Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
How does Haringey Measure up to Arnstein's Ladder
Over on the Help clear the passage post, kas has mentioned Arnstein's Ladder as a measure of citizen participation.
Here's the Ladder:
Where on the Ladder (Arnstein's not The Harringay) would you say we are in Haringey?
Here's the Ladder:
Where on the Ladder (Arnstein's not The Harringay) would you say we are in Haringey?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
The budget system in California allows voter participation via what is known as initiative and referendum. Many commentators blame this system for gridlocking the budget into deficit in California. Google 'California budget crisis' and you'll have plenty to read. It ain't pretty.
This article however from a professor of the University of Southern California, doubts the Californian budget crisis is due to the system of initiative and referendum.
The points raised about voter participation are interesting though when looking at complex matters of budgets at state (or indeed borough) level.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
On Matt's point - a recent area assembly in a certain London borough was on the issue of youth disorder and crime in the local area. "Something had to be done" to divert young people from crime. The councillor chairing said that if the second household waste collection (they got their rubbish picked up twice a week) was done away with, they could use the money to improve local youth services, run activities to divert people from crime and so on. The assembly voted overwhelmingly to keep the second rubbish collection.
The danger with participatory budgeting is that it can be difficult for people to look beyond the end of their street. It would be easy for me to vote to reduce the finances for primary and secondary education as I have no children and don't use the service. It would save me pots on my council tax bill but would it be right?
-
-
The danger with participatory budgeting is that it can be difficult for people to look beyond the end of their street.
Sad but true! Some call it the selfish gene. One only has to look at the HMO discussions on this site. Protecting their property prices rather than others right to shelter. If those people really believe in sorting out 'HMO hell' they would be campaigning the wider issue of the state of housing provision in the UK today.
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
There is more to the HMO problem than 'those people' 'protecting their property prices rather than others right to shelter'.
The 'HMO hell' is not due to philanthropic landlords trying to house the homeless in decent accommodation but has been caused by certain wealthy people trying to maximise their income by buying up viable houses and then, as cheaply as possible, turning them into rabbit warrens often unfit for human occupation, e.g. 4 bedroom house into 8 'en-suite' family rooms with no bathroom and a single shared kitchen. The conversions are very poor to the point of being fire hazards and the overcrowding produces slum like living conditions.
The landlords contribute nothing to the community, they leach off often vulnerable people, often leaving the neighbours to sort out the 'hell' that they have produced. They have the power in their wallets to sidestep the regulations to make a killing and then move on if they have to. I see no contradiction in campaigning against unlawful HMOs and at the same time campaigning for desperately needed affordable housing.
-
-
I see no contradiction in campaigning against unlawful HMOs and at the same time campaigning for desperately needed affordable housing.
Sure campaigning for both is the key. I just see little of the latter on this site.
''The whole picture'' is very important to understand re the housing crisis in this country. If we look at London we see a growing population, continuing upward trends in divorce and people living longer, all putting continuing pressure on the need for more housing units, be they more flats within what were houses or new housing developments. But for the latter type of development we see the lowest new build rate of any govt for decades, a continuing insistence by the likes of the CPRE that no greenbelt shall be built upon and a trend away from tower development (or building up) because of the backlash against poorly built sixties tower blocks.
Something has got to give. Otherwise HMOs will simply increase in number.
-
-
In general I agree Matt, but how to move housing higher up the agenda on a local and national level to produce real change. How do we climb up Arnstein's Ladder and gain some 'citizen power' on this issue?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on
-
...continuing upward trends in divorce...
Actually divorce rates have fallen in recent years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6970367.stm
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=170
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/29/4
Sorry to go off topic. -
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Winston Churchill probably didn't say that women were meringues or even trifles. But I'm pretty sure he did say:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
He seems to have said it at a time when he'd lost a General Election. In other words, when events meant he was the 'loser'.
I am not naive enough to believe that if everyone somehow got together and understood "the whole picture" there would be harmonious consensus on what we should do about a problem. For decades I've listened to that sort of twaddle from community development 'experts'. Including the recent variation which talks about 'partners' and 'stakeholders' sitting round the table and making decisions; when the truth is that the various parties often have conflicting interests and enormous disparities of power.
Enormous disparity of power and influence, with the exclusion of the 'have-nots' in an affluent society is Sherry Arnstein's starting point. It is the message of the May '68 poster below.
I do though, believe there is such a thing as society. What makes me a socialist is my conviction - and observation - that people can act with altruism, generosity, solidarity and love. But that even on the basis of a hard-headed calculation of mutual self-interest, it's possible to thrash out agreements between people, groups, classes and even nations.
If fact it's not just possible. Because of global environmental problems, it's now a matter of life and death. As Jared Diamond illustrates, we are now "all in the same polder".
-
-
My previous post probably made me sound like a misanthrope but I agree with you Alan, most people are essentially generous and caring most of the time.
I think that part of the problem is that successive governments (of all hues) haven't really wanted people to think and decide for themselves because "it" is far too complicated for us ordinary folk to work out.
The youth provision versus rubbish collection example to a bit of extreme one I agree, but its one that used to rubbish the idea of local democracy.
I like the idea of a participatory democracy that also places the emphasis on participatory responsibility and clarity about the outcome of decisions people and organisations make.
-
-
I have some problems with this.
Probably, like thousands of people who've attended some short community work course, this "ladder" was one of the hand-outs. I've also seen it in slightly different formats - presented by consultants. You can see why. It seems to offer simplicity and insight into a complex and often muddy area.
But do click Hugh's link above and read the full (but still short) article. Arnstein gives some important cautions - describing her ladder as a "simplistic abstraction". Several of her other observations are probably more relevant in Haringey than the ladder itself.
Sherry Arnstein was writing in 1969. As she makes clear, the article was influenced by "last Spring" ─ the Paris events of May '68. She reproduces this poster.
The history is important. For one thing, the working-through of the ideas of the May '68 generation filled-in some important gaps which Arnstein acknowledged. In particular, the Women's Movement and Green Movement explored the link between participatory processes and empowering outcomes. Whether at work or out in the community: How you do it is what you get.
I wanted to know what Sherry Arnstein herself thought of the article, forty years later. Sadly, I read that she died in 1997. So I couldn't email and ask her. If anyone has come across her later published views, I'd welcome the link.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
They had a referendum in Bristol in 2001, with the options being freezing council tax, a 2% rise (which would still lead to a £2.2 million cut in services), a 4% rise (which would mean the budget effectively stood still) or a 6% rise (extra £2.2 million for education). Afraid I can't remember the circumstances which led to it, but it was the first time a referendum had been used to decide these things. The outcome? The majority voted for freezing council taxes, an option that the Council at the time said would have devastating effects on the city. More here. I'd love to know what the view in Bristol is on this now.
There are these things called deliberative polls which have been used in the US to make decisions on things like the siting of power plants - a large group of citizens are surveyed, then invited to a fairly intensive discussion (including Q&A) on the issues, and then resurveyed. The devil of course is in the discussion - who attends, how it is chaired etc etc - as well as in who participates. But at least is a way of ensuring that local people are given a chance to find out about an issue and let the powers that be know what they think.
-
-
Seems to me, Alison, that there's a difference between starting "cold" with a referendum, compared with process of debate, discussion and building judgement. I haven't taken part in a "deliberative democracy" initiative. But what I've read suggests it has great potential. I've asked my colleagues to try this type of approach for the Finsbury Park Five-a-side proposal.
Googling "deliberative democracy" gives interesting links - like the Centre in Stanford University.
There are many similar - or perhaps similar sounding - initiatives. In planning for example, methods like Planning for Real developed in the U.K. Or the U.S. charrette.
Though I agree too, about risks and weaknesses. Who attends and who doesn't? Are there 'loud voices' who get listened to? Or pressure groups and interested parties openly (or secretly) organising and claiming to represent 'the community'?
Doing consultation properly is costly and takes time. Often, funds are very limited and the money has to be spent quickly. So, with the best intentions, officials and politicians opt for something concrete - a building, staff to run a service - rather than extensive consultation about a service.
But at heart, this approach points to a fundamentally different way of making decisions. It’s like being a member of a jury. Or a work group which problem-solves by inviting, listening to and respecting one another’s judgement and experience. One ingredient for success is this information-sharing and co-learning, not just by professionals, but with residents. Which will only work when key data and information is freely available.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
