Hispanic voice left out of Master Planning
What the City says about Community Inclusion in Redevelopment – is that what the community wants, or what they want to give us? It seems that the claimed Community Inclusion is not so. Last night, I attended the working group meeting for Market-Euclid Village Master Plan. The same historically oppressive schemas in Southeast San Diego arose; the single Latino representative was limited to only speaking three times during the entire meeting while one of the many Black community representatives dominated the majority of speaking time by working group members. Presently, the Latino represents some 43% of City Council District 4, 53% of the population in the Diamond Business District, and some 67% of the population in SEDC sphere of influence, and yet one single Mexican is all the city seems to need to claim community inclusion of a majority population. Or is this the entire city and the current power elite of City Council District 4 wants, out of the single largest population South of Eight?
An example of shutting out the Latino Community Voice is the Voice that asked, that interjected the fact that motions to have measures to issue truly durable and sustainable development were made part of the community plan. In 2009 the both the Encanto Community Planning Group (ECPG) and the Southeastern Community Planning Group (SECPG) passed motions requesting on site gray-water recycling, storm water capture, storage and use systems, and photovoltaic/renewable energy systems be part of all building plans presented. From what I heard from both the Chairman of the ECPG and the SECPG – thus far not one project has been presented that fit what these communities have been demanding all this time. Exactly why this is, could it be that the people who have governmental power in this barrio do not want to include, as clearly they have failed to represent, the Latino Majority? From what I heard and saw – for developers and for the city planners, the idea of building value into the community is not a worthy idea. A five or seven year cost recovery cycle is just too high a price too much of a values added investment for these ‘all outsider’ city planners, at least in an area which community equity and equality seemed to be always talked about, but never realizable.
The community attendees all raised items that have redundantly resonated through previous development meetings. Neglect of the community seems to occur because what the redevelopers seem to want does not coincide with what the community needs and avoiding significant items such as improving the wealth balance of the current residents is consistent with what has historically happened to communities like this. Impoverishment is a decision to neglect and development usually tries to exploit the poor communities for the benefit of capital. Only active community involvement and persistence of those whose voice is sought to be silenced must shine through for the redeveloping communities to actually attain some progress.
Rafael Bautista
San Diego
Time to look at the leadership at SUHSD
Thank you La Prensa for shedding light on the issue of the SUHSD superintendent and the boards lack of leadership. I have been attending board meetings for the past 7 months and have been pleading with them to at least look into the allegations. I have sent e-mails and still no response.
So I wanted to thank you for getting the word out and for this community to think about the students again and restore our district.
Maty Adato
Chula Vista