The Importance of Democratic Participation in Public Decision-Making - Article Example

Name Tutor Course Date Democratic Participation in Public Decision-Making Introduction As the world continues to modernize, several regions around cities and within them undergo great changes in terms of the infrastructure and other structural adjustments. Modern buildings are now being erected to replace the old designs and new infrastructural designs implemented. One neighbourhood that experienced such changes was the previously quite Downtown Brooklyn that was home to a few African Americans but rich in culture as it was the destination of those who felt like other parts of the city were too expensive to live in. This area has however changed to the greatest extent, currently housing numerous governmental office as well as other massive retail enterprises. Of greatest concern, however, is the form of decision making that was employed during these bold steps. This paper investigates the role of democratic participation in public decision-making in general and tries to find out whether this approach was employed in the case study. But even before the analysis, it can be agreed that this approach is the most effective during any decision making that affects the society. Downtown Brooklyn Downtown Brooklyn is now the third largest central business district within the New York City, after Lower Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan. The surrounding neighbourhood is popular for its residential and office buildings like the MetroTech Centre office complex and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower that have given the area a unique skyline. Since its rezoning in 2004, Downtown Brooklyn is undergoing a great transformation, with about $300 million public improvement and $9 billion private investment underway. Currently, Downtown Brooklyn is the civic and commercial centre of the previous City of Brooklyn, now with approximately 2.5 million people. The area has attracted so many schools and colleges with major attraction centres like the Fulton Mall, the New York Transit Museum and Brooklyn academy of Music (MadisonEstates 2). These current developments however, are a continuation of transformations that begun in the 19th century and a series of subsequent restructuring that has seen the rebuilding of the former destination for low class residents who settled here and made this their home, into an upper class neighbourhood with skyscrapers and huge business investments. The original occupants have been displaced and a wave of change has swept across the area, fuelled by government policies and corporate development projects. Transformations Downtown Brooklyn was one of the city’s African American enclaves that was majorly inhibited by people of colour and immigrants. Shaped by the strong history of the community’s local economic commitment, despite the extensive disinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, the areas small businesses persisted and the several independent shops currently owned and serving the local residents greatly helped cushion the neighbourhood during the downturn of the economy. The sustainable local-economy provided the locals that were majorly low income and moderate income families, with the vital financial as well as social supports that were necessary for their self-sufficiency. During the second half of the 19th century, downtown residential streets witnessed a huge change, as the nearby Fulton Street transformed into a major shopping district. Several old buildings and homes in the area turned into boarding houses for German and Irish immigrants, as industry and commerce made inroads. In 1888, there was the opening of the elevated railroad on Myrtle Avenue which plunged the whole street into semi-darkness. What followed was an upsurge of factories near the el (elevated railroad), like the Wilcox Millinery company’s huge plant that was designed by Parfitt Brothers in the year 1889. This caused the Myrtle Avenue itself to become the centre for local furniture stores (Downtown Brooklyn p. 4). The character of the neighbourhood was changing a lot by the 20th century as small enterprises storefronts were erected on the lower floors of some of the old houses. With the improved transportation, the area began to attract large-scale corporate and industrial companies’ headquarters. One of such companies was the American Safety Razor Company which built a big complex along Lawrence Street. In 1898, the New York and New Jersey Telephone Company’s office building was erected at 81 Willoughby Street. A block away was the architect Ralph Walker’s Art Deco-style brick tower that was erected in 1931 which, before the construction of the MetroTech, was the only skyscraper in the area. The idea of the MetroTech was conceived and advanced by the mid 1970’s by the Polytechnic University head George Bugliarello and Brooklyn Borough President Golden Howard. According to the two, creation of a research and development centre modelled along the lines of “Silicon Valley”, would go a long way in revitalizing Downtown core. The Regional Planning Association was commissioned by the Brooklyn Borough President in 1979 to study the Downtown Brooklyn and from this study it was discovered that Downtown Brooklyn could become the City’s third CBD. By the early 1980’s, it was agreed that the polytechnic University be designated as the MetroTech project’s urban renewal sponsor. A project of such scale required a developer who had a strong sense of public purpose so the Polytechnic University and the PDC agreed on Forest City Ratner Companies, proposing a project that was to attract big investments with thousands of workers. Far greater transformations have been witnessed more recently. As deMause points out, Joe Chan, the deputy mayor’s former aid now newly installed as head of business-run Downtown Brooklyn Partner, had witnessed as the Bloomberg administration fought for the rezoning of the 22-block Downtown Brooklyn stretch that was aimed at converting the previously sleepy government office area and discount shopping neighbourhood into one of the biggest CBDs to compliment Downtown and Midtown Manhattan. Developers had already announced plans for a number of mixed-use towers to compliment the already existing MetroTech complex that had opened earlier in the 1990s (p. 1). As observed by Furee, the rise in real-estate interest has caused the Downtown community to feel threatened while large development bodies came together to re-envision the region for more lucrative demorgraphics. The city planners had estimated that the rezoning would be able to generate about 4.5 million square feet of office space with about 1.6 million square feet of rental space. From 2006 to 2007, the retail facilities built in the area increased twenty times, from 33,000 square feet to 660,000 square feet. The City point, termed as the centre of the new Downtown Brooklyn, an $800 million, mixed-use, 65 story development constructed on the previous site of the landmark Albee Square Mall, was estimated to result to additional 500,000 square feet retail space. The trend then was planning of high-end national chains which did not consider the local communities’ needs, and long-established small-businesses were being displaced either by raising rents or through eminent domain (1). Fulton Street Mall was one example of the type of locally determined market place rapidly disappearing from the urban landscape. The mall, a thriving commercial centre, not only provides unique services and goods to the locals and the whole community, but extends its economic and entrepreneurial services and has established as a strong cultural centre. It also represents a rich diversity of occupants, including local small businesses, property owners, Brooklyn-based chains and regional and national franchises. Despite the 100,000 shoppers daily and about $100 million in annual sales, the $1.65 billion establishment is maligned by some people as a place that needs radical transformation (Furee 2). Seven years after the proposed rezoning, the Downtown Brooklyn streetscape and skyline have to a great extent changed, but not exactly as had been envisioned by Chan and his former bosses. Even though the former forces behind the rezoning envisioned the area to grow into a new office hub, Downtown Brooklyn has become the most recent Brooklyn neighbourhood to accommodate luxury housing towers like the Brooklyner, which has surpassed the Williamsburgh Bank building in height to be the tallest in the Borough. Several other projects are already underway to bring the national retail chains to the Fulton Mall’s traditional discount clothing and electronic store’s collection. The development of Downtown Brooklyn took a new turn when in 2001, a working group of labour, corporate and city leaders that was convened by Sen. Schumer declared that as the city office space was filling up, Downtown Brooklyn was supposed to be established as another commercial hub. According to the group, there was need to create more space to ensure that New York does not miss out on so many thousands of new jobs in the coming years. In a quick response, the Bloomberg administration with a huge upzoning of Downtown, allowed the erection of much taller buildings with more residential houses than had earlier been allowed. This measure was almost unanimously passed in June 2004. According to deMause, the transformation of Downtown Brooklyn and its neighbourhood is obviously evident, but into what isn’t as clear. Many of the local storefronts have been taken up by the jumble of beauty parlours, discount clothing and cell phone stores that have turned the Fulton Mall together with its surrounding streets a Mecca shop for the working-class Brooklynites. The Brooklyner, completed in 2010 is now full, the nearby Telephone Building converted to condos, this one too, after a slow start has picked up and has been occupied. Along the Fulton Street Shopping Strip, the public plazas and sidewalks have been rebuilt, as part of a huge multi-year project that cost the city $10 million. There is a construction site along the Offerman Building that was once home to the Martin’s clothing store, shows where developer Al Laboz is planning to open the first H&M clothing store in Borough. On Diffield Street between Willoughby and Fulton, there is a trio of hotels that now tower over the modest row of houses, disgorging tourists onto a street that was previously occupied by the 19th century row houses (p. 5). The original driving force behind all the redevelopment programs was to create more jobs; actual figures on economic impact of the redevelopment are hard to come by. The original rezoning arrangement promised creation of over 18,500 new office jobs as well as 8,000 construction jobs but neither the city nor the partnership can put a figure on the number of jobs that materialised as the redevelopment shifted from office buildings to new retail and residential towers. Generally, most economists feel that retail development is iffier than office buildings as far as job creation in concerned. As one among the city’s biggest business districts, Downtown Brooklyn’s neighbourhood has served an important role and has housed large corporations as well as Borough’s major government agencies. But as has been mentioned above, the area has witnessed yet another transformation by a boom in residential buildings and an influx of new retailers. Li notes that as per a recent report from the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, the local improvement district, there was witnessed several store openings, leases and new other new construction activities in 2010 at more than 721, 000 square feet of retail space within the area’s central business district. Also in 2010, 4000 new residents were able to move in and settle in 2010 with the district’s population spiking from the about 400 residents in 2000 to the current population of approximately 12,000 people (1). The area’s growth has been explosive, and specifically impressive in the middle of a global economic recession that caused a freeze on several construction projects with sharp cuts in spending from the government as well as real estate spending. Numerous residential buildings have, however, survived the downturn, and have emerged with a large amounts of units rented or sold. These buildings have transformed the whole area, coming in the form of large towers with upscale amenities which evoke the heights of Manhattan. Democratic participation in public decision-making today Woods points out George Herbert Mead’s belief that democracy has always worked out towards breaking down social barriers and vested interests that kept people from realising the denominators of conflict interests, that Mead described in his book Democracy’s Issues in the World War. He bases his argument on the observation that the main assumptions of democracy in the society of a nation and that within the society composed of different nations is that there will always be discovered a common social interest where there can be found the solution to social strifes. John Dewey on the other hand, in his work: The public and its problems (1927), points out that people can develop the thought that those changes taking place in the existing democratic machinery will be of a kind that makes the public’s interest a more supreme guide as well as criterion of government activity so as to enable the public form and manifest its purposes more authoritatively. With this reasoning, he concluded that democracy’s cure is just more democracy. Mead therefore developed his reasoning around his understanding of community, extending his definition of democracy that was instrumental in assisting with the implementation of Dewey’s vision of radical democracy. According to Mead, the concept of “social self” directly shows how individuals are able to learn through new trends of social democratic participation where they absorb and contribute new ideas by interacting with others. This was in agreement with Dewey’s conception of democracy. In Mead’s community, the shared understanding was formed through development of social selves. In other words, the formative community to which the individual belongs shapes his/her social behaviour in order to make the individual part of the group, which may not always be the individual’s community, but over time, this individual may influence the generalised other belonging to both the formative community as well as the other communities which interacts with him or her. Yet again, the individual may consciously influence various other groups’ future in ways that may lead to active commitment to the democratic process. Therefore as Mead discusses in his work, Mind, Self and Society, democracy is in fact and open process of taking other people’s perspective, a mutual process that involves re-negotiating and reconciling values together on how reality will be framed as well as what the community will involve in to more fully realise the shared values emerging from on-going civic communication. Thereafter, while the members of the groups infected with the spirit of democracy continue to interact with those members who have not yet experienced this value, the result may be an influence of the future of the world in manners that will enhance, preserve, and draw upon cultural and individual diversity, which then fully becomes compatible with and even becomes necessary to democracy (97). Mead sees this as the process by which the democratic spirit spreads, entering into the different attitudes of others, and leading to sociality experiences, which in his book Philosophy of the resent (1932), he explains to simultaneous participation in two or more societies or groups in manners that will mutually influence the individual as well as the communities where he/ she belongs. Such experiences diversifies and increases the inputs to the “me” that will stimulate the “I” to participate in reconciling social and personal conflicts, while at the same time including all the values that are involved in transformative and critical ways suggesting new possibilities for the social whole (Mead, 1932: 47-97). Such experiences, according to Mead, can lead to cosmopolitan integration and expansion of individual horizons of experience and lead to growth of interest and concern for the others. With this understanding of democracy, Woods proposes that democratic citizen participation is an integral part of urban planning, though the processes are very complex, lengthy, contentious, and costly. Implementation of these processes however, empowers citizens to collectively share their knowledge, facts and their values about the community. As suggested by other theorist-practitioners, democratic citizen participation can include diverse publics, effect long-term cultural change and influence public policy. Participatory and deliberative democracy has attracted interest from many urban planners and other theorists since the early 1960s. It can be understood to mean inclusion of diverse stakeholders so as to come up with responses to certain social problems through a process involving professionally facilitated deliberation that produces common community goals, values as well as objectives. The processes involved must be both educatively empowering and effectively influencing the representative bodies that have the power to decide on issues in government and the civil sphere. Its effectiveness as a tool for transforming communities by empowering local civic leaders has been aired out and used in several nations around the world. As John Dewey would put it, the achievement of this goal would require individual and civic long term investment in education of citizens in deeper democratic habits of community living. George Mead and Robert Park, however would stress that the process would also require adapting the existing institutions so as to respond to inputs of more deeply democratic communities and individuals Another theorist, Richard Bernstein, in his book The pragmatist Turn (2010), clarifies Dewey’s philosophical framework and argues further that Dewey’s analysis was useful in understanding the importance of effective citizen participation since according to Dewey, unless the local community life can be restored, the society may not adequately solve its own problem: to find and identify itself (Bernstein 83). Bernstein however observes that Dewey’s idea of radical democracy needs a robust democratic culture where the attitudes, habits and emotions constituting a democratic ethos are embodied (Bernstein 86). Again, he criticizes Dewey’s work, noting that Dewey gives little emphasis on the institutional analysis and the sorts of institutions required for a flourishing democracy (Bernstein 87). It is agreed though, that Dewey pointed out generally on the need of new kinds of institutions so as to fulfil his radical democratic vision. Still, Bernstein re-emphasizes Dewey’s reasoning about the role of consultation, persuasion, of conference, of discussion during the formation of public opinion (Bernstein: 85). Moreover, George Herbert also argued that part of the democracy’s meaning is recognising that there exist valuable differences among different individuals and groups. Following the ongoing discussion, it is not difficult to understand that democratic participation in public decision-making is an important part of the decision making on matters that touch on the society. But as Woods has observed, the processes involved in implementing such a program is very intensive and requires dedication. There are several investments that must be made and costs that must be incurred if a properly informed democracy is to be established, but the benefits of such a process are far greater. While analysing the case study, there is evidence of organised participatory decision making and before the implementation of major redesigning, there was carried out a study to access the impacts of such an investment and the feasibility of the whole process. In 2001, during the transformation of Downtown Brooklyn, a working group of labour, corporate and city leaders convened by Sen. Schumer reached a conclusion that the office space in the city was filling up and therefore proposed establishment of Downtown Brooklyn as another commercial hub. This is a clear example of consultative proposal that was aimed at addressing the need of the area. According to the group, there was urgent need to create more space and ensure that New York doesn’t miss out on thousands of new jobs in the coming years. Also evident during the transformation of Brooklyn was the displacement of the original locals who felt that their interests were never considered. The wind of change swept across the neighbourhood, pushing away the low and middle class inhabitants. These groups of people felt like democracy was snatched away from them. The changes, however, were for the good of the whole city, with major stakeholders and the corporate developers taking advantage and establishing one of the largest CBDs in New York City. Conclusion As has been discussed above, the importance of democratic participation in public decision-making today cannot be underestimated. As Dewey already mentioned, unless the local community life is restorable, the society may not be able to adequately solve its own problem: to find and identify itself. The implementation of such a process is the difficult task; as several theorists have pointed out, teaching and only dealing with the men and women’s mind will not be enough. Total implementation will require transformation of relevant institutions so that the positive steps taken towards achieving such democracy remains sustainable. References MadisonEstates, 2011, Downtown Brooklyn, retrieved on 12th November 2013 from Bernstein, R, 2010, The Pragmatist Turn. New York: Polity Press Dewey J, 1927, The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt Mead, GH, 1932, The Philosophy of the Present. Edited by Arthur Murphy, with prefatory remarks by John Dewey. Chicago: Open Court Press. Mead, GH, 1934/1962. Mind, Self, & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Edited by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Downtown Brooklyn, 2012, The History of MetroTech, retrieved on 12th November 2013 from deMouse N, 2011, Downtown Remains Contested Territory, retrieved on12th November 2013 from< http://www.bkbureau.org/2011/12/21/downtown-remains-contested-territory/> Furee, 2008, Out of business: the Crisis of small Businesses in Rezoned Downtown Brooklyn, retrieved on 12th November 2013 from Li R, 2011, Downtown Brooklyn looking up, retrieved on 12th November 2013 from Read More

The character of the neighbourhood was changing a lot by the 20th century as small enterprises storefronts were erected on the lower floors of some of the old houses. With the improved transportation, the area began to attract large-scale corporate and industrial companies’ headquarters. One of such companies was the American Safety Razor Company which built a big complex along Lawrence Street. In 1898, the New York and New Jersey Telephone Company’s office building was erected at 81 Willoughby Street.

A block away was the architect Ralph Walker’s Art Deco-style brick tower that was erected in 1931 which, before the construction of the MetroTech, was the only skyscraper in the area. The idea of the MetroTech was conceived and advanced by the mid 1970’s by the Polytechnic University head George Bugliarello and Brooklyn Borough President Golden Howard. According to the two, creation of a research and development centre modelled along the lines of “Silicon Valley”, would go a long way in revitalizing Downtown core.

The Regional Planning Association was commissioned by the Brooklyn Borough President in 1979 to study the Downtown Brooklyn and from this study it was discovered that Downtown Brooklyn could become the City’s third CBD. By the early 1980’s, it was agreed that the polytechnic University be designated as the MetroTech project’s urban renewal sponsor. A project of such scale required a developer who had a strong sense of public purpose so the Polytechnic University and the PDC agreed on Forest City Ratner Companies, proposing a project that was to attract big investments with thousands of workers.

Far greater transformations have been witnessed more recently. As deMause points out, Joe Chan, the deputy mayor’s former aid now newly installed as head of business-run Downtown Brooklyn Partner, had witnessed as the Bloomberg administration fought for the rezoning of the 22-block Downtown Brooklyn stretch that was aimed at converting the previously sleepy government office area and discount shopping neighbourhood into one of the biggest CBDs to compliment Downtown and Midtown Manhattan. Developers had already announced plans for a number of mixed-use towers to compliment the already existing MetroTech complex that had opened earlier in the 1990s (p. 1). As observed by Furee, the rise in real-estate interest has caused the Downtown community to feel threatened while large development bodies came together to re-envision the region for more lucrative demorgraphics.

The city planners had estimated that the rezoning would be able to generate about 4.5 million square feet of office space with about 1.6 million square feet of rental space. From 2006 to 2007, the retail facilities built in the area increased twenty times, from 33,000 square feet to 660,000 square feet. The City point, termed as the centre of the new Downtown Brooklyn, an $800 million, mixed-use, 65 story development constructed on the previous site of the landmark Albee Square Mall, was estimated to result to additional 500,000 square feet retail space.

The trend then was planning of high-end national chains which did not consider the local communities’ needs, and long-established small-businesses were being displaced either by raising rents or through eminent domain (1). Fulton Street Mall was one example of the type of locally determined market place rapidly disappearing from the urban landscape. The mall, a thriving commercial centre, not only provides unique services and goods to the locals and the whole community, but extends its economic and entrepreneurial services and has established as a strong cultural centre.

It also represents a rich diversity of occupants, including local small businesses, property owners, Brooklyn-based chains and regional and national franchises. Despite the 100,000 shoppers daily and about $100 million in annual sales, the $1.65 billion establishment is maligned by some people as a place that needs radical transformation (Furee 2).

Read More