupted neighborhood deterioration from the 1950s to the 1980s left the Dudley Street area in ruin. Streets littered with abandoned cars, hardly any businesses, and no local bank or grocery store added to the community’s plight.
In the grip of agony the Dudley neighborhood residents took matters into their own hands to improve their community and control its future. In the mid 1980s, the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) formed to mobilize residents and to facilitate a “plan for an urban village that included affordable housing, small businesses, parks, community gardens, and a town common.” The DSNI was created with the help of the Riley Foundation. Once the Dudley street neighborhood dilemma was brought to the trustees’ attention, several of the foundation’s small grants were combined to provide a grant sufficient for the creation of the DSNI. To keep residents informed, the DSNI created a multilingual newsletter; and it provided translation equipment to demonstrate the DSNI’s willingness to incorporate every resident into the neighborhood’s revitalization program.
The DSNI’s first campaign was “Don’t Dump on Us,” which aimed to push for environmental justice by eliminating illegal as well as legal dumping sites that were scattered throughout the neighborhood. The DSNI wanted to show the public that these sites were not just “health-threatening eyesores,” but that they could be transformed into viable spaces for “homes, businesses, community services, parks, and playgrounds.” Over one hundred residents, the majority of whom were children, in addition the Public Works Department participated in widespread community cleaning. Resident actions provoked Boston Mayor Ray Flynn to pledge local government support to address the area’s issues, such as towing away the neighborhood’s abandoned vehicles. In spite of this, the city began dragging its feet, demonstrating to the residents that they were a low priority. So the DSNI organized residents to block the entrances of the dumpsites in protest. This garnered media attention and encouraged the Mayor to live up to his promise by padlocking the gates to the illegal dumping sites.
Next, the DSNI set out to redevelop the neighborhood’s physical infrastructure. In 1986 the DSNI used foundation grants to work with consultants to establish a thorough proposal for the Dudley area. The plan that was developed consisted of not just construction, but included a common area for the neighborhood that would be “a place for meeting, strolling, sitting, watching, and living.” The plan’s estimated price tag was $135 million and it would stretch over a five-year period. The DSNI had the daunting task of persuading city officials to allow development concerning zoning codes. An array of lawyers, activists, and community developers contributed their services pro bono to this effort. Alone, even large grants, such as were received from the Ford Foundation, could not push the DSNI’s plans into construction. The DSNI was granted eminent domain, which enabled the organization to obtain certain plots from the city for their construction plan. Additionally, the DSNI had to build coalitions with various organizations to get low-income housing built and convince local banks to provide loans to minorities.
Although the DSNI was successful in eliminating illegal dumping sites, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection identified fifty-four sites that still contained hazardous wastes. Lead was the most threatening because of its known health effects on children. Relief and funding came when the EPA’s New England regional office offered to finance the clean up of the area’s “brownfields” as a settlement for the EPA’s participation in disposing of hazardous wastes. In 1996, tests confirmed that the land was suitable and the DSNI turned the sites into gardens, parks, and greenhouses in order to help their economy by growing their own produce.
DSNI’s twenty years of progressive actions have transformed a once undesirable area into an economically affordable community and has retained its multicultural diversity. By organizing the community, the DSNI was able to achieve its goals through the political process. The DSNI could not have achieved what they have without enormous support and help from the community, external financial assistance, and the expertise of professionals provided free of charge. A once dark and depressing neighborhood now flaunts “brightly colored townhouses with neat lawns and gardens and well-tended parks and playgrounds.” Nevertheless, crime and poverty are clear reminders that the DSNI and the community will need to continue seeking improvements to ensure a prosperous future. Gus Newport, former DSNI director, asserted that what pleases the residents is not solely the area’s economic success, but also is its beauty. In his words, “Beauty—no matter how small it is, just a few flowers—is what matters most.”
SECTION 2: THE STAKEHOLDERS
Regarding the environmental case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), the outcomes of revitalization concerned the community the most. In addition to the community, its political representation, and the DSNI, several other stakeholders were interested in the outcome of the DSNI’s plan. One of these stakeholders was the city of Boston. The city not only owned much of the land, including vacant lots where dumping sites existed, it also had to finance such undertakings as clearing the streets of abandoned vehicles. Although a revitalized Dudley area would look good for the city of Boston, there was much political weight that needed to be thrown around in order for the community to get what it wanted. The essential outcomes meant more to the Dudley community than to the other stakeholders, since it was their ambition that would set in motion the area’s revitalization.
Since the residents cared most about the outcome, it was up to them to build the necessary coalitions within the community and with financial backers such as the Riley and Ford Foundations. As the DSNI represented the community, it wanted to ensure the closing of dumpsites and the continued maintenance of both low-income housing and the area’s multicultural diversity. Because of the importance of diversity, to reinforce the community’s cultural identity, the DSNI created the annual Multicultural Festival to promote and celebrate the neighborhood’s diversity.
The revitalization of the Dudley Street community had a hefty price tag. Most of the funding was provided by grants from the Riley and Ford Foundations, with additional support from State and Local governments, which helped finance construction of the area’s housing project. Since their money was now part of the revitalization effort, the State and Local governments were interested in the best possible housing plan, one that would maximize the use of their funds and provide substantial low-income housing. The city of Boston also wanted to make sure that some of the legal dumping sites remained open.
I don’t think there were many alternatives to the course of action taken in the Dudley Street area. Anything that might have been done to improve the neighborhood can be considered progressive. Restoring the neighborhood so that it was again a suitable place to live was the DSNI’s main goal. As for the other stakeholders, I think the federal government could have played a more prominent role. It could be argued that there should have been some federal aide once the DSNI demonstrated both its political power and the community’s commitment to revitalize the area. And, in fact, there was some federal aide; the EPA’s New England regional headquarters did finance the restoration of contaminated hazardous waste sites, which would have been difficult for the DSNI to find funds for.
I think that the DSNI performed well, moving its programs forward mostly by generating public support. One way the DSNI generated support was by using the media to inform the public. Not only did it publish its own multilingual newsletter, it also benefited from numerous favorable articles in the local Bostonian newspapers. News coverage served to foster external support from local and state governments as well as to gain foundation grants. Another key reason the DSNI and the residents were successful at dictating favorable outcomes was their ability to organize and maximize their political power. Once the community was assembled as one united group, they were able to gain much more than several individual groups might have. In the end, the most central stakeholders were the residents represented by the DSNI: it was their lives that would be improved. Measured against the impact to the residents all other stakeholders can be regarded as fairly minor.
SECTION 3: POLICY MODEL
An examination of the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, indicates that the “group theory” policy model is much more applicable than the “elite theory” policy model. In elite theory, policy is driven by the dominant few; those with money, power, and political influence shape public policy. By contrast, in the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, the community dominated the political process of neighborhood rejuvenation by organizing its residents and working cooperatively with local government, business, professionals, and other non-profit organizations.
By coordinating the populace under the direction of the DSNI, the Dudley Street area was able to influence local policy performing environmental feats and keeping the DSNI’s vision at the forefront of the community’s interests. The Dudley Street district was bound to restore their community’s vitality and economic potential after decades of deterioration from white flight and economic depression, which followed after. Failed aide attempts such as the federal Model Cities program could not deliver any assistance in order for the Dudley Street district to jumpstart neighborhood rejuvenation.
Group theory can be applied to the Dudley case study because there is no “elite” involved in this environmental policy account. Groups, such as the DSNI, the Riley and Ford Foundations, local government, businesses, and professionals, helped fund and guide the DSNI conduct to properly transform their dream into a feasible reality. The DSNI had to convince and incorporate other local groups to subscribe to their plan for neighborhood rejuvenation. Some of these local groups feared that a revitalization of the area could lead to increased taxes and possibly dislocate the poor due to the swelling of the neighborhood’s worth. Additionally, some groups were nervous about the DSNI’s plan, which could jeopardize the district’s rich multicultural diversity.
Because the community represented by the DSNI has the largest interest in the outcomes of the revitalization process, they are the most important and influential group. There are many other smaller groups with small concerns, but on the whole, it is the DSNI, which pedals much of the policy process concerning the Dudley Street area. Smaller groups, such as local government do play an important role. Since the city of Boston would still like to retain some of its legal dumping sites, they must work with the DSNI to find compromises, which will benefit each party. Because the DSNI wanted to especially eradicate the area of illegal dumpsites, the local government supported that proposal by padlocking the sites. The city of Boston also was interested in helping to restore the area because the prospect of beneficial businesses as well as improving the image of Boston.
Groups such as the Riley and Ford Foundations were also critical in helping fund the revitalization process. The interests of these groups are to improve conditions with an aim to reduce poverty. These groups were eager to help the DSNI with its proposals because it promoted human achievement and demonstrated democratic values such as the residents organizing to increase their political influence.
Additionally smaller groups such as, local businesses and professionals had an interest in the outcome because a more improved area would help stiffen economic growth. Professions, for example lawyers, offered their services to the DSNI free of charge in order to give guidance, but as well as push their ideas upon the process. Local businesses were able to influence some of the DSNI’s policies in order for current establishments to maintain and grow, but also have plenty of room for competition, which would help, boost the area’s economy.
Another group with an interest in the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative was the state of Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection. They insisted on the clean up of contaminated hazardous waste sites. They were able to get the EPA to fund the clean up because of that group’s participation in the dumping of hazardous wastes. The EPA was interested in doing this to conceal their own wrongdoing and reinforce the EPA’s position on environmental justice.
Possibly one of the most difficult groups to get “onboard” the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative’s plans was the financial industry. Particularly the lending and banking areas had to be convinced to give loans to low-income residents so that they could purchase the newly built low-income housing. Additionally, the DSNI had to persuade banks to branch out into the Dudley area. The DSNI achieved this by gathering and publishing testimonies from residents about how inconvenient it was not having a local bank within their district.
Lastly, the local media played an important role in promoting the DSNI’s agenda. Although the media did not have a significant interest in the outcome, it covered the community’s restoration efforts favorably, and in turn helped draw attention to their needs. In the end, group theory is the essential policy model for the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative case study. It was one large group with a vision, which lacked certain powers, but harnessed the potential of group theory in order to gain political weight and sought the financial aide from various other small groups, which in turn helped make the DSNI’s dreams come true.
SECTION 4: PUBLIC AGENDA
There are several issues that were on the public agenda for the case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). Various issues that were debated consist of cleaning up the area’s hazardous waste sites, closing illegal dumping facilities, the towing of abandoned cars, obtaining eminent domain, keeping the area affordable for residents, maintaining the rich multicultural diversity, clearing the area of drug dealers, convincing banks to lend to low-income families, and finding sufficient financial assistance from grants and foundations to promote and implement the DSNI’s plans. One issue that received a great deal of debate was the remodeling of the Dudley Street bus terminal. The city of Boston required that it be remodeled because of its deteriorating condition; however, the city found immense dissent from the Dudley residents.
The city of Boston asserted that by remodeling the bus station, it was directly contributing to the improvement and rejuvenation of the area. Yet, although the residents agreed with the city’s good intentions, they became concerned that the construction requirements and duration would impede economic recovery of the Dudley area. Most notably m Dudley district merchants protested the station’s remodeling due to the fact that since the project would take 21 months to complete and that one of the area’s business’ vital roads would be closed to become the interim bus terminal. This would therefore cause a parking shortage and would drive potential costumers away from the area’s businesses. The DSNI and the area’s residents wish to see improvements rejuvenation for the their community, however, they concur that the merchants’ contention is valid and confirm that the neighborhood already has a shortage of parking spaces and any loss of space could send residents outside the community to conduct their daily business. Consequently, diverting money from the community where it is needed most. An additional issue that was highly debated was the proposal that the Dudley area print its own money, which could be used within the community and therefore keep money within the neighborhood. Advocates of a “Dudley” currency claimed that it was fully legal and that other towns had successfully implemented during the Great Depression. Although the solutions to these issues were high contended, some alternative elucidations were not nurtured.
A possible solution to the issue regarding the remodeling of the Dudley bus station could be that the DSNI with their right to eminent domain could obtain financial support to help build a parking structure on a vacant lot, which would alleviate the problem and would not hinder remodeling. The DSNI was the first non-profit organization to be granted eminent domain. The DSNI has a variety of vacant lots, which they use to improve the community’s vivacity by providing low-income housing. Then again, one or more of these vacant lots could easily be converted into a parking structure, or if too expense, simply a parking lot. Concerning the printing of a “Dudley” currency, a possible solution to the debate could be a publicity campaign aimed at informing and convincing the area’s residents to keep their money within the community. Through the medium of the DSNI newsletter and their promotional speeches, the residents could learn the benefits of keeping their money within the area and alleviate the need for a community currency.
The media played an important role in shaping public opinion concerning the DSNI, what their vision was, and more importantly how things were playing out in the Dudley street area. The media favorably covered every aspect of the DSNI and their efforts to rejuvenate the Dudley street area. When newspapers such as the Boston Globe discussed debatable issues, they provided their readers with a non-bias position. The media presented both sides of the debated issues and gave all arguments similar and sufficient coverage. I think that the media most effectively drew attention to the Dudley street district and all that was being accomplished there. Newspapers also heralded the DSNI for becoming the first non-profit organization to gain the right of eminent domain. And although the goals of the DSNI are achieved by long-term action, the media celebrates each and every small stride, strengthening the community’s image and their ambition to control their own destiny. The media gave equal attention to all the issues from what I have researched. I have also found that the media covered issues from clearing the playground of drug dealers to the area’s ability to grow its own crops. The media effectively communicated the community’s desires and fears. The constant overtone of the Dudley street case is that the citizens were in control. In a Boston Globe article, Ray Everdell is quoted upholding the community’s aspiration to self-success, “Residents have made it clear that they want this to be a bottom-up development, not a development where the master plan comes from someone outside the community who has no investment in the neighborhood.”
Mainly the issues that were prevalent were placed on the public agenda through community and organazational initiative. Additionally, the consensus over contested issues grew and was shaped by media coverage. Furthermore, the media helped create popularity for the community’s achievements and their representatives, the DSNI. Most of the issues were debated and received vast community influence over what decisions would be reached. Overall, the community worked together and found willing financial assistance from foundations and celebrated support in the media.
SECTION 5: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
It is not hard to judge the overall outcome of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative’s policies as positive. Based upon the DSNI case study, it is easy to conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs; however, to say that there were not substantial costs incurred would be untrue. One of the most obvious and significant costs related to the implementation of the DSNI’s plans was financial. The expense of building new homes was enormous, but the DSNI was able to fund the construction through grants and loans from the Riley and Ford Foundations. Although these groups footed the bill, they, too, benefited from their actions. The Riley Foundation’s grants are primarily designed for the benefit of Boston youths and, by providing funding for the DSNI, the Riley Foundation profited in that it achieved its purpose and reinforced its mission statement. Considering that the Dudley district was advocating democratic principals, challenging economic and environmental injustices, and improving the quality of life within the community, the assistance provided by the Ford Foundation served the Foundation’s stated goal to “strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement.”
Another cost exposed in the Dudley case study is related to the right of the DSNI to invoke the concept of eminent domain. The DSNI was the first non-profit organization to be granted eminent domain, which it was able to use to seize properties such as vacant or deteriorated lots on which the DSNI could then build low-income housing. While this was, no doubt, viewed by some as a great step in revitalizing the area, it had a downside: it cost some property owners the right to either retain their property or sell it freely on the open market. It is true that the majority of the properties seized were abandoned, vacant lots for which the owners were indebted to the city for back taxes. Nevertheless, the loss of ownership and control on the part of the property owners can be viewed as a cost. Another example is the impact of remodeling the Dudley bus station. While this initiative was an effort by the city to help rejuvenate the area, it also caused problems. For example, the closing of a main street in the area’s business district cost businesses customers due to the reduced number of available parking spaces. The initial concern pertaining to the area’s redevelopment was that, by improving the Dudley district, it would inadvertently create an inhospitable place for the area’s low-income families and, thus, destroy the area’s rich multicultural diversity. However, having the residents fully involved in setting the agenda mitigated this fear, by establishing a process through which changes were dictated from the bottom up, instead of from the top down.
Although there were costs incurred, the fact is that the area was in such a shambles that the district could only benefit from any improvement. The first real gain experienced by the district was related to the DSNI’s success in prohibiting illegal dumping sites within the Dudley area. No doubt this had a negative impact on those who were dumping, but since the dumping was illegal, the individuals involved hardly need to be considered in the equation. The city of Boston was affected by the Dudley area residents’ demand for environmental justice. By acknowledging that the DSNI’s claims for environmental justice were legitimate, the city obligated itself to take action, and absorb the related expense. One financial cost incurred by the city in cleaning up the Dudley Street area was funding the removal of abandoned cars. The city also had to give up some of its legal dumping sites in order to avoid appearing hypocritical. When the DSNI was granted eminent domain after a four-year court battle, the city lost ownership of numerous properties, which it had obtained through abandonment and repossession for back taxes.
When the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection declared parts of the Dudley area to be hazardous wastes sites, the EPA bore the brunt of the responsibility for remediation. The community as a whole would benefit from the EPA action, but, most importantly, the health of children would be improved due to the clean up of large amounts of lead, the cost of which would be picked up by the EPA. By accepting the fact that they had used the Dudley area as a dumping ground for hazardous materials and the equipment used for clean up of such materials, the EPA admitted that it had been environmentally discriminatory. The majority of the costs related to the Dudley area initiatives were assumed by the Riley and Ford Foundations and the city of Boston. The majority of the benefits were enjoyed by the residents. The case study of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative is a wonderful example of a community taking its destiny into its own hands and putting the burden for financing the rejuvenation not on the Dudley Street residents, but on the city, with additional funding raised through grants and loans from private organizations.
It is quite difficult to propose an alternative policy for the Dudley street area. Incremental policy has occurred in the area to implement changes. Basically, small steps and feats have more of an effect than one single all-encompassing policy shift. If I were to propose that the Dudley area take any alternate route, I would still rely on incremental changes. However, I would propose having a much greater idea of what goals the community was striving for. For example, I would gather data from the community and try to understand the residents’ greatest aspirations and grievances. Then I would create an agenda made up of a series of goals ranging from small to large. This agenda would then have time frames and identify multiple paths for achieving the goals. If one route failed, there would be others to try before moving on to another goal. In the case of the remodeling of Dudley station, I would have encouraged the DSNI to use its right of eminent domain to pave one of two properties close to the business district, to provide the needed parking spaces while the construction was underway. I would also have lobbied the businesses in the area to contribute a small amount to the cost of the parking lots, since it would be to their benefit and would improve the chance of keeping their businesses operational. For funding projects such as construction of low-income housing and a town center, I would not only look for grants, but would also canvas the prosperous businesses of Boston for contributions. As business people they would benefit from the enhancement of the city’s image and the positive press they would accrue by being generous. Furthermore, I would push for more political representation by having the residents write to their representatives.
Needless to say, the policies implemented in the Dudley street case study demonstrate the power of group theory, especially in situations where there is no money for start up and no political clout. The residents of the Dudley area took the initiative and drove revitalization of their community. I feel that the policies that they pursued were crucial to the area’s rejuvenation and created a better living for the residents. Considering the level of success that was achieved, I would propose many of the same policies with only minimal differences. The area is not completely rehabilitated and crime and drug use are still persistent in the neighborhood, however, the progress of the DSNI has begun to eclipse the negative aspects of the neighborhood. In order to continue progress in the area, the community must never give up its hope for a better neighborhood, because the forces that brought the Dudley street area to ruins still exist and could once again impede progress if problems are left unattended.
REFERENCES
A Roxbury development plan gains currency; CITY WEEKLY. The Boston
Globe, September 7, 1997.
Area merchants fear Dudley Station construction. The Boston Globe, August 15, 1989
Building demolition in Roxbury spurs fears of more blight. The Boston Globe, August 8,
1993.
Becoming good neighbors; One step at a time, residents of Dudley Street are establishing
their own rules of the game. The Boston Globe, September, 17, 1991.
City panel names two developers to begin Dudley Triangle projects. The Boston Globe,
December 22, 1989.
Dudley Street’s vision for a village. The Boston Globe, July 16, 1997.
Layzer, Judith. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. Washington
DC: CQ Press, 2006.
Opportunity on Dudley Street. The Boston Globe, November 16, 1993.
The Ford Foundation: www.fordfound.org
Views: 360
Comment
© 2012 Created by Millennial Mayors Congress.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of Millennial Mayors Congress to add comments!
Join Millennial Mayors Congress