Make government more accessible (This ran in Projo, January 2005)
Providence's government deserves its reputation for doing little to foster public participation, and ignoring -- or even resenting -- public input when it is offered. This is a real problem, as the legitimacy of any democratic governement is predicated on public input, participation, and support.
Things have begun to improve under Mayor Cicilline, but in many respects Providence's government remains deficient in its attempts to encourage residents' involvement in decision-making.
This is particularly problematic given Providence's severe poverty -- there are thousands of hard-working city residents who simply do not have the time to
dig through files or check notices in the newspaper. Inaccessibility is also troublesome given the large influx of immigrants from Latin America and
elsewhere who are already distanced from the operation of their government because of language barriers.
To make sure that all who want to participate are able to -- and that they believe the city will pay any attention if they do -- Providence must be proactive in its outreach efforts.
The city is required by law to mail notice to owners of properties that would be affected by various city actions, such as the granting of liquor licenses and zoning variances, and the expansion of historic districts.
Notice requirements find their impetuses in a noble sentiment: that those affected by such city actions should, at the very least, be made aware of them
ahead of time and given an opportunity to indicate their support or opposition. But
only one-third of Providence's residential units are owner-occupied, and so, in decisions which could significantly impact their livelihoods – like
parking, traffic, noise in their neighborhood, or, if property values go up, even the rent they pay – the occupants of two-thirds of residential units,
including most students, are left in the dark. The city could change this relatively easily by requiring
that mailings go not only to owners, but also to individual residential units, addressed "current occupant of." In most instances, the costs of mailing
could be borne by the applicants, and would in any case be insignificant. Renters
would not have the formal standing in these matters that state law bestows upon owners, but their voices would now be heard.
Even if notices are mailed to individual residential units, there is no assurance that their inhabitants will be able to read them in English.
According to the 2000 census, on the order of 45% of city residents speak a language other than English at home. The city does disturbingly little to
encourage their involvement in local government. Notices should be sent out in Spanish, and in other languages that are the first tongues of significant
numbers of people in the relevant neighborhood. And, upon request, the city should be required to provide translation to major first-languages at city
hearings.
The city posts notice of certain hearings and applications in the Providence Journal, but only neighborhood activists of extraordinary diligence can keep
abreast of all of the city’s goings-on. Cities and counties up and down the coast and across the country require applicants for licenses and variances and
the like to post conspicuous notice of their pending application, including date and time of hearing, on the relevant premises. To require the same in
Providence would lift the shroud of secrecy that many residents feel still surrounds the operations of city boards and commissions.
If we really believe in democracy, we need to make sure that all who are affected by city decisions are participants in the decision-making process.
These several low-cost reforms would do just that, and ensure the legitimacy of so much of the work we do.
[HOME]