I didn't see any “community” development sensitivities in Trustee Johnson's statements in the interview he gave to Steve Koczela; Johnson is of course the President of the Shorewood Village Board.
He seemed to talk only of real estate and tax base improvement and had no apparent feelings for the renters of those apartments, for example. Nor have I found much understanding of what “community” is anywhere else in Village Hall.
Long ago it was discovered that one of the responsibilities of community was the education of children, at which time this understanding gave rise to our public school systems. Schools were centered in the full significance and recognition of community. Public schools seem now to be permanently structured into our local government framework.
Of course, provision of the physical infrastructure and its upkeep was first of all one of the main reasons for local government. Funds for these purposes were then to be shouldered by property owners, distributed on the basis of property values. Property tax seemed the fair way to go, even though there is still some dispute as to the equity of this tax.
Many years ago community evolved from the personableness of neighbors and from the activities that relied primarily on walking and not on driving. Even today, I find people who may have been hostile while driving suddenly become personable and courteous on foot. Neighborliness and common interest in children's education and the interplay of children and the interaction of parents as neighbors, generations past, brought people together within an atmosphere of community.
Today, there are living areas where there's no one on the street and perhaps no one in any of the homes during the day.. Only the postman is any real indication of human life there.
Several generations ago, almost every home had at least one adult at home during the day, even if it was grandma or grandpa, they were often baby-sitters for one or more children. Now with two parents working and children in school or in day care, with grandparents living somewhere else, the sense of community grows quite sparse.
Yet those daytime people that do remain today socialize at book stores, libraries, and in shopping districts, coffee shops and restaurants and of course the children socialize in schools. As we begin to recognize these changes in our society, we should accommodate for community in the different ways suggested by the trends of the day.
In Shorewood, for example our community center, both in its physical location and in its social function needs to be understood beyond mere concept. What is there seems a series of insignificant centers that now need to be improved, just as we improve our tax base. We should see to the improvement of our tax base along with an improvement of our “community base.”
Each new project should be designed to improve our “community base” as well as our tax base. Each project should be so designed that it makes social interaction more likely and readily accessible.
The schools seem to be the place to start as they are already structured into our local systems. It is in the schools that we should begin to integrate many of our senior citizens with intergenerational education programs as well as with social programs.
Yet it is community business or community commercial activities that give “center” to many of these elements of community today. Therefore, all of our redevelopment efforts must be aimed at providing “community base” and aimed at an evolving “community center.”
CDA projects that cannot withstand a “community development” test should be rejected as readily as those that would not pass the tax base improvement test or the test of the urban design review board. What we need is a “community base review board,” so that we can place some emphasis on community. For communities do not live by taxes alone.
