Redeveolopment in the Motor City

Story:  Survey finds third of Detroit lots vacant; Positive news uncovered, too

This week I'm shifting gears a little bit and talking about a domestic case of reconstruction; Detroit. Detroit's isn't just facing declines in its population and economy but is also facing a continuing legacy of regional distrust, de facto segregation and wasteful development patterns. The result of these and other factors is that the city has been plauged with corruption and poor governance.

Detroit's current mayor took office with promises to dramatically change the way the city did business- and face up to the state of the city.  At its height the city was home to 1.8 million people, and is only home to 900 thousand today. Because Detroiters (and most Michiganders) live in houses rather than large apartment buildings this means lots of empty space. Already this emptiness can be pretty astounding- and according to Mayor Bing is extremely expensive to maintain (far more than the city has resources to do).

The Detroit Parcel Survey has just released its report quantifying the state of the city, and has revealed the city's most damaged and depopulated neighborhoods.

The following maps show which parts of the city are in the worst shape:

http://www.detroitparcelsurvey.org/pdf/reports/DRPS_citywide_vacancy_housing.pdf

http://www.detroitparcelsurvey.org/pdf/reports/DRPS_citywide_VOD_fire.pdf

Its obvious the current state of affairs isn't working. There are lots of ideas floating around for how to fix the city- many of which are alternatives to the traditional "rebuild everything to its orignal glory" model which appears to be an increasingly remote possibility.

"Along with the mayor, a number of academics and philanthropic groups are sketching visions of a different Detroit. One such vision has urban farms and park spaces filling the acres of barren patches where people once lived and worked. In a city of roughly 140 square miles, vacant residential and commercial property accounts for an estimated 40 square miles, an area larger than the city of Miami." WSJ

One answer being tossed around is to cut services and move people to more densly populated parts of the city. This approach- called "planned shrinkage" was used in New York City during the 1970s. Its worth taking a look at this Wikipedia article for an illustration on how they did it. Its rather ugly. In the New York case the city cut funding or did not raise funding This plays into the fears of many in the city- there is a history of demolishing neighborhoods in Detroit in the name of development, as was the case when interstate highways were built in the city.

Reasonably not everyone is convinced that this is going to go well for the people of Detroit. If Detroit were to follow through with a similar plan it would be a back-handed way of forcing people from their homes, and without compensation. They would be better off paying people to move.

Ultimately this is a matter of who gets to make the decisions. Detroit needs to leave these decisions in the hands of the communities its serving. There is a danger with mountains of external funding redevelopment policy becomes much more about making it look good for the investors. Detroit's people and its grassroots need to be at the heart of its transformation. They know best what they need for their communities. Can a master plan take into account these things? The corruption scandals of the last decade have done much to marginalize the community, and at best represent time wasted.

Who will redevelop these places, and who will benefit are the big questions. If the process of greening and repoulating the city degenerates into a land grab where agricultural companies and out- of-town landowners gentrify the rest this would not only be a crime, but would undermine some of Detroit's great strengths; such as its virbant and growing arts and non-profit communities.

I suggesst they add a criteria to these plans that would- the nature of community in these "suspect" parts of town. How well organized are people- an area might have a diminished population but also might be tight knit. It would be conterproductive to displace the people there. The data revealed by the survey will be instrumental to anyone making plans for the city- but building the future is about much more than how many people live in a place, but about what sort of community lives there.

The maps and data are from the Detroit Parcel Survey

Afghanistan gets murkier

Article: Karzai Criticized Over Afghan poll watchdog move

President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.

He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.

This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.

Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops. 

One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.

There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.

What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice. 

Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.

Trading Women's Rights for an Agreement in Afghanistan?

Article
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?

An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.

The gist of the warning in this article is this.

"A recent law has undermined Shia women's rights, a warning to others that political expediency can trump their promised equality, and an unsettling hint for the future. Under international pressure, Karzai allowed the law to be amended. But doubts remain about how far the West would be prepared to support women's rights once its troops have departed."

This issue will become increasingly  pressing as the discussion of exit strategies and end states come to mind. If Afghanistan is going to have any sort of peaceful future it will have to be one in which women can contribute to society. NATO and the United States will be working against themselves if they decide to sell out Afghanistan's women to save face.

That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.

A broadening of political debate in Bosnia?

Yesterday I attended this event hosted at the US Institute of Peace;



Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not

The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.

So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.

The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.

He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.

Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.

Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. 

In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.

My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.

Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.

The Importance of the Haitian Children.

Story: Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself 

On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.

It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:

"Sun Jan 23rd: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR [Dominican Republic]"

I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.



Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.

While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.

In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.

The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.

The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.

It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.

Empowering Who in Haiti?

Welcome to the first entry of Equanimity! Everyone is welcome to read, comment and stay awhile. Since this blog is in its early stages I’m open to input on its content and format. Thank you very much for taking the time to drop by.

For this first essay I’m going to be writing about the crisis in Haiti.

Haitian government gets just 1 cent of every aid dollar.
And
Haiti - a UN protectorate?

Together these two articles address the issue of who should be responsible for the relief and reconstruction of Haiti. The gist of the first article is that donors from the United States are bypassing the Haitian government and relying on established organizations inside the country to provide disaster relief aid. The second article underscores the international community’s obligation to help in Haiti, but then suggests that the best way it can help is by taking over control of the country. If the analysis conducted in the first article is to be believed than the sidelining of Haitians has already begun.

There are compelling reasons for relying on outside actors at the current time, when lives depend on receiving aid promptly, but this not good for the country in the long run. Bypassing the governments of corrupt countries is nothing new. Few donors want their money to go towards a new Mercedes for some corrupt official- thus it is common for money and resources to non-governmental organizations which then provide the service.

The problem in Haiti is that this is already established practice. NGOs provide many services that governments are responsible for. This has contributed to the privatization of the government’s functions. Thus the government performs fewer services and has less responsibility and less accountability. A government like this has less and less to do with the needs of Haitians and more to do with the adventures and intrigues of the elite.

Yes the government is corrupt, but continuing the long running trend of bypassing the government will continue to erode Haiti's government and the country’s independence. It was not only homes and schools that were destroyed in the earthquake, but the very institutions of Haiti's government. These institutions had already been in decline before the disaster. They will certainly need rebuilding after it. NGOs, for all the good work that they do are not a substitute for a government.

Haiti’s government will need reconstruction, but more importantly it needs a change in philosophy.

The protectorate article addresses this very thing, but comes to the wrong conclusions The most striking statement is at the tail-end this article.

"Given the enormity of this disaster aid alone cannot save Haiti, and certainly not with its existing institutions. Undemocratic as it sounds I believe the United Nations should declare Haiti a UN protectorate and take direct control of all institutions and the economy for a period of not less than ten years. During this period Haiti should be a tax-free zone with the cost of reconstruction borne by the international community (especially the US and France) as a form of reparation. During that period institutions can be rebuilt under UN supervision with local leadership in an advisory role. Democracy can wait until after economic recovery. And may God help Haiti."

The academic the author quotes (Prof Sir Hilary Beckles of the University of the West Indies) says several things. One the United Nations should act as the government and administration of the country. Second that Haiti shall not collect taxes, and the costs of governance and reconstruction should be covered by the international community. Third, Haitians will only serve in an advisory capacity; Haitian democracy will wait until there is an "economic recovery".

Can a protectorate be effective in building a clean and efficient government? A protectorate is essentially foreign rule. The problem with a protectorate is that it can be easy to get into one, but very difficult to achieve the goals needed to get out. In Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, the international community established a protectorate that has governed the country since 1997.  In Bosnia the international community oversaw an elected Parliament (this is less ambitious than what the author is suggesting here). Even with elections and somewhat functioning institutions this protectorate has been unable to achieve the goals for its closure- despite working towards this since 2005!  The approach employed by the international community in Bosnia has been unable to cultivate the things that make democracy work such as an empowered and engaged citizenry.

In Haiti the author is suggesting that a completely new state be rebuilt by the international community for Haitians. It will have an indefinite timeline based on the economic recovery of a country that has been in economic and ecological freefall for decades (I mention ecological because Haiti’s economy remains based on agriculture). Haitians are invited to participate as advisors not leaders in their own country.

How is this going to build local leadership? How is this going to empower Haitians? If the international community (or whoever takes over) creates a new set of institutions from above it will fail to address the politics that contributed to Haiti’s misery.

I’m not opposed to the international community taking a prominent role in Haiti. However any intervention in the national government should temporary and linked to discrete and achievable goals. The international community should avoid acting as a grand engineer of new Haitian institutions, but instead use its resources towards supporting and restoring institutions at the local level. The goal should be to create an environment where the Haitians can build their confidence and the tools they need to improve their government. This will mean pursuing both economic and political initiatives simultaneously- not waiting for an economic recovery before emphasizing democracy.

At the same time it’s necessary to address the issue of corruption and reconstruction at the national level in the near future. Taking responsibility for reconstruction would limit corruption but would further undermine the nation’s independence (further delegitimizing the government). Instead of bypassing the government more aid needs to be sent thought it, but with strict conditions on reporting and how resources can be used. These funds would not be allocated towards specific projects per se, but could be allocated towards specific competencies (roads, hospitals, clean water). These reports should be made available to all Haitians. Not only would Haitian leaders be accountable to their donors (funding would be reallocated to more honest players), but their constituents would know when and how much their leaders have cost them as it happens.

This approach would help reinforce accountability in Haiti’s politicians while empowering the Haitian people. This would do far more to rebuild Haiti’s institutions and improve the quality of life than a semi-permanent protectorate. In the years to come, Haitians need to be given more initiative and leadership in their country, not less. While in the short term it is necessary for the international community to take a leading role so that lives can be saved, if it stays in this role too long it risks undermining the very goals it seeks to promote.