Journal of Planning Education and Research OnlineFirst, published on April 20, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0739456X10368700 Journal of Planning Education and Research XX(X) 1 –17 Planning in Neighborhoods with © 2010 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Reprints and permission: http://www. Multiple Publics: Opportunities sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0739456X10368700 and Challenges for Community-Based http://jpe.sagepub.com Nonprofit Organizations Tarry Hum1 Abstract New York City is the quintessential immigrant gateway, and its transformation to a majority “minority” city is evident in the complex demography of its numerous neighborhoods. Based on detailed case studies of two neighborhoods undergoing significant development pressures that pose a dramatic reshaping of community life, this article examines whether New York City community boards serve as a “pivotal” public arena to mitigate racial tensions and meaningfully engage diverse stakeholders including immigrants in neighborhood planning. The case studies of Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens demonstrate that community boards do not necessarily engage all stakeholders in meaningful or sustained ways and are limited in advancing race relations in a challenging socioeconomic context. This article substantiates how community-based nonprofit organizations are essential to the institutional landscape of immigrant neighborhoods by engaging multiple publics in community planning. Keywords immigrants, community boards, neighborhood planning, zoning, community-based nonprofit organizations Introduction political landscape includes fifty-nine community boards that serve an official, albeit advisory, role on city service New York City is a quintessential immigrant gateway, and delivery, land use and zoning, and budgetary matters (Marcuse its transformation to a majority “minority” city is evident in 1990). Mediating the local and daily lived consequences of the rich and complex demography of its numerous local economic restructuring, demographic and racial shifts, and neighborhoods. The “strong multi-minority presence” in progrowth urban policies has increasingly dominated the major U.S. metropolitan areas—an outcome of unprece- work of NYC’s community boards. This article is a qualita- dented levels of Asian, Latino, and Caribbean immigration— tive case study of two multiethnic, multiracial immigrant has decidedly rendered the black-white paradigm an insufficient neighborhoods undergoing significant development pres- framework to approach racial dynamics and relations in the sures that threaten to dramatically reshape neighborhood life contemporary post–civil rights era (Pastor 2003). Local and local spaces. Referred to as NYC’s “satellite” China- community institutions and nonprofit organizations mediate towns, Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Flushing, Queens are, in tensions and conflict that arise from rapid and dramatic fact, quite distinct in their racial and class composition, demographic transitions. These conflicts stem from actual neighborhood typology, and relationship to the urban politi- and perceived competition for resources such as municipal cal economy (Hum 2002a; Zhou 2001; Smith 1995). Com- services, political representation, and employment and mon to both neighborhoods, however, are recent efforts to housing opportunities as well as changes in neighborhood composition and quality. As sites of daily exchange and Initial submission, August 2008; revised submissions, August 2009 and interaction, immigrant global neighborhoods are the local February 2010; final acceptance, March 2010 spaces where the possibilities for a multiracial democracy 1City University of New York, Flushing, Queens, NY, USA will be established (Oliver and Grant 1995). The decentralization of municipal governance through Corresponding Author: Tarry Hum, Queens College, City University of New York, Department community boards as venues for citizen inclusion and voice of Urban Studies, 250N Powdermaker Hall, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, has a long history in New York City (Rogers 1990). Evolv- Queens, NY 11367, USA ing from early citizen planning councils of the 1950s, NYC’s Email: [email protected] 2 Journal of Planning Education and Research XX(X) reconcile racial tensions stemming from new developments advance a critical analysis of the economic and political con- and transformative demographic change. ditions that shape urban development and inequality. Through detailed case studies, this article investigates whether community boards can serve as a “pivotal” public arena that facilitates cross-racial dialogue and meaningfully Methodology engages stakeholders, including immigrant groups, in neigh- For this study on community boards and nonprofit community- borhood planning and policy decisions. Since concerns fuel- based organizations in two of NYC’s most diverse immi- ing dissension and potential conflict center on land use and grant neighborhoods, I employ a qualitative case study development initiatives, community boards are the noted methodology based on the principles and practices of action political sphere where grievances are aired and public debate research and participant observation. Simply defined, action becomes framed or crystallized around particular concerns research is a “bottom-up approach to inquiry which is aimed and issues. While community boards legitimate citizen par- at producing more equitable policy outcomes” (Silverman, ticipation in policy-making processes and local governance, Taylor, and Crawford 2008, 73). Its core principles include the experiences of Sunset Park and Flushing underscore that reflexive inquiry, local knowledge, collaboration, case ori- community boards do not necessarily engage all stakeholders entation, and social action goals (Greenwood, Whyte, and in meaningful or sustained ways and are limited in advanc- Harkavy 1993). As a “paradigm of praxis,” action research ing race and ethnic relations in a complex and challenging utilizes social science methodologies to understand lived socioeconomic context. socioeconomic and political conditions in order to solve real Participating in land use and development review may problems (O’Brien 1998). Over a four-year period from 2005 be the most significant and lasting way that community to 2008, I engaged in extensive fieldwork in Sunset Park, boards shape their local neighborhoods (Pecorella 1989). Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens. I attended and participated As a body of politically appointed individuals, community in numerous community board meetings, public hearings boards are often extensions of the political agenda of bor- and forums, and meetings with local nonprofit organizations ough presidents and city council members. The Sunset and city agencies including the NYC Department of City Park and Flushing case studies demonstrate that commu- Planning. I conducted in-depth interviews with commu- nity boards often lack autonomy and grassroots account- nity board members, district managers, elected officials, city ability and fail to promote the inclusion of disenfranchised agency representatives, nonprofit organizational staff and community members such as immigrants. Community boards members, and other neighborhood stakeholders. These inter- often function as a form of “symbolic inclusion” and are views and participant observations were recorded in field rarely able to affect progressive redistributive outcomes. notes and provide the primary materials for the Sunset Park Based on case studies of Sunset Park and Flushing, this and Flushing case studies. article finds that the key institutions and initiatives that have Between 2006 and 2007, I served as a university-based engaged multiple publics, and enhanced their technical consultant for the Ford Foundation–funded Program to capacity to participate in planning and land use discussions, Advance Inter-Community Relationships (PAIR) sponsored are community-based nonprofit and civic organizations. In by the Korean American Community Foundation (KACF). the case of Flushing, instrumental actors included a young As one of three consultants, my responsibility was to advise Asian American philanthropic community foundation. KACF and participate in planning, organizing, and facilitat- Because nonprofit community-based organizations “oper- ing three PAIR intercommunity forums.1 While all three ate between markets, households, and the state,” they may consultants worked on the first two forums, I was the only be integral to cultivating a migrant civil society that sup- consultant to work on the third event in Flushing, Queens.2 ports immigrant incorporation and activism (Theodore and As a member of the organizing team for the Flushing Com- Martin 2007, 271). munity Leadership Seminar Workshop, I helped frame the Without strong, active, community-based organizations goals and structure of the event. I also participated in devel- that provide alternative public or “invented” spaces, large oping a survey instrument and analyzing the findings. The segments of diverse neighborhoods would not be heard at the survey was sent to a list of invited Flushing community district or community board level. In addition to providing a leaders. The survey objective was not a random sampling of venue for political voice and representation, community- community attitudes but, rather, was intended to elicit the based nonprofits help reframe racialized tensions from a views of key “opinion leaders” and identify the “hot button” human relations perspective