[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.only the town meetings of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecti-Yet for all the spirit of localism, America still has no nationwidecut continue to play a significant role i n local government and i n the6system of local civic participation.For this reason, the first and mostnation's democratic imagery.Where they persist, these spirited lo-7 important reform i n a strong democratic platform must be the intro-cal institutions are still cherished.The last time a town i n Massa-duction of a national system of neighborhood assemblies i n every rural,chusetts yielded its assembly form of government was i n 1922.Andsuburban, and urban district i n America.Political consciousness be-even where, as i n Connecticut, the town meeting lacks inherentgins i n the neighborhood.As Milton Kotler has written, "It is i n thepowers, its competences remain far-reaching i n a surprising num-8 neighborhood.that people talk to each other and amplify theirber of areas.feelings until they move to recover the source of value i n their lives.Urban areas outside of the Northeast have not enjoyed town-They move towards objects that neighbors understand and sharemeeting government but they have i n recent decades developed1 0namely, the community and its self-rule." Neighborhood assem-surrogate forms of local participation, both as a consequence of an-blies can probably include no fewer than five thousand citizens andtigovernment community-action groups and of governmental poli-certainly no more than twenty-five thousand; Wakefield, Massachu-9cies of decentralization.City charters increasingly rely on commu-6.According to the Municipal Yearbook for 1981 (Washington, D.C.: InternationalCity Management Association, 1981), fewer than one thousand towns today holdcouncil system"; Dayton, Ohio, has six participatory planning districts; and Birming-such meetings, a number of which are representative town meetings with citizensham, Alabama, has divided its population of three hundred thousand into eighty-sixparticipating only via selected delegates.The town meetings are concentrated inneighborhoods.Los Angeles has long had branch city halls.See John Hammer,Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,"Neighborhood Control," Editorial Research Reports 2,16 (October 1975).New Jersey, and Maine.In what is perhaps the best-known case of decentralization, the city of New York7.Frank M.Bryan reports that there is "overwhelming support for the town meet-revised its city charter in 1975 to strengthen the fifty-nine community districts (andings around the state" in Vermont in his "Town Meeting Government Still Supportedcommunity boards) into which the city was divided; the revision also merged andin Vermont," National Civic Review no.6 (July 1972): 349.strengthened the community planning boards and "little city halls" of the 1960s.For8.Max R.White notes that the state of Connecticut has delegated to its town meet-conflicting views on how well the decentralized system works, see Maurice Carroll,ings powers over local ordinances, fines, liquor laws, motorboats, sidewalks, blue"Neighborhoods Gain New Power in Political Shift," New York Times, 19 Februarylaws, movies, traffic, local school matters, elections, health and sanitation, highways1979; and Lydia Chavez, "Decentralized City: We Don't Pick Up, We Don't Deliver,"and streets, libraries, graveyards, planning and zoning, parks, trees, water, welfare,New York Magazine, 14 January 1980.recreation, and local police and judicial functions (The Connecticut Town Meeting10.Milton Kotler, Neighborhood Government, p.2.For similiar views see the works[Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut Press, 1951]).cited in note 2 and also James V.Cunningham, The Resurgent Neighborhood (Notre9.Decentralization and neighborhood control were introduced in Newton, Mas-Dame, Ind.: Fides, 1965), and Douglas Yates, Neighborhood Democracy: The Politics andsachusetts, in 1971; in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1972; in Detroit in 1973; and in PittsburghImpacts of Decentralization (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1973).and in Washington, D.C., thereafter.Anchorage, Alaska, now has a "community The Real PresentThe Argument for Citizenship271270gional and national issues (which might be part of an initiative andsetts, maintains a town meeting of nearly twenty-six thousand butreferendum process or might be on the agenda of state or nationalthat is clearly the outside limit.In a densely settled urban neighbor-assemblies), on a scale where individuals would feel able to partici-hood, a block or two can comprise the neighborhood; on a Kansaspate.Citizens could examine different legislative positions i n detail,prairie, thousands of square miles may be involved.assess the local impact of regional and national bills, explore ideo-Because the objective of a neighborhood-assembly system wouldlogical stances i n the absence of pressures from special-interestinitially be limited to talk and deliberation, assemblies could begroups, and introduce new questions of interest to the neighbor-founded as forums for public discussion of both local issues and re-hood that are not on any local or regional agendas.gional and national referenda without encroaching on the presentFinally, the neighborhood assembly would offer an accessibledelegation of governmental responsibility and authority.Civic edu-forum for the venting of grievances, the airing of local disputes, andcation would eventually engender civic competence, and i n time thethe defense of neighborhood interests.It could thus serve as a kindassemblies would become potential repositories of local decision-of institutional ombudsman for individuals and the community.Themaking and community action.However, the quest for neighbor-art of listening praised i n Chapter 8 would be given a home.hood autonomy and self-rule would be separated from the quest forneighborhood consciousness, and only the latter would be on the In their second phase of development, neighborhood assembliesassembly's early agenda.would become voting constituencies for regional and national ref-erenda (see below) and possibly act as community units i n systemsThe neighborhood assemblies would meet often, perhaps weekly,of civic telecommunications (see below).They might also come toat times when working people and parents could attend (perhapsact town-meeting style as local legislative assemblies for thoseSaturday afternoon and Wednesday evening on a rotating basis).neighborhood statutes over which the locality had jurisdictionalWith the meetings conducted as an open and ongoing forum for thecompetence.discussion of a flexible and citizen-generated agenda, individualsIn order that the neighborhood assembly be given permanence, itcould attend at their convenience, without feeling that each andshould have a physical home i n the neighborhood.Initially a multi-every meeting was obligatory.Free, initially, from responsibility forple-use building such as a school or community recreation hall coulddecision, such assemblies might be liberated from the partisan pres-be used, but eventually it would be prudent to find a permanentsures of sectarian economic and social special-interest groups
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Tematy
IndexGeorge Shulman American Prophecy; Race and Redemption in American Political Culture (2008)
Mark A. Noll, Luke E. Harlow Religion and American Politics, From the Colonial Period to the Present (2007)
Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari Politique et Psychanalyse
Andrew J. Dunar The Truman Scandals and the Politics of Morality (1984)
Craig L. Carr Orwell, Politics, and Power (2010)
Ryan Chamberlain Pistols, Politics and the Press (2008)
Weiser Benjamin Ryszard Kukliński. Życie œciœle tajne
ISIS. Panstwo Islamskie. Brutal Benjamin Hall
John D MacDonald Travis McGee 15 The Turquoise Lament
Brown Sandra MiłoÂść bez granic