And frankly, I think it’s time for the city council to reconsider what exactly qualifies a neighborhood organization as the go-to people[] to speak for a neighborhood. For example, the RRRI allows renters to sit in on meetings, but doesn’t allow them to join and vote.I’m pretty sure that the many-long time renters who live in my building and in neighboring buildings have rights and are affected by the Methodist expansion too. Renters pay property taxes — it’s part of their rent.
But I was really surprised to see this from the comments:
But yeah… do any neighborhood associations really represent their neighborhoods? The utter lack of participation in support of these organizations is alarming. It’s a classic little red hen story… the poor hen making her bread and no one helps her. But they sure as hell complain when it something affects them in a way that matters to them. Here in the uplands only about a couple dozen people (out of 375 or so households) are involved in any tangible way with the neighborhood association. It is frustrating.
Emphasis mine.
That was really surprising to me. I’ve always had the impression that Uplands really had their act together in terms of organization and participation. If a solid association like Uplands only has a “couple dozen people” participating, then what about the less organized ones?
In light of all this, I have to ask: is the neighborhood association concept really the best way for the city to reach its citizens?
A Dark and Quiet Room 
February 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
No, it’s not.
In my neighborhood association (one of several in the East Bluff), the people running it are elderly. They meet daily for coffee, just because they are buds and have a meeting once a month (if they get to it). If you haven’t been in the neighborhood as long as them, as far as they are concerned, you don’t count. The councilman and the neighborhood police respond to them.