The
Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Me Thinks
That’s a line from William
Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet.” The line has come to mean that the harangues of some often hide murky
and nefarious motives just beneath the surface. That line can be applied to Topeka regarding its consistent efforts to decrease citizen participation and
comment on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that come to Topeka
to address the challenges of low- to moderate-income populations and slum-and-blight.
"It’s
very interesting and telling that the city council, at the behest of multiple HND directors since at least 1997, has consistently
chosen to still the voices of Topeka’s poor people and neighborhoods."
It’s very interesting and
telling that the city council, at the behest of multiple HND directors since at least 1997, has consistently chosen to still
the voices of Topeka’s poor people and neighborhoods.
It’s very interesting and
telling that, for 23 years in the case of the old CDAC and 28 years in the cases of the city’s NIAs, those bodies had
operated with autonomy and without anybody being killed and no buildings crashing to the ground.
"...The
city council always has the option of disregarding what the public thinks, in part or in toto, and institute its own goals
and policies. We have always understood that. We’ve only asked that the city respect our right to make recommendations;
in short, to have our say. In response, the city consistently has given us the bird."
It’s very interesting and
telling that, since at least 1997, the city has chosen to silence Topeka’s
most vulnerable citizens, even though all they can do is offer recommendations regarding the federal funds that come to
Topeka because they’re residents here. That’s especially interesting
and telling because the city council always has the option of disregarding what the public thinks, in part or in toto, and
institute its own goals and policies. We have always understood that. We’ve only asked that the city respect our right
to make recommendations; in short, to have our say. In response, the city consistently has given us the bird.
It’s very interesting and
telling that the city pays lip service to the concept of listening to the public’s problems and goals first, then bringing
in human and financial resources to address the problems (bottom-to-top planning) and realize the goals but seldom follows
through on its words, now plainly hollow.
"It’s
very interesting and telling that the citizen groups in place have always had to spend inordinate and infuriating amounts
of time worrying about the other shoe dropping regarding their ability to comment, instead of devoting their scarce free time
to identifying problems and solutions and improving their neighborhoods."
It’s very interesting and
telling that the citizen groups in place have always had to spend inordinate and infuriating amounts of time worrying about
the other shoe dropping regarding their ability to comment, instead of devoting their scarce free time to identifying problems
and solutions and improving their neighborhoods.
All of these city transgressions
are telling because neighborhood folks have always tried to keep the city’s “eye on the ball.” Namely, that
the federal dollars that come to Topeka should be spent solely on the people who
bring the funds here in the first place and that planning regarding how those funds are spent should start with the people
who bring the funds here in the first place. The city, according to at least one former city council member, refuses to keep
its eye on the ball because it has other designs for those funds. What might those designs be? Well, in the past they have
included the following (the list is not exhaustive):
- Plans for the Millennium Park
down by the Kansas River. This project sought $400,000 in CDBG funds in 1997, which was approximately
25 percent of the CDBG funds the city would have received. Thankfully and mercifully, the project was killed.
- Development around the water tower just south of 10th Street.
The city lost over $100,000 on the deal, which could have been -- and citizen groups recommended should have been
-- used for new and rehabbed housing in the Monroe neighborhood in which the failed
project was located.
- Brick streets in Potwin. Potwin didn’t qualify for the HUD funds for its street improvements because 51
percent of its residents were not low- to moderate-income. The city had to repay approximately $72,000 to HUD that it spent
inappropriately.
"Those who espouse this position (thinking of downtown as a neighborohood) are asking poor people living in
truly poor neighborhoods to give up at least some of the money that should be helping
them and give it to Downtown Topeka, Inc., Go Topeka, the Topeka Chamber of Commerce, et al, all fine entities and all fully capable of accessing other funding sources for downtown revitalization."
The most recent example of
how this might happen again is the city’s campaign to get people to think of downtown as a neighborhood. While it is
true that there are pockets of low- to moderate-income folks living in downtown (and we love ‘em!), to think of downtown
as a depressed neighborhood is just plain stupid and nefariously motivated. Those who espouse this position are asking poor
people living in truly poor neighborhoods to give up at least some of the money
that should be helping them and give it to Downtown Topeka, Inc., Go Topeka, the Topeka Chamber of Commerce, et al, all fine
entities and all fully capable of accessing other funding sources for downtown revitalization.
"(A
new TV) commercial asks its viewers to “Clap if You Deserve Respect.” Now is the time for neighborhood people
across Topeka, rich and poor, to clap."
There’s a commercial out now.
I think it’s for a home improvement company. Or perhaps it’s a home mortgage company. Whatever. What’s especially
noteworthy about the commercial is its message. The commercial asks its viewers to “Clap if You Deserve Respect.”
Now is the time for neighborhood people across Topeka, rich and poor, to
clap. The sacrifices they make, without pay and with additional demands on their time, are worthy of applause. The commitments
they make, often without respect or appreciation, are worthy of applause.
There’s another line from
Shakespeare’s Hamlet that is applicable here: “Something is rotten in the state of
Denmark.” The “something” here, in its most benign state, is disrespect.
In its most malignant state, it’s
a fraud of the worst kind committed on Topeka’s most vulnerable citizens.
Michael J. Bell
Published July
6, 2005
