....fluhfil‘dhi-q .1 ‘ ‘Q—ogiuo‘EIJqu' .....u ...I..I-001o.10.'010.0 .0 ‘ .0.!900.............r.0....-v_. n.... .. .. 0 .I #04110 - 0.... c“ 5% 00‘9‘M60|00 .0AO.+00 00:. .09....«0‘ Q0000 0. . ‘.. ... y... . 4 t 00 - V 000.90'00.00..00..0-00.00000.0. 00. 0 ... W)“ .000 0 0.....H0A. 0. ... .0“.0I. to“ 0........ .00 000.10. 00 u . .0 0. r I... .0 . ... .. . . . . . . . “- sfi. 0..0. ..0 000.099.0000.00.00 . 0...0b00.oo ...!u. . ..00..0... . .. ... - ' . .. . . . _ .40W 30 .00. ..-... 0...0~.0|..¢00..00.00. ...._ . . ... .. . . . .0.-:03 ...00 0.1.0....30000009000.0v‘00!..000..... 0.0 ......:.0..........1...0..0 ..... .. ..0.... . . . . . .. _ .900."1..s~ . ..0. .0..00...01000 ...00. .%.0..0..u_ . .. .4 .. .. ' . fit 0‘0u0vr00. 00H00’4 0H...-00.0.00.0.0_n.0010.00.0.\.. ..0. ...—1.1.00 ..0 .0 0. ”‘0.J0.0..A. 0 u. .v.. . v9... . . . ... a . 0 . ... ._ ......... ... 00 .5.0‘ y... 0....0..0.'. 000......00.00. 00.00.. 0 0 0..... . .0 .0. . . . . . . . . ... ..... .0.0. 40......‘03‘0‘ 0100 .0 0.0%...0 5.00000....00. ...... 00.000”. 000...:00.0 no. 0 ....v.......0. .0..0.000. v. . . .-.. .0... v . .. . r J . . . n . .. .0 . u . 000001,.{0031 40" ..0“ 0.0.00.0...0. 0.0... 0 0.0.0.0.. v.0...00000 .. ... 0 . y . . ... . .. . . . . 0 o . . ......fauy ./.00o. 0..:0.001. 0:03 P... _ “no 0v...0“o..f.... 0..0.:0. V0100..0Q..000.000.0....0 ..0-... 00. .....0..... . . 0 . . . . 0. . . .. . .-00v. . 0 O.0.0:0.000« 4.00.000, rv/J . ... ‘00 00.. fi’“. 1.0....00..- .... ......_. .. . - 0 ... . .. . .. .. . .. . . ... o .. .. . .......0.0 .... .. .0. ....pwr, .. .... .r.000‘0:00.0000<.0.r~010.0 .:.0\000r0....k.0. ...00.............v...00. .0 .0.. . .0 . I .. . . . . . 0 .... . .. .. .....0.r ..’04.00...04. ..ro. 300/ny 7.31.0‘p. .../.... .0.. 0 0..-0 0x 00 ...\.0000.0..000.k1.0. ....10. o... . . ...: a . . . . , . ..0 . .. ......0.v_..0.0. P009..a010 0.0.0.”... 0’ ...! .. .a.: .4 ~ .0 fi.0.0...00.%.0..0. 0.0..0r4.. 0.3.... 1.. ......o ... ..0...... .. .... .0... 0.. ... . . . .. .... . . . . .. ; ...... .. ......0 ......pr...0..0’. H . ... .4) ... .—.V._,W . .00....0.0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0. . 3.1.1... .... . . .... . .c .. n. .. _. ... . .0.. ......0. .. .:0....(00 ?: a. n... . .. . 0 0... . .00.... 90...—0.. 0.........001!.00....: ...... ...... . .... 0. .. . . . .. p . .. ...0. ............. 0.00.00... on . D J ...». V. _Y .r. \0 0... 00..0. 0. 0.00. o. 00-”.0: 30.0.3.0 ..0‘00 09“. ..v. 0.0... . ..... . .... .. .0.. 0. . . .. . . . . .0 . . ..0 .. .. n o. .. . 00. If. 44. .0 . v], 0 O ..0” it. 0.. I. I“. )II . v.. . 0 00 c. .0 . .0. .. .0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 .. . a. . . 0 . . . . 0. . 7.0.00. 3.....S0.§...000..... .00.. ......0 ......u. .. ... . ......... .. . .... .. . . ... .. . . . . . .... . T... .. . 352...... .........n 05.00.8005. .010... .r/ ”Jo ...) 0.. ‘..00.0. 0‘.0l00 05......09'0.'..o'.. ...... .0....00-0.. 0 0.." 0 . . n . . . . 0 . ... ..l o. 0 '..00000 ..0 ... ..0. O O .{JI .0X.j'.|00 ~010- 0. ..0. \....\.\ 0........0.u.0o..... .vor..... . u..... ... .... . . . . . .,..... o...:. .../... J... ..0.0.. ’00 .040.”0 9.0. . ...L .... 0. 0.. ‘0 1 a. Q . .0 .0. .u 0‘0.‘00...V0 ... .00. . .3..o... . . .. . o. 0 o. ... . . .l 0. ... . ... 000l00010’.‘ 0 0 00.. 'cf (0 I. ,.'/D. Q 0.0. 0.. 60.;10. 0.00 00"‘0..0. .0.;HLA0.. ..0... v. . 0...!0 . ..0 . ... . . . . . ... .-.00..._.-.1100. . .4 L0 4 ‘0 l J I . ‘0} 00”.. .0 0003.000. ... ....00470:.. ..0. .....t...0....0qo.. ...... . . .-.. .. .. __ . . . . . . ... . o..........01 . ... I..0 .0..0 0N? .. $0.. La...‘ 0.... 0.90 .0 ..0> 0.00. .7 0:00.00..0 .00.0-o........0 ...—a 00..0. ..0. 0... ... . . p 0 0 _ . . . . ........ . . ... .0.0 : ...J. 000 . ’ 1..» ..l .0 . 0.0 ofifln 0 .1 00.0..... 1.3.0.004 .0040'0..0.4r. .0 ... . . c. . . .. . a . . . .... o _ . ... .... .... .0?.....0.f”/ .4. . .0 “o .0 0 ._ 0..000.. .0.v.0.... :...0..0.0. 0.0.0....0......0.. v.. o 0. .-0. ._ .. . n .. .. . .. ... .... 0. ‘.0_.po . .00.. c. 0.00 'br‘ 0*... 000:: .00..10v 00\.0....v.'.0 0...... 00.. .... . .. . . .. u . . . . .. 0 .... 0.0....0.....o000..f’$0 0! 0 00 .0. 00900 ‘....\\9. 90 .0 00. .14 .h ..0. I. P.0t . 0 . . . .. 0 .:0'..V. .0...0.ol00 " at V0...- .. 00...:0400.m~0.0.‘0 02...)... .0~.0..<.....0.0:0.00 0.0...2....0.0..0......:.0 . ......I0.0 ..0. .. . . . . p . . . . . 0... a .. 0000.04....000.001.’0. .0 . .u ._0. 00 . . . n: . u . . . 0 . . . . . . 0 ....l . 0 ....J000.00(.A.0.0.00~’ 00hok}. ..v .0_\.. ......0....‘... 0(‘...~....0..._00‘0...... ... .. ...... . . . .0. . . 0 0 . . _. . . . . ..0 .. o.00..........0..0.(0.00900’V 00”.”.- v.. 0.. 0 00 ..0-...! .0. ..... .\. . .. o t :. .... . . .. o . .. .. . 0 .0 . .0....4..:’4... 00.. 0.00.01N0..¢00.o.0..:‘.0.I0.-0_.-0'..0 009......2 p.0..0..u.0.000 ....o.0 . 0 v. ... . u. . . . . . . . . . . .... .0.0 0.. 00.....0.0.v .PQAO \..1\00.W000.0\ ... ...0 0. o. .. .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . ..... ..A.Y...'.0.00 ’44:. 00 00a.....00.\ 00.000000000.0.. 0 0.. . .....00.... .. . .. . . J v . . . 0‘ . . . . . . .. . ..0000..0f0.po0000..o‘.. 0') 0 W00VW‘? 0:. \ 0..... . . . I. .y o u . I. . . . . .0 . . ...-.00.. 0.00. 40. 0 ..0. .....0. 0.0 ......1003 ..0000... 0 ......l'..0........0p.n0.. ....0... .... . o. . - . 0 . .. a .. ..0 ...0000..0.0.xv’00/ .0 '0 w...1.0o\0 0.. 0...... .00 .0 0.... . .. .\.. 010.. ......0 . 0.. v. .. . . . . .. , ... 0. 0....llo.010.. ” o . .00... I... 0\ 0....:v~\‘ ...: a . r. a s . .0. I. ... .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... .00.....0. . p.010! kofl ‘ 0000’.. 0? 100:. . . . ... . 0 0. . . . . ..0 v . 0 . . . . .. 0 . . 0.1.... 000.0 0.. .’ .0 ’4’ .v. ... 009. .0. ~..:v.0~0.....0 .000..1 . 0....-'.0'0 0. 0. . .o 0. .000 . .. .. .00. ... . . .. .. . .. . . 0011...: .0.‘ 0’0.‘/ . 1:00. 061...;00...v. . 0..r.. b.0.....0.0. _ .. .. ... 0 ... .. . .-. . .a .. n. . . . . ..... , . . : .... ...t..v .00..a:4..0’ .0". w o .0» 00 . 0'0. .00.0\0~\.I . . .0...,..0 .0 0. 0. . 0 ‘ 0 . .0 I. .0.. .. . .. . 0 . . . . . .... ...”.0000 f. I _ .0 ..0. '4 «0 .v 00... ...“...Lot. .0.“. v 0 0. .u 000... .. ....0.. .. . . . . . . u . . . ._ .00.. . 0 . .00.. .. . .....0 0.. .s 0 0 o . c . 0 . . . o. .0 ... . .l . ... . . . . . 0....- 0.:.. "0. . 00'0- 0 .0 . ‘0. ..0 0 .0 . 0 .0. . V . u 0 0 0 Q 0 . r. o . .. 1.... o 0 . . I . , . .... 0 . . 00..0:0.. . 0070 . [00.0.0’4041 00.0 . 0 0.”) 0000 O - 0 .o ..0190 .5? v. .. .0 O . . I. . . . . . . . . .. . O. .- 0".dl. 0.0.4. ’0 [A .. r0. 00.1.00. Ci 0.. . .. r \.. 0. .. 00. s .. 0 . . t. . , . . . a. 0.. .I. . .. p 00 (...0.00.Ooo'0 0 0 F. .. .. 0.0 . 00 0d ... .......0. .... .. .u . . . . .x- . . . . . . . .. 0.00 0.....00'. . .N 0. 0 I‘:.00'..00.0.0\ ..0 0‘ 0 0 0 . .. v c .. . 0 . . 0 . . .. . . .. .' .lc.0000.. . .).0.’. t a .. .. 0... o ..0. .0000000’- 0. . .. 0.0 .0 f . 0‘ 00 0 . 0 0 . . . s. . I . . . . . .. . ..o ..0 0.... ... ’ q .0 . ..0.....0.0.I..h. no. ..0. . . 0.. r . . . . . - .. .. ......0 ... I 0 0 .. ...0. 0. ..0:..0.. . ... .0 o. . 0. . . . . . . r .0.r. ...... ....0 a 0.. 0. .001. 0.0.0000 ...-0 . n . u. . . . 0 . o . ._ . 0.000....4 00 0- 0 \0 .0110 u. .0 0 I... .00. o . _ . 0 a. . . . . v. 0 . p . . . . . . . . . r. . . . .n . ...0r¢.0.“..fa 0.7. If] u L I .0000. q . . . ._ , . . . A . . . 0... .0. 00! 0:000 .0.. 0.000 .0.. a .0 . . c 0 . . . V . 0 0 . . - . . . u » . : 0 0 r . . . . _ 0 0 .I .0.. 0 01.... {‘0‘ .. ......0........... ....0. .... .. .. .. o . .. .. . .. . . .. ..: . ...0... t.......’ . .I" 0 . I . 0 _ . . . u 00 I 0 0. : 0 I . 0 ... .....t 0.0.:\0 . 0 0 . 0.!w .. 0 0 .. .0 0O 9 . . \ 0 . 0 ..0 0 . . . 0 . y . .0 1 0 fl .. 0 . .00!!!‘§”JJO . .........000\.0|.1,.0..0...-. .0s.p. . . .. .0 . . . ..0 . . t. . V . - . a . c. .0. n 0. . .900... 0'. .. ...: .. .... ... .. . . . . . ... . .. . . o . . .. ..........0... . a o w. O..\ .0\.0.0. ~ . .... n 0 . . . .. .... _ O 0 1. . 0.. 0 0 ...00. . . 0 0 a . . 0 0.000lo'0.l.0'00 0’ u. y . .. .1 .... ..0.\. 0. 0. . a '.I .. . n . 0 . .... ........ . . . r. . .. . . . 0 .. 30.00010. .03? O .00 . 000.910. 00 I . 0. .....J . . 0 . . . :. . 040 : n0 . . . . . . L. ....0 0034.000 v.1... T! u a nu. .0. .o . .0 .0.. , .r. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . ..0:0000:0.0.0r0 ..I0000.y '0' I . A II 0 .. . _ 00 0 . n . . . a p . .. .0.0 .0 . . l v 0.. .. ... .0.. v a .0 . 0 c . 0. 0.. 0 . 0 . . .. . . o .. . .. .40.... 00.000...0.o'..0009..... 000’“. . .. . . .0. .. 0. . .... . . . . ... . o .. . o . . .. . . .. ..0..0.:. ..0‘0. .10. x ’0. 0 c .0 .0..‘00. - 0... . . . ~ . _ , . .0 0 D:..'o..|..' 0. .f...‘ .c . ... 0 ._ . 0 . a. . . . . . . . .. ..0 00 .0 . .0 O "..0 ... .0030... . ... 0 0.. o. 1. . . . q. . . .. .. . . . .. ...: .....0-0’w0’0 .wAJ 0 v0! 0. 01". 0.0 10.| 00. .l .00. .. . 0 0 0 5 0. 0 . .. 00.. .. 00.0 :...000.‘ C.‘.000"' I 000 . .. .0 . . . . . .0 . .o 0...... [0.0 0 v 0 0. vs. 0 . ...0 0.... 10 0 . .: . . . . _ .. . . 0': 00 10.7.10. 0'.....i v . \0. .. 0 . ._J.. v. - ... O r .. 0 o 0 ...D. .0' ’00:...J503014. w... 0. » 0.. .0 .... . . . . 0 . o . . . . . . ... I. 0. :.')0V..O..0O 00.004990000020 | 0 0. L n n . . v0 . 0 . . 00 .0 .u. .0. 0\\0 o . '00 u . _ 0 0 . 0 o I. 0 . .r..000.r..:O!I\I .. 0.000(0ff’l v .0. . . . .. . 0 0 o ... 0' 0 0 . 0 I . . 0 t . I v I . . ..a. . 0 . of. .. ....7900. IJ|0000 0 '000 0040 0 010,00 ‘ n. s a . ... . .. . .. n .. . 000(.0:l IO'UIIX . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 4 .lo 0 v . ..0. .. 0 u . u . . . . 0 l. . .f..0.0040001..fid..r 0 or . .. . ... . 0 ... 0 . . . u u. 0... .. 0 0 0000 040 0 . o . .1 - . a . . n l. ....d: 0 0 0:0 . . . . . 0|. . 0 o-.. 0 .. . . . ... .0 .. 0 . ...0 lo I l ” .. .. .. .0. V. 0 .0. 1 .. u . 0.... .... . 0 .: 10(0..0 0. .0./.1r 000 ... . ‘0 . . 0 u I. . . . . 1.. . . .0 0 0 O .. .... .. . - . . .. . .. ..ll‘..o0...l' 0. 000 . . . . .. I . . . . .. a: 00000! 0 0 . 0 . u . . . 0 u . 0 . . .v 0 J 0 0 'c 000'. 0’000. 0"”M’mn' . ‘0 0 . 0' . . . a u. .0 .0.......0 0. 0. 0 . .L ‘ 0. . .. _ .00 1 0 0. .. . ..0 0. 40.5...r Ir. 0 . 0 l I . 0 0 . Oll. A A . . . . c 0 . . 0 . . a . c....0.f001000 0‘0 0. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. 0 ..0 0.0.00.00 0. . a . . T . ... 1 0 0 . 9. c. .J J....0..l./.’ 0. 0 I . 0 . 0 O . 0 .: 0 000J 0 ..00. I 0 0‘ _. 0 1 u . 00 . 4' o . a. . . u k. . 0. . . 0 . . 0 . .0 .....00.0 00 V n n In ‘. I. 0 .4 . l O I I 0. I o 00 0.4000 0... O I . . . . .0 0 0 . . O . . 00. .. . . . . . . . .. ... .0.... . I .J..0...0 0. 0 . O. . .0 0 I 0 n. 0 . 0 . . a . .:l0.... . .0000. . .p u . . 0 . . . .-.l.00 00.0 . . . 1 . . .. .. .0 .000..I.0 .o.00 . .. .. a n. . .. n 11:...” .a.... . 0. .. .. . . . .. v . . v 0 ... . ......o..:...40.0 . 0 . . . . . 0. 0 . . c D . . 0 ..0.. .... .5 00.0.1. .. . . . . .0 0 . . .. .. 0.. ./.0...r.:o0’.0.000.1.00000 . . 0 . o ... .490 . . . . I . 0 . . _ y , y ..0 0 100.0..I10 .0. o ,. 0 . . ..0..:..:0 . .n _ . . n o . .-...0-- .00-..l.0 . .f. 0 . . I . . u. 0 ..0 0‘ . V . . . ... .I r .. ..l'0010. 0:? . . .0....o... 0 0 0'0... .... _ y- . . 0 0. ..0 ..:l0o.r.0 . . n A 0 0 1: ... vlcvalll". . . . . . . . : ~ . . 00 0 n 0 I . 0 . .. . o ./0 . ..7 iduaouulc .00 '. .. . . g . . 0 . . . .. ...-.0....1..:0000.00 .004‘.‘tl_00 . . .-0. ...OOP" .. u. 0 . Ir . .0c.0fo 00 . .: '10 l!- . . . a 01 . .0 -00 .0 . . - .. a ...r0 ..0000 0 0.1.00 c . . . a . 0.. ..vl a 71 c 0 .0 0 b . . I . o .0. J. .0 Cl”! .00"0'f . a 0 . a . . o. . 00: v.00 .0.. 0 J000l0100 .. . 0. .r.. .0 .:..Oc 0’"..- . . a 00 : 0y. .. 000100000000 9.. I .0. ..00. ...lif'. .- 0 a 0.4- .0. 1.0 r .I. 00'¢.'I0 - .0.000000 0 0 .00000, It 00 0. 0.. 07...:ivdl0lu’. . - .. . o . . 0.0....0'4..100 1:10... 0 . . . v .. . 00: 00.10 I nil-I‘D. I. - . 0 v . I 0 .0.! 0 . . .0 . .0000! 0 o : . a .. .. : .. .OJ~ 00:00:..1. v00. - u . - . . a .- 1,000». - t’ O n v 0 . 0 0 00.0 Iztf'I.’ . -.0 .-.... . _ I .. _ I . . .r 0 lo. 00.0 nvrlv'dd '0 . . . - .0 . ..010‘701009 .. . 0 . .. I 010 ulall..0ollD . 0 n . . n . 0; ’00-"v'|!‘.'4 0 . .l 0' . .00.'| 0 . .. o v .. . 0.00.0600. 0 . 0 o . v . I0: . ... - . ...l.00 fr'0I0 .n 0 . . 0 0.1. 40'00’0000 '. c. I .0 I . . l . 0 00'... 0 n .. . 0. I: .I .I 0| .9 . . . v .. . 0 0 10‘ ..0010v .. . O n . . .o ’7 0 _ 0. .. . l .I'V. .. w .b . 0 . . . l. ...0. 0.. .00.. _.0'0l..‘.‘.rc W . 0 . . . 0..I.l.0l00...’ 0. fr. .. .. . .. . . . .- ‘0.nrnhafr’|‘.l|\lllllflov W 0 .. . . o . 0.o0/d'. 0 I 0 . v 10' I'on'.", 00. 300: W . . 00.0. ._ I . 000': .0-.. .. . .o. I t 0... Inf-Ola.‘ 0000 . . . _. .0 0. fl.raf. . :.o0. 0.1....r.".)o.00..’|o$! 0 D . w . . m 0 A. 0 . ... ' w w .. ‘ T. . m . n t . . .000 .0: . .. 0 *0 0' .0 .3 .1oipart0’00 0 ... ”hid. P'eo’ta.'¥r 0.”401.. .0’0'0 1. I 0 f’ ..0.“ .g 1. 1gp. . 0....nvn. .....vi 0 0¢.1000.0.:.o I. f0. Infiwgégimvolu LWJolfnavx...‘ .J. ..f.00.9.o000-r LfiQJL l..%000.r 5.“.0 . $0.; '0..0'.IJ. 0’3 0.0g“ .erxt...” 0.3.009052WH‘0000001Q4A 3‘... :04..le 0 .0 I I . '03. ”9‘0 . ”141‘”?d-..—~"°-..O.00:0‘.“M...70”§0WMPIMHQJV.'0&0”. ...-O‘NIWOQ ...0 “N'DI......O. .H‘fa.‘on’ MIKUZ.” \ ....l 1... 811.39.: J03. ... .. . ......Ln .. 00>... mum»? LIBR‘L " Y Michigansmtc . "‘M MAR 2 2 2005 ABSTRACT THE DYNAMICS OF RECREATION IN THE LANSING MODEL CITIES PROGRAM BY Robert Henry McKenna In response to the progressively deteriorating—fl urban situation evidenced by civil unrest in the early sixties, the federal government initiated the "Title I—- Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs," commonly referred to as the Model Cities Program. The recipients of this pilot project were envisioned to be the multi- expert developers of new methods for urban problem— solving. In subsequent years, as a result of the lessons learned in the various Model Cities, the concept of local determination of federal fund allocations was expanded and the Planned Variation and Revenue-Sharing Program developed. The intent, of both new programs, was parallel with the selected Planned Variation Cities becoming simulations and testing grounds of the local capability for administering the much more widespread follow-up revenue-sharing. The twenty elit Model Citie an excellen forces affe an analysis urban progr Fur innovative sideration, ignored tec recreation rElatiwa WC Urban HECes The the deline‘ they decis determined Lansing MC Programs, recreatiOI T] of both a doctments daring hi Gates tha t} lese Var Robert Henry McKenna The city of Lansing, Michigan became one of twenty elite cities to be the recipient of both the Model Cities and Planned Variation Programs, affording an excellent opportunity to study the various moving forces affecting new urban project development both as an analysis of past actions and a foundation for future urban program formulation. Further, within the broader context of these two innovative programs, Recreation, as a categorical con- J1 sideration, not only had to contend with the heretofore ignored technique of Citizen Participation in the recreation planning process, but also demonstrate its relative worth within the framework of a multitude of urban necessities. ThereforeL/this thesis concerns itself with the delineation and analysis of the moving forces, be they decisions, actions, events, or characters that determined the direction of recreation within the unique Lansing Model Cities and subsequent Planned Variation Programs, thus establishing a basis for future urban recreation systems and strategy formulation. The information contained herein, the product of both a research study of various model cities related documents and the personal experiences of the author during his two-year association with the program, indi- cates that recreation was retarded in its development by these various and often conflicting interacting forces. Robert Henry McKenna Although ostensibly a citizen—oriented program, the resident task force members were hampered by poor technical assistance, a dominant professional staff, and an unwieldy planning and review process. Therefore, Citizen Participation became a relatively minor deter- minant of the actual role of recreation in the total program. It was the City Demonstration Agency staff who became the prime movers in recreation program develop- ment; this situation fostered inter—agency intrigue, political maneuvering, and eventually, program manipu- lation. Further, in light of the difficulties of obtain- ing adequate recreation staff expertise, and the con- tinued efforts of the Model Neighborhood residents to relegate recreation to a subservient role, some doubt is shed on the advisability of having included this particular program category in the original Model Cities enabling legislation. In summation, although recreation in the Lansing Model Cities was a dismal failure, it did illuminate a number of factors that affect urban recreation program development. Granted these forces might exist to vary- ing degrees in most urban situations, however, they gained prominence, visibility, and finally documentation due to the unique nature of the Model Cities Program. THE DYNAMICS OF RECREATION IN THE LANSING MODEL CITIES PROGRAM BY Robert Henry McKenna A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1973 .ucilfi (.3 11‘3"in Copyright by ROBERT HENRY MCKENNA 1973 DED ICAT I ON To Ellen, Marie, and Joan, who endured much and benefitted less from my association with the Lansing Model Cities Program ii I n Hodgson of Resources 1 c00peratiox I v Ellen, Whos facilitated ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Ronald Hodgson of the Department of Park and Recreation Resources for his continued technical assistance and cooperation during thesis preparation. I would also like to extend my thanks to my wife, Ellen, whose constant help, encouragement, and support facilitated the completion of this thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . The Model Cities Program . . . . . The Learning Curve . . . . . . . Recreation. . . . . . . . . . Method 0 O O O I Q 0 O O Q 0 II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSING MODEL CITIES PROGRAM 0 O O O O O O O I O 0 Historical Perspective. . . . . . Community Renewal Program——City of Lansing. . . . . . . The Application Phase . . . . . Transition Phase. . . . . . . Mid Planning Year . . . . . . . City Demonstration Agency Structure Mid-Planning Process . . . . . Recreation-~Mid-Planning Year . . III. THE LANSING MODEL CITIES FIRST ACTION YEAR Plan Preparation Phase. . . . . . Plan Development. . . . . . . First Year Action Plan. . . . . . NARC. . . . . . . . . . . CDA Structure—First Action Year. . First Action Year . . . . . . Reprogramming. . . . . . . Summer Recreation Program—PN- ~30R . iv Page H doubt-4 ll 15 18 18 22 24 36 36 36 44 45 49 54 66 69 Chapter IV. THE rn Chapter IV. THE LANSING MODEL CITIES SECOND ACTION YEAR Summer Recreation Program-PN—3OR. Transfer of Funds. . . . . Second Year Action Plan. . . . Recreation--Second-Year Action Planned Variation Program . . . Implementation. . . . . . Recreation . . . . . . . West Side Community Center. . Fifteen—Month Budgets . . . Annual Arrangements . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . The Development of the Lansing Model Cities Program. . . . . The Lansing Model Cities First Action Year 0 C O The Lansing Model Cities Second Action Year 0 O O O O O I O 0 Model Cities' Recreation in Retrospect. Observations . . . . . . . Epilogue. . . . . . . . . SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . Page 81 81 81 87 91 92 95 97 100 108 113 122 122 124 127 129 130 139 141 Table Larn LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Lansing Model Cities Coordinating Committee, Recreation Recommendation for Fifteen- Month Budget Allocations . . . . . . . 112 vi r_fia Figure l. Admi LIST OF F IGURES Figure Page 1. Administrative Structure, Summer Recreation Program-PN-BOR . . . . . . . . . . 74 vii "Men The v; a maSSive the Earl- urban Ce Cities V life We. the Sut Were 13 ll burn more know gbver into CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Men come together in cities in order to live. They remain together to live the good life." --Aristotle The Model Cities Program While the decade of the fifties was exemplified by a massive influx of urban dwellers, seeking the good life, the early sixties tolled the death of this promise. Major urban centers were racked with civil unrest and most cities were faced with decay and obsolescence, the good life was accompanying the affluent in their migration to the suburbs. Those unable to afford this suburban escape were literally left holding the dismal urban bag, and "burn baby burn" became the popular form of urban renewal. It rapidly became obvious that although we know more about the history of the cities than of the moon, we know less about their future. Therefore the federal government began pouring financial and human resources into a somewhat haphazard attempt at revitalizing urban life. One such program emanating from this situation was the "Title I-—Comprehensive City Demonstration Pro- grams," commonly referred to as the Model Cities Program: The purposes of this title are to provide additional financial and technical assistance to enable cities of all sizes (with equal regard to the problems of small as well as large cities) to plan, develop, and carry out locally prepared and scheduled comprehensive city demonstration programs containing new and imagi- native proposals to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted areas; to expand housing, job, and income opportunities; to reduce dependence on welfare pay— ments; to improve educational facilities and programs; to combat disease and ill health; to reduce the incidence of crime and delinquency; to enhance recreational and cultural opportunities; (italics mine) to establish better access between homes and jobs; and generally to improve living conditions for the people who live in such areas, and to accomplish these objectives through the most effective and economical concentration and coordination of Federal, State, and local public and private efforts to improve the quality of urban life.1 The recipients of this Model Cities Program were lauded as pilot plants for urban progress, demanding a wider spectrum of expertise than had been assembled in previous renewal efforts. It was believed that the study of the various processes used in this multi-faceted attack on urban problems would start urban strategists on a "learning curve" which would progressively reorient, innovate, and improve urban research methods. On October 15, 1968, the city of Lansing, Michigan became one of a select assemblage of 150 cities to be awarded a "Model Cities Grant." Then Lansing embarked on lDemonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, Public Law 89-754, 89th Congress, 8.3708, November 3, 1966. the difficult mission of fulfilling the promise of this new program and improving the quality of urban life. Concurrent with these local efforts the Republican White House was closely scrutinizing this product of the previous Democratic Administration. On September 24, 1969, the President established a Task Force on Model Cities, chaired by Edward C. Banfield, Professor of Government at Harvard University, whose charge was to "review the current status of the Model Cities Program, evaluate its operations to date, and make recommendations concerning its future direction."1 The conclusions of this Task Force were encourag- ing to the embryonic programs; it found that, "the model cities program was--in its conception-~a long step in the right direction" but unfortunately the program had been "both over-regulated and under-supported."2 This somewhat lessened the threat of Model Cities extrication but in an effort to Republicanize these demonstration grants the Administration looked to the Task Force recommendations, the principal one being that: "Most federal aid should go to the cities by way of revenue- sharing rather than by categorical grants—in-aid."3 1The Report of the President's Task Force on Model Cities, Model Cities A Step Towards the New Federalism (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, August, 1970). 2 3 Ibid. Ibid. Thu mendations ' model citie allocation, the Plannet Sharing Prc The Planned Va] Model Citi. much more tained the f““dins 14 Chief Exe and elimi fOrmer W< Rgmney Lansing' Cities Lansing federal Primar‘. for th taken Thus based on this and other Task Force recom- mendations regarding consolidation of categorical funds, model cities continuance, and local determination of fund allocation, two new and similar plans were formulated-— the Planned Variations Program and the Federal Revenue- Sharing Program. The concepts of both plans were parallel, with the Planned Variations Program superimposed over the existing Model Cities as a simulation or testing ground for the much more widespread follow-up revenue—sharing. Both con- tained the basic elements of: precommitment of an annual funding level; consolidation of categorical programs; city Chief Executive responsibility for federal fund allocation; and elimination of federal review and requirements. The former would test the local capability for the latter. In July, 1971, the President and HUD Secretary Romney announced the Planned Variation Program and Lansing's inclusion as one of the twenty elite Model Cities participating. This uniqueness of the city of Lansing's Model Cities Program, the recipient of two federally funded pilot demonstration grants, became the primary motivation for its use as the object of study for this thesis. The Learning Curve If indeed the term "Model" Cities were to be taken literally, it would follow that these demonstration programs were to be the subject of imitation. However, the originators of the Model Cities concept viewed the program from a more imaginative perspective. These demonstrations rather than being solely the subject of imitation, would be the vehicle of clarification of the capabilities of new urban systems and the interactions between them, exposing flaws in the methods and means men are using to revitalize old cities and build new ones. Therefore, both the successes and failures of this program would provide needed information in the effort to redirect the course of urban research and eventually urban redeveIOpment. This learning curve of mistakes, redirection, progress, and hopefully success was somewhat hastened by the institution of the Planned Variations-- Revenue Sharing Programs. Both of these concepts evolved from the correct and mistaken actions of Model Cities. Further, since the specific projects or programs developed for and by any given Model City have limited application to other and perhaps dissimilar urban centers, perhaps the value therefore lies in the sequence of events leading to program develOpment. Therefore, the particular aspect of the Lansing Model Cities Program studied for this thesis is those moving forces, be they decisions, actions, or events related or ostensibly nonrelated, lU.S., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Science and the City (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1967). affecting project development both as an analysis of the past and a foundation for the future, in urban program formulation. Recreation Although urban recreation has been the subject of various studies both in its planning and implementation phases, Model Cities employed a heretofore ignored technique, worthy of scrutiny, that of Citizen Partici- pation in the recreation planning process. It was hypothesized that citizens working with technicians and professionals could forge needed solutions. The Model.” Cities elected representatives were, therefore, placed in the position of making decisions on a shared basis with the professional staff during the entire process of pro- gram development. Further, demands for performance and , production were, theoretically, not to be permitted to mitigate this citizen participation.1 Recreation, rather than being the sole concern of either the staff or citizens, had to demonstrate its rela- tive worth within the broader context of the multi-purposc Model Cities Program. This final dimension of the Model Cities concept isolates the specific subject of study, "the Dynamics of Recreation in the Lansing Model Cities Program." lU.S., Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment, Citizen Participation Today (June, 1968). Therefore, the thesis material concerns itself with the delineation and analysis of the various decisions, events, actions, characters, successes, and failures that determined the direction of recreation within the broader context of the unique Lansing Model Cities and subsequent Planned Variation Programs, thereby establishing both a positive and negative basis for consideration in the formulation of future urban recreation systems and strategy. Method Chapters II through IV provide a chronological delineation of the aforementioned sequence of events relating to recreation within the broader context of the development of the Lansing Model Cities Program. This commentary is presented in a manner to coincide with each of the Model Cities fiscal years and the extensive treat- ment of general Model Cities Program development is pro- vided in order to establish a framework within which to view recreation. The final chapter presents the author's summary and conclusive comments regarding the stated subject matter. The information contained herein is the product, of both a research study of various publications, docu- ments, reports, memos, and letters relative to the Lansing Model Cities Program and of personal experiences. The author, for a period of approximately two years served in the Continued Planning Division of the City Demonstration Agency in the various capacities of "Physical Planner," "Chief Physical Planner," and eventually "Chief Planner," directing said division. During this interim the author was either directly or indirectly responsible, in cooperation with the elected "Citizens Planning Task Forces," for recreation program development within the Lansing Model Cities Program. Therefore, much of the data contained in sub- sequent chapters emanate from personal involvement and participation in the actual events, with the supplemental material gathered from various model cities records assembled during this period. CHAPTER II THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANSING MODEL CITIES PROGRAM Historical Perspective Community Renewal Program-- City of Lansing In order to properly set the sequence of events leading up to the establishment and implementation of "Lansing's Model Cities Program," it is necessary to begin with the authorization by the Lansing City Council on June 28, 1965, of the "Community Renewal Program" (C.R.P.). Although the research and planning activities involved in the CRP actually predate the Model Cities enabling legislation, (Federal Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966), its operations and conclusions were a critical prerequisite to any future action-oriented program such as was to be the intention of Model Cities. Financed on a cooperative basis with local funds and a federal grant from the "Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Urban Development Department (H.U.D.) 10 under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended," there were five basic elements of the proposed CRP: (1) identify the concentration of physical and social blight (2) determine present efforts, and resources available to correct problems (3) define goals for physical, economic and social improvement (4) determine policy and program approaches necessary to attain goals (5) program projects and activities in a unified and coordinated attack on the social, economic and physical problems.1 The Lansing Planning Department, specifically its Community Renewal Division, therefore began an intense though macro-oriented investigation of the city, using such accepted planning techniques as "wind-shield" surveys of physical structures, employment and population pro- files and projection, identifying planned development etc. and retaining Adley Associates, Gladstone and Associates and R. L. Polk and Co. as program consultants. The Corporate City of Lansing was divided into thirty-four separate but not exclusive "Study Areas," based upon natural, economic, land use or social boun- daries. Each area was then subjected to the entire spectrum of CRP research and planning activities both as an autonomous unit and as an integral part of the greater 1Community Renewal Program, Community Description and Neighborhood Analysis (Lansing, MiCh.: Lansing Planning Department, 1967), Preface. 11 Lansing community. Through this procedure a pattern emerged of what is generally termed, concentrations of physical, social, and economic blight. The abstract boundaries of these "blighted areas" were later to become the actual boundaries of the initial Model Cities Program, encompassing the worst, by city-wide standards, that Lansing had to offer, and the identified problems were to become the Program's justification. With concrete evidence of Lansing's varied problems there came an apparent realization that there were not enough local resources to solve them. The CRP, therefore, addressed itself to the recently passed "Federal Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Develop- ment Act of 1966" as a possible alternative resource. Through subsequent investigation it became evident that a Model Cities Program might be the only opportunity to reverse some of Lansing's deteriorating conditions. As a result of these conclusions, an intra-governmental political campaign, with the Planning Department at its focal point, was begun for authorization to prepare a "Model Cities Application." The Application Phase The campaign was successful and authorization for application preparation was garnered. By March, 1967, the "Planning Grant" application was in full progress by an expanded Planning Department with minimal involvement of 12 nonagency personnel. The justification for no citizen involvement in this early phase was based on the fact that the then current activities were aimed at obtaining planning funds and no efforts were being made, at neighbor- hood problem solving and therefore citizen input would be premature at that time. Regardless of the lack of citizen involvement, by mid April, 1967, the proposed program had received wide- spread agency and institutional support. Offers of support and help came from such varied sources as the tri-county Planning Commission, the Dean of the College of Social Sciences, Michigan State University (M.S.U.) and the Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, M.S.U.; in any case the application was realized through the accelerated efforts of departments and fifteen quasi-public and private agencies within the city.1 Finally on May 1, 1967, with City Council Authori- zation, city officials submitted Lansing's application proposal for a federal Model Cities planning grant to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.). The proposal called for a total funding level of $160,582.00, $128,466 of federal funding and $32,116 local contribution. These funds would finance a lLansing Model Cities Program, Mid Planning Statement (Lansing, Mich.: 1969). l3 ten-month planning study to set the objectives for the implementation of a Model Cities Program. The target area, evolved from the 1966 CRP studies, was approximately three square miles of Lansing's core with an approximate population of 15,000 people, the boundaries resulting from the identified "blight" patterns. HUD promised to announce the seventy winners, out of the 193 applicant cities, by July 1, 1967; but by September, 1967, no announcements had been made and even though the number of applicants had dropped to 189 (four cities withdrew their applications) no date for announce- ment was set. Lansing was still in contention along with such other Michigan cities as Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Highland Park. Finally on November 16, 1967, Lansing receivedfll disappointing news; Senator Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, had disclosed the list of sixty-six cities to share in Model Cities Planning funds and Lansing had been rejected. Detroit and Highland Park were the only Michigan cities receiving approval (Flint and Saginaw were later added). Immediate optimism was voiced by City Planning Department officials that Lansing could qualify for funds set aside by Congress for second-year planning grants. By the end of November, 1967, Lansing City Council was calling for a second bid for funds, to be more aggressive and buttressed by Washington lobbying. 14 Through subsequent months the second application gathered steam and support. In response to a letter from Senator Philip A. Hart, D-Michigan, urging Lansing to make a second application and voicing support for it, the then Mayor Max Murningham and the Planning Director traveled to Chicago to meet with HUD officials; the political wheels began to propel the second application. By February, 1968, the Mayor had established a task force of community leaders to coordinate the efforts of more than fifty public and private agencies working together in the preparation of the second application. n An all-out political and technical push to have Lansing selected as a second-round Model City was underway, and through the efforts of the media, by early March, 1968, there was public announcement of citizen support. This pressure policy of selling the Model Cities Program was not without pitfalls. With the April 15, 1968 submission deadline nearing, charges by residentsi that they were not being given adequate voice in the / preparation of the second application surfaced atia public hearing, and since such widespread support had been courted the old justification that the application was just for a planning grant was no longer an adequate response. Therefore, last-minute modifications were made in the application to reflect the concerns voiced by the public. The proposed Model Cities Program, out 15 of necessity, was no longer the sole property of city government or other agencies; the element of citizen par- ticipation had become a very real driving force. ij Thus on April 15, 1968, amid some confusion and criticism, Lansing's second application proposal was sub- mitted to HUD. The request was for $133,300 in federal planning funds with a $33,400 local contribution and was in competition with some 200 other applicant cities. Pressure for approval continued both at the local and federal level during the intervening months, through periodic public meetings, announcements, and trips to Chicago and Washington by city officials. October 15, 1968, and the headlines on page one of "the State Journal" read "Lansing Awarded Model City Grant." Lansing had received a $128,000 planning grant to become the sixth Michigan city to join the Model Cities ranks. This approval entailed the future creation of a City Demonstration Agency and a viable citizen partici- pation structure. Transition Phase During the period between application approval and formal initiation of the mid-planning year a number of activities was carried on concurrently. The Model Cities was divided into ten districts, or as they were later to be called, areas, and the process of "Community Organization" was commenced. 16 Field study students from Justin Morrill College, M.S.U., organized study groups of residents and interested persons in order to familiarize the Model Neighborhood residents with the scope, goals, and concepts set forth in Lansing's Model Cities application. Then with funds 1 provided by "Ransom Fidelity," a local charitable trust, the first thrust of the Justin Morrill student volunteers was supplemented by staff supervisors and paid resident community organizers. These personnel were subsequently formed into ten teams of three, a supervisor, community organizer and student volunteer, and a team was assigned to each of the ten Model Neighborhoods (MN). It was through the effortslj of these teams working in the community and the support and cooperation of the residents themselves that elections were conducted and the Model Neighborhood representatives were chosen to serve within the Model Cities Citizen Par- ticipation structure of Policy Board and Task Forces. ./ Simultaneously, a Model Cities Director was appointed by the Mayor and an embryonic staff retained. Meetings were held with top level officials of Michigan State University, state government, city departments, local quasi-public and private agencies, and community- based individuals. From these meetings evolved an atypical consortium of professional and technical agency involvement, resident participation, and government 17 involvement, which.was to supplement the Model Cities staff and help Lansing's Model Cities through the up— coming Mid Planning Year. Also the seeds of a power struggle over city control of the new program began between the Mayor and City Council.1 The question of the need for Council con- firmation of the Mayor's appointed Director was raised and Council was later to wrest the sole right of the Mayor, to not only appoint the Director but also make any appointments within the Model Cities participation structure, and require City Council confirmation of all appointments. Thus, on January 13, 1969, one year eight months and thirteen days from the date that the original appli— cation was submitted, the stage was set for formal City ”" Council creation of the "City Demonstration Agency." Article IX City Demonstration Agency Sec 2-89 Created; general powers and duties (a) Pursuant to Public Law 89-754 of the Federal Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, Sec. 117.4 (j) of Compiled Laws '48 and Chapter 7, Sec. 7.24 of the city charter, there is hereby created an agency to be known as the "Lansing City Demonstration Agency," which shall hereinafter be referred to as the "agency." (b) The agency shall have the powers, duties and limitations set forth in the Program Guide, Model Neighborhoods in Demonstration Cities, the l"Mayor Forwards 10 Appointees for Model Cities Task to Council," Lansing State Journal, March 3, 1969. 18 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966; the agreements between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, known as "HUD" and the City of Lansing; and the Model Cities Application as submitted to HUD, approved and granted by HUD to the City of Lansing. (Ord. No. 185, 8, 1, 1-13—69)1 Mid Planning Year City Demonstration Agency Structure At its inception, the City Demonstration Agency (C.D.A.) structure was composed of two complementary components, the CDA staff and the Citizen Participation component, with each dependent on the other for support,§ cooperation, and information in order to make Model Cities succeed. CDA Staff Component.-—The CDA administrative staff during the Mid-Planning year can be best termed as a "jury- rigged bureaucracy," composed of a core of five profes- sionals, and five secretary and clerk—steno employees. Of the five professionals, three were on loan from other agencies or organizations, the Assistant Director-Planning (from the City Planning Department), the Community Organization Specialist (from Fisher Body Division General Motor Corporation), and the Public Relations Officer (from the Information Services Division, Michigan 1Lansing, Mich. City Charter, Ord. No. 185, 8, 1, 1-13-69 (1969). 19 State University). Only the Director and the Assistant Director-Citizens Participation were what might be termed full-time professional CDA employees.l However backing up this small core staff was an over thirty member temporary staff composed of Field Study, WOrk Study, and Volunteer Students from Michigan State University and Model Neighborhood Resident Community Organizers. This was the staff element which initiated and facilitated the formation of the body of elected representatives in the Citizen Participation component. Another staff element was also responsible for the implementation of the mid-planning process, and con- sisted of some thirteen professionals of varied disciplines. Though in the full-time employ of outside agencies, these individuals additionally became part—time employees of the CDA, in reality if not in fact. The need for these professionals was based on the premise that we are living in an expert-oriented society. Most experts/technicians felt, at that time, as one Model Cities director did when he stated, in the 1971 Municipal Yearbook, that he seriously doubted the competence of citizens, in making the decisions necessary for determining their own future. With this in mind, the ; J lLansing Model Cities Program, Mid Planning Statement (Lansing, Mich.: 1969). 20 CDA embarked upon an effort to try and determine the citizens' decision-making capabilities "with technical assistance.“ Lansing was in a situation where the staff experts/ technicians no longer had the answers to the problems con- fronting the city and regardless of technical competence, perhaps the citizens were a source of new ideas. It was also apparent that the entire operation could not be summarily turned over to the citizens. Therefore, a technician-citizen relationship had to be developed. Such an association was realized through the use of the aforementioned thirteen professionals as technical staff support to each of the citizen based planning task forces, thereby enabling the citizens, with the aid of the expertise and experience of the technicians, to articulate problems, causes, objectives and search for technical, programmatic, and pragmatic remedial action. Citizen Participation Component.--The face on the other side of the CDA structure was that of the Citié zen Participation Component. The primary element of this component was the loo—member Citizens Congress, made up of the totality of model cities elected representatives. It was these representatives, chosen from each of the ten MN areas, that served on the nine planning task forces / and on the policy board. 21 With the passage of the city Enabling Ordinance those ten representatives elected to the policy board in concert with eleven mayoral appointed board members became the only legitimate policy-making body for the CDA with status equivalent to all other city boards.1 The remaining ninety elected representatives, one from each area serving on each of the nine planning task forces, became the CDA life blood. The ten members on each task force in conjunction with ten appointed members on each were to be responsible for the packaging of the Model Cities program into an action-oriented agency. Those appointed members were chosen either for technical competence in various areas or because of agency association; the former to facilitate citizen planning responsibilities, and the latter to initiate or influence agency reform or change. The final element of this component was a set of three special interest task forces comprised of unique groupings of Model City Residents: the quasi-legitimate Spanish American, Senior Citizen, and Youth Task Forces had no real power within the planning process; however, they acted as potent pressure groups on the nine planning task forces. lLansing, Mich. City Charter, Ord. No. 185, 8, 1, 1-13-69 (1969). 22 Therefore, at this stage in the Model Cities development, the sought—after relationship between "Citizens" and "Staff" was one of "Parity." The premise_;" for this relationship was based on the circumstance of having an equally influential bureaucracy and citizen representation. The staff was therefore to be placed in a position of serving two masters, insuring staff support for citizen views on a quasi-advocate basis in order to maintain credibility with the citizen representatives, while maintaining some technician's allegiance to the various parent agencies. The system was to be charac- terized by a process of shared decisions if successful. Mid-Planning Processl The Model Cities planning process as implemented during this mid-planning year was less than simple in its conception. It was the first dedicated effort at using citizens in such an Operation and therefore a complicated system of referrals and refinement steps were incorporated into it to "purify" the "gut reactions" of Model Neighbor— hood residents to the point that the statements could be used as a reasonable basis for problem—solving situations. The initial step consisted of each of the nine planning task forces (now divided along program categori- cal 1ines i.e., Housing, Education, etc.) being ' lLansing Model Cities Program, Mid Planning State- ment (Lansing, Mich.: 1969). 23 familiarized with such base data as the CRP reports, Lansing School District pupil information, State Depart- ment of Health and Social Services statistics etc. The task forces, having been given a feeling for general model cities-wide problems as the technicians saw them, then went through a procedure of identifying neighborhood problems as they, the citizens, viewed them. Having completed this, the problem statements from each of the ten areas were refined with staff assistance and submitted as Task Force problem statements to a "Coordi- nating Committee." The "Coordinating Committee," consisting of the task force chairmen and technical staff support, reviewed the problem statements submitted by the task forces, eliminated duplications and problems statements over- lapping task force categorical lines, and decided the proper task force to address each problem statement. The statements were then referred back to the appropriate task force. Each task force then finalized the problem state— ments, identified the core causes, set objectives for solving said problems, and developed a task force priority ranking. The priority rankings of problems from each task force were then submitted to a "Ranking Committee" of representatives and alternates from each of the ten MN 24 areas. This committee ranked each task force according to the importance of its categorical thrust (i.e., Edu- cation,Health etc.), and ranked the problems within each category according to task force recommendations. These final statements, along with a staff developed problem-solving strategy, based on the voiced citizen concerns, were then sent to the Policy Board for review and action. After Policy Board approval, the statements went to the total Citizen Congress and then the Lansing City Council for approval. With these final approvals the combined statement or the "Mid-Planning Statement," as it was technically named, was submitted to HUD for action program funding. Recreation--Mid-Planning Year During the next months, operating on a "letter to proceed" from HUD and with funds from the city treasury, Model Cities, as a program, sputtered and stalled amid controversy, skepticism, and the mechanics of organization. Residents underwent a battery of elections for Model Cities representatives and voiced skepticism regarding the value and credibility of the program; one MN area even petitioned City Council to be excluded from Model Cities.1 The CDA staff, to what l"Model Cities Steps Slated Tonight," Lansing State Journal, March, 1969. 25 extent there was one, was retained and the search for experts to serve with the various task forces was com— pleted. Therefore, although the "official" signing of the Planning Grant Contract with HUD was not to take place until July 5, 1969, a delay of some six months, work began. On May 27, 1969, the Environment and Design“.I Task Force (EDTF) held its first meeting and Recreation, or the lack thereof, emerged as a concern of the resident representatives, along with fourteen other items. 1 The enhancement of recreational and cultural opportunities had been publicly stated as one of the Model Cities program objectives during the media exposure subsequent to formal announcement by HUD that the second application had been approved. Duringj the interim period, between October and May, any references to recreation as an important segment of the Model Cities program was absent from public announce- ments and media coverage; recreation as a categorical program area was suppressed. This was not necessarily a product of intentional action; the program, as has been previously stated, was undergoing a period of growth with all the accompanying pains of threatened death. Given this situation, the logical course of action was to concentrate media coverage, public presentations, and all public pronouncement on those problem areas 26 most prevalent in the minds of the Model Neighborhood residents, i.e., Housing, Health, Employment, Social Services, Crime, etc. Recreation, as a result, was relegated to the role of a silent, nonpublic, and in many instances nonexistent issue during these intervening months. This apparent subjugation of Recreation to other categories, although born out of political necessity, was the first indication of what was to be its subser- vient role throughout the early years of the program. It is, therefore, difficult to fault the early political architects, since subsequent priority rankings by the residents themselves were to place Recreation in the lowest position; so by default or intent this particular consideration was placed in its appropriate role during those early months.1 I The situation was different once the task forces” became Operational. The "Environment and Design Task Force," divested of the responsibilities for such pro- gram areas as Housing, Employment, and Social Services, and given the difficult-to—define role of planning for the general model cities physical environment quickly lLansing Model Cities Program, First Year Action Plan (Lansing, Mich.: 1970); Lansing Model Cities Pro- gram, Second Year Action Plan (Lansing, Mich.: 1971). 27 revived the latent recreation issue.1 Further it was not illogical that, given such vague parameters of con- cern as, "Air pollution, water pollution, Community Aesthetics, Overhead transmission Lines and Safety, the community-oriented, laymen planners chose the easier to pin down, less conceptual, and more personal, recreation as a high priority item. This view of recreation is of course premised on the low degree of environmental edu- cation and conceptual development of the task force representatives at that time, a premise borne out by subsequent overly simplistic treatment of the subject. During the months of June and July, 1969, the EDTF underwent an education and familiarization process in the techniques and information surrounding their adOpted trade. The sole information disseminated regarding recreation, though not specifically mentioned as such, was the meager collection of statements con- tained in the CRP reports.2 These statements were physically oriented and laced with vagueness and only repetitively proclaimed the inadequacy of "parks and open Space" in the model neighborhoods. In any case, 1Lansing Model Cities Program, Minutes of the Environment and Design Task Force, Meeting of 1969—1970. 2Community Renewal Program, Community_Description and Neighborhood Analysis (Lansing, Mich.: Lansing Pian- ning Department, 1967). 28 the task force orientation at this time was totally physical in content and minimal in recreation. The physical orientation was in itself appropriate in light of the categorical thrust of the EDTF, but it proved to be detrimental to recreation since it nurtured a rather narrow perspective on the subject. The latter, however, was critical and the fault for this lack of comprehensive recreation education must be laid at the feet of both the staff support and appointed technical personnel on the task force. Of the ten appointed technicians only one was chosen specifically for his recreation background, a representative of the "State Department of Natural Resources." He was in attendance during these early stages but the task force minutes contain no reference to his active participation; he was later drOpped from the task force for inattendance.l There was some involvement_. by the Deputy Director of the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department but this was later, in the planning process and ostensibly in response to the then current mini— park application, and, therefore, was of little value during the first formative months of the task force. 1City of Lansing Interoffice Communication from Alan Tubbs, Task Force Support Model Cities Environment and Design Task Force, to Walter Sowles, Model Cities Director, August 13, 1969. 29 Finally, the task force staff support were Urban Planners and their recreation orientation was minimal and physical in concept. Thus during this period, regarding recreation, the EDTF was unprepared for any comprehensive consider— ation of solutions. The task force was "park-oriented," and whether or not it should have been considering any other aspects of recreation is questionable, but neverthe- less given that the EDTF was the only planning unit dealing with recreation it was definitely limited; only a "gut-knowledge" of the need for programs survived. Concurrent with this education process, the initial neighborhood problem statements were being accrued, reviewed, and discussed. A statement of "Problem ‘ Identification Guidelines" was prepared by the staff and - distributed to the various elected task force representa- tives. The representatives were to meet with neighborhood 1 advisory groups, and through personal observation respond along said structural guidelines. Those dealing specifi- cally with recreation were: 'mw — ——«-g Parks and Open Space1 (1) type of park in relationship to need (a) playground——tot lots (b) neighborhood (c) community lLansing Model Cities Program, Minutes of the Environment and Design Task Force, Meetings of 1969. 3O (2) type of facilities (a) active recreation—~playground equipment, basketball courts, etc. (b) passive recreation-—benches, scenic view, etc. (3) Adequacy of site--ratio of people to acre (a) adequate (b) inadequate (4) Location in relationship to population served (a) central location easily accessible (b) central location--physical barriers preventing accessibility (5) Maintenance of Facility (a) good (b) fair (c) poor These criteria were adequate perhaps for an area containing a semblance of a park system, but the resi— dents of Model Cities had difficulty evaluating the, for the most part, nonexistent facilities (at that time there was only one active park in Model Cities). Therefore, the repetitive responses from the various MN areas simply pointed out that Model Cities was nearly devoid of park and recreation facilities. “of—1 4i Further, in spite of the structure facility orien- tation of the problem identification guidelines, the lack of recreation programs and activities once more surfaced as a concern of the EDTF. This resurgence of interest was to eventually push the task force, at least in dis- cussion if not in action, over the line into a wider View of recreation. 31 Mini—Parks.-—It was at this point in the EDTF development that, on August 12, 1969, a letter from HUD concerning the availability of immediate impact open space funds, was presented by the staff. Acting on staff recommendations the task force set up a working committee to select preliminary sites in cooperation with Parks and Recreation staff. As a result of the combined work of this committee and the Park and Recreation staff some eleven sites were selected in the Model Neighborhood for use as mini-parks. Then using open space standards developed by the CRP, an analysis by park and recreation staff of the service of existing parks and school-playground sites was made, narrowing the number to five sites within the Model Neighborhoods.l Finally, amid controversy and objections from the Model Cities Policy Board the final choice of four sites within Model Cities and one outside (its limits) was made.2 On November 24, 1969, a "Letter of Intent" to file an application for the immediate impact open space funds was filed with HUD. With surprising prompt- ness on December 2, 1969, a "Letter of Assurance" was 1City of Lansing, Open Space Grant Application (Lansing, Mich.: 1970). 2Lansing Model Cities Program, Minutes of the Policy Board, Meetings of 1969. 32 received from HUD and the preparation of the application began, a process that was to carry through the submission of the Mid Planning Statement. The Mini-Parks became extremely important, not only as projects for recreation facilities, but also because they were viewed by the staff and citizen structure as a prime opportunity to gain "visibility" in the "Model Neighborhoods" and thereby reinstitute the faith of the residents in the program.1 Therefore, the Mini-Parks were to take on the image of a crusade and were sought, as a matter of principle in subsequent years, long after their political value as recreation facilities had diminished. This attempt at acquiring open space funds had some beneficial effects on the EDTF over and above the potential of the parks themselves because it also (commenced) the active involvement of the Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation in task force meetings and affairs. It was through his expertise that the EDTF began to receive a much wider perspective, not only the physical aspect of recreation, but also the other factors in a well-balanced park and recreation program. One such step in the process was the presentation, to the EDTF, of a "Space-Location Study," (organized by 1Lansing Model Cities Program, Minutes of the Environment and Design Task Force, Meeting of November 4, 1969. 33 the author while in the employ of the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department) which attempted to identify future park needs, sites, and maintenance facilities in light of the Socio-Economic-Physical-Recreation factors affecting the city of Lansing Park System. Further, the Deputy Director lent his technical experience to such task force discussions as those concerning the merits and deficiencies of DrOp-In Center in Lansing, thereby providing the EDTF with a much more rounded, if not still embryonic, back- ground in recreation. Preparation for Plan Submission.--By late September- early October, 1969, the pressure was on to facilitate the mid planning process and to meet a December filing dead- line. The categorical problem statements from each of the ten MN areas had to be received by the EDTF and there remained the task of crystallizing the various problem statements into a task force position for submission to the Coordinating Committee. The EDTF composed some eight succinct problem statements in the area of Environment and Design and ranked them according to priority (a slight divergence from the original process but necessitated by time con- straints). The problems dealing with Recreation received a priority ranking of five and stated: 34 5. The Model Neighborhood is nearly devoid of neighborhood parks and recreation facilities. Programs and activities for all groups are lacking. Preservation of Open space and historic sites is of little concern to the City in view of tax returns from a private venture.l This statement was to survive the Coordinating Committee process of finalization intact and be included verbatim in the "Mid Planning Statement" and indeed remain as the basic problem statement in recreation for all submission during the next two years of the Model Cities Program. Simultaneously, as a result of "Ranking Committee" actions, the Environment and Design Category was placed as number six of the nine program categories, therefore, recreation, due to its low over-all ranking (sixth in the ninth category), was not even considered during the search for core cause of model neighborhood problems (only the top ten overall problem statements were :7) treated in this respect).2 Finally in the staff- prepared program objectives, recreation was once again excluded from consideration and relegated to a relatively 3 ‘W;Wnu ‘- :7‘1“?! unimportant role in the plan. 1Lansing Model Cities Program, Mid Planning Statement (Lansing, Mich.: 1969), Problems and Priori- ties, p. 53. 2Lansing Model Cities Program, Mid Planning Statement (Lansing, Mich.: 1969). 3Ibid. 35 The only remaining reference to recreation in the "Mid Planning Statement" was contained in the journalistic commentary on neighborhood conditions. The text described conditions at the drop-in centers regarding fights, take~ overs by older men, and the meager number of activities planned for girls.1 Although no records were kept, these staff-pre- pared statements were the apparent product of input from the special interest Youth Task Force, and no attempt at addressing these problems was made in the published "Strategy Statement."2 Ibid. Ibid. CHAPTER III THE LANSING MODEL CITIES FIRST ACTION YEAR Plan Preparation Phase Plan Development Upon the completion and submission of the Mid— Planning Statement, the Lansing CDA concentrated its efforts on the preparation of Model Cities' first-year plan of action. This comprehensive plan was to translate the information gleaned during the mid planning year into service-oriented projects and programs. Further, it was to serve as the basis for coordinating all available human and financial resources into a cohesive attempt at solving model neighborhood problems. The aforementioned financial resources available through existing agencies, organizations, and governments were to be supplemented by an approximately 1.8 million dollar appropriation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Employing the same basic administrative and citi- zen structure established during the mid planning year, the CDA immediately moved to implement a four—month 36 37 planning process aimed at meeting an April 30, 1970 sub- mission deadline. The process was progressively hampered by selective deterioration within the "Citizen Partici— pation Component" of the CDA structure.l Some task forces either steadily reduced meeting frequency or ceased operations entirely, thereby crippling work in some categorical areas. This apparent breakdown could be attributed to a broad spectrum of reasons, from inadequate staff support, loss of interest by citizens and appointed personnel to simply poor task force direction and a scanty work load. Regardless of the reasons for this deficiency in the Citizen Participation Component, it precipitated an increasingly dominant staff role in the compilation of the First Year Action Plan and signified a minor setback for the concept of shared decision making. In addition, due to the highly “political" nature of allocating such a large expenditure of funds, both from the community standpoint and the governmental per- spective, such an influential staff was therefore placed in the injudicious position of having to contend with this extra-CDA pressure. The community and governmental interests were, in some cases, in conflict with each other and the CDA, and this staff situation provided 1Conversations with E. Brown and J. Spackman, City of Lansing Planning Department, on loan to Model Cities during this period. «u , , f 1 38 them with a heretofore unacceptable avenue of expression. An implication of this condition shall be discussed in the First Year Action Plan. The planning process as prOpounded during this interim, although not entirely dissimilar to the mid planning activities, was more narrow in direction and sought detail previously overlooked. Ostensibly, project or program proposals could emanate from only three primary sources: the private citizen, the individual planning task forces, and participating agencies or institutions. The CDA staff and agency personnel were then responsible for both the preparation of each proposal in the established "Model Cities Project Proposal Format" for clarity, and according to categorical thrust, referral of each proposal to the appropriate planning task force for consideration. It was then within the jurisdiction of each task force to expand, consolidate, or otherwise modify pro- posals until they were either found acceptable or totally rejected. For those profferings selected, implementing agencies were identified and funding sources determined (the CDA could not operate any project; it could only act as the Model Cities contracting agent in the provision of any services). 39 The segmented project proposals of each task force were then referred to the established "Coordinating Com- mittee" for consideration within the wider context of a total model cities action program. Theoretically it was at this stage that fragmented task force attempts were consolidated and emerged as a comprehensive action plan; in reality it was necessary for the consequences of the Coordinating Committee to be further refined by the techni- cal staff before a concrete plan was produced. Thus the final and most technical aspect of this plan development process, the actual writing of the First Year Action Plan, was executed by the CDA staff. The com- pleted document was then submitted to the Model Cities Policy Board, Citizen Congress, and Lansing City Council successively for review and approval, and transmitted to HUD for program funding. Recreation.-—Since the data base used in planning for the first action year was the problems, objectives, and priorities established in the Mid Planning Statement, it was reasonable to expect the inevitable result—- recreation once again assumed an incognizant role. The Environment and Design Task Force (EDTF), contrary to the norm, met on an almost weekly basis, but with an increased emphasis on land use, zoning, historic preservation, and 40 the then critical issue, of Urban Renewal #3 involving the acquisition of Diamond Reo.l The EDTF, the dubious assignee of recreation, with staff assistance, was technically beginning to come into its own in most areas, except recreation. The notable exception to this situation was the continuing protestation by the EDTF over the still incomplete Mini- Park application. This reoccurring theme began to take on some aspects of a "crusade" for neighborhood visibility with the Mini Parks as a symbol of accomplishment. In spite of the eventual filing of the "Open Space Grant Application" for Lansing's Mini Parks on March 2, 1970, these frustrated attempts at action were destined to surface intermittently for the next two and one-half years. Mini Parks.--The original Mini-Park application filed with HUD as part of the federal "Park-in-Cities" program estimated a total project cost of $103,632. The 50 per cent grant called for $51,816 in financial assistance from the federal government and a like expen- diture in local funds. This local share was to come out of general revenue funds and was programmed as such lLansing Model Cities Program, Minutes of the Environment and Design Task Force, Meeting of 1969-1970. 41 into the 1970-75 "Six-Year Capital Improvements Budget" for the city of Lansing, to be financed during fiscal year 1970-71.1 Due to the high land costs within the inner city, the largest budget item in the grant application pre- dictably was $80,648 for the site acquisition of the four Model Neighborhood (MN) parks and the one extra MN park expansion site. The remainder of the project cost was allocated for site demolition, development, inspection, and administrative functions. Finally an additional 100 per cent grant for $27,100, to pay relocation benefits to displaced residents, was simultaneously applied for bringing the total grant package to $130,732.2 The final selection of particular sites to be included in this initial application was not without con- troversy. Although the Parks Department had worked closely with the model cities citizens during the entire site selection process, the MC Policy Board strongly objected when in the final stage it was decided that the number of MN parks would be narrowed from five to four and an extra MN expansion site would be included. The source of this 1City of Lansing, Six-Year Capital Improvements Budget (Lansing, Mich.: Lansing Planning Department, 1969). 2City of Lansing, Open Space Grant Application (Lansing, Mich.: 1970). 42 opposition was not from within the Policy Board itself, but was precipitated by a member of the CDA staff, the Assistant Director--Citizen Participation. In retrospect, if later actions by this staff member are any indication, his comments prompting exception to the final sites, were more influenced by personal aims than overall program con- cern. The issue was finally resolved through personal dialogue between representative of the Parks Department and the Policy Board and Model Cities acquiesced to the four and one package. Both the Kingsley Court and Lenawee Street sites, P-1 and P-2 respectively, were located on Lansing's west side in the predominantly black residential community. These MN residents had been progressively isolated from most recreation facilities through the development of the I-496 freeway on the south making the later to be dis— continued, Scott Park inaccessible, and by a rapidly expanding State Capitol Complex on the north and east. This situation left the inhabitants of a rather high- density community with long distances to travel and physical barriers to surmount in order to enjoy any of the perimeter, Scott, Durant, or St. Joe, parks. There— fore, it was reasoned that the placement of these two compact park sites in the community would somewhat alleviate the recreation problem. 43 The Cady Street site, P—3, was chosen for similar reasons. Although the residents of this MN were within the service range of the existing Oak Park facility, access was blocked by three major traffic arteries. Therefore, this residential area on the perimeter of the Spanish-American or Chicano community was also isolated from park facilities. The final MN site, Massachusetts Street P—4, was directly north of P-3 in the center of the Spanish- American community. Unlike the areas around P-l, 2, and 3 this community was not completely devoid of park facilities, with Grand River School playground five blocks and Potter Park three blocks distant from the proposed site. This mini-park was purported to be an intermediate, immediate-impact park facility servicing the large numbers of Spanish-American children. The remaining site, P-S Edmore Park expansion, was justified, due to the inadequacies of the existing facility, and found acceptable to Model Cities due to its location just five blocks from the MN. The environ- ment surrounding this particular park was in the process of deterioration and this selection was meant to serve as an incentive for residents to improve their environ- ment (this neighborhood was later to be included in Model Cities under the Planned Variations Program). Finally it was stated that, "the mini—park," P-S, 44 "therefore fits into the scheme for a visual impact for municipal concern to its citizens."1 Apparently the city as well as Model Cities appreciated the value of visual improvements, in developing resident confidence. Each of the aforementioned sites had some common denominators: their location in areas with concentration of lower income families, the assurance that the neighbor- hoods would remain residential and in most cases the existence of physical barriers and long distances pre— cluding the use of existing facilities. Thus the described Mini—Park application was a1 significant product of this phase of the Model Cities Program, an accomplishment which somewhat compensated for recreation being ignored in the other aspects of action plan development. First Year Action Plan Regardless of the relative absence of recreation during the plan preparation activities, it did emerge again in the First Year Action Plan. The portion of the "Plan" dealing with projects was divided into three cate- gories: “Supplemental Projects," "Non-Supplemental Projects," and "Non-Cost Projects."2 1City of Lansing, Open Space Grant Application (Lansing, Mich.: 1970). 2Lansing Model Cities Program, First Year Action Plan (Lansing, Mich.: 1970). 45 The Supplemental section contained those projects funded either totally or in part with allocations from the Model Cities 1.8 million dollar supplemental funds pro- vided by HUD. This section was predominantly the product of the aforementioned task force planning activities and projects therein supposedly in response to resident needs. The Non-Supplemental section described projects having an impact on MN residents, basically in conformance with Model Cities objectives, but being funded entirely by outside agencies or institutions. It was within this portion of the Plan that the Mini-Park application was listed as a nonsupplementally funded, Model Cities impact project. The third or noncost section was in reality not an action project listing but denoted those activities with which the CDA anticipated becoming involved. Although listed as noncost activities these predominantly physical planning functions, varying from developing a Model Cities Land Use Plan to Historic Preservation Planning, did obviously have an inherent staff or administrative cost. NARC It was at this point that the North Side Athletic and Recreation Club surprisingly appeared as a recreation project in the Supplemental Projects section of the First Year Action Plan. Although prOposed by a staff 46 emsisfium.as a project for possible funding in the EDTF there is no evidence that it was extensively discussed or recmmmxfled, by that or any other task force, for inclusion in UnaFirst Year Action Plan. In discussing this apparent circmmmmtion of the citizen task force with the then Model(fities Director, his recollection was that NARC "came