Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Kirsch 4 Supervisor
Community Listening Session with CVR Associates about Golden Gate Village Disappointment
The following letter has been sent to Marin Housing Authority Executive Director, Lewis Jordan, regarding my thoughts on the June 5th Community Listening Session with CVR Associates, the Golden Gate Village Revitalization Feasibility Consultants.
Dear Lewis:
I attended the June 5th Community Listening Session with CVR Associates, the Golden Gate Village Revitalization Feasibility Consultants, with a sense of optimism. The event was billed with a worthy goal: a chance to meet the team that will conduct an analysis of two models Marin Housing Authority is considering as it creates an inclusive, cost effective strategy to revitalize Golden Gate Village.
The Listening Session, however, raises significant questions about the process, which, at best, can be described as manipulative.
- Of all the choices, why did Marin Housing Authority hire CVR, a Florida-based company that manages $2+ billion dollars in mixed-finance transactions and promotes its business with the slogan of finding “solutions for the Affordable Housing Industry?” The community is aware of the big money in the housing industry, and it is troubling to see such an obvious bias in the choice of an agency to facilitate the process. Shall we invite the foxes to design the hen house?
- The promo for the meeting promised an analysis of two models MHA is considering. Why weren’t the models presented?
- CVR distributed several legal-sized sheets of paper with lists of words about economic, physical, and social concerns residents have identified in the past. Community Working Groups have been meeting since 2009, maybe longer. Why wasn’t the previous input compiled and summarized, analyzed, and weighed against criteria? Why did CVR waste time collecting still more data without a framework for making sense of the current data?
- Why did CVR separate the stakeholder groups into different meetings on different days? Residents and community members met Monday night. Tuesday other meetings were held with nonprofit leaders, sheriff staff, planning and government staff. How does this fit a standard for “inclusive?” Going forward, what are the CVR strategies to build trust and transparency?
- Why didn’t CVR address the topic of “cost effective strategy to revitalize Golden Gate Village,” as was promised in the announcement of the event?
- Besides checking off a box to document that CVR conducted a public meeting with community participation, what was the point? Or is that your point?
- What do you identify as the outcomes of the Monday night meeting? Where does the meeting fit on a continuum of plans?
Marin is fortunate to have talented and thoughtful staff, councils, community volunteers, and residents who seek long-term solutions to the vexing problems of Golden Gate Village.
This Listening Session could be seen as a case study in manipulation. It was facilitated by an outside agency working on behalf of the building industry. CVR staff patronized participants and wasted our time. It ignored years of data from prior efforts and failed to provide a framework to make sense of any of it. It didn’t live up to the stated purpose of the meeting. It foreshadows an alarming future for low-income residents of Marin City that follows in the footsteps of “revitalization” as it occurred in the project you oversaw in Chicago; which was a disaster for residents who were promised they would not be displaced, but ultimately were never able to move back home.
The final question: How will you correct the mis-steps of the Listening Session and promote outcomes that are transparent, cost-effective, equitable, and yes, perhaps even inspirational? You’ve got many community leaders eager to work with you to promote a fair outcome.
Sincerely,
Susan Kirsch