How does trust influence community engagement? How is trust impacted by inefficiencies and mistakes?
I turn now to the dynamics between community trust and the actual initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges the city faces. Specifically, I examine the management of vacant lots, the roles and impact of community meetings, and the We Will Chicago initiative. These initiatives are important to study in this context because they are either directly related to or purposefully address the historical events that have led to a lack of trust among residents, and seek to engage people in ways to heal that trust. At the same time, however, they can further that mistrust if executed ineffectively. Through this exploration, I look toward how trust—or more commonly, the lack thereof—shapes residents’ perceptions and interactions with these efforts: How does trust influence community engagement in community meetings and We Will Chicago? How is trust impacted by the presence of vacant lots, the efficacy of meetings, and the We Will Chicago process?
Vacant Lots
Quantitative Considerations
“Cross-referencing the Chicago Health Atlas data on trust levels with the records the city of Chicago keeps on how many vacant lots it owns in each community area, Figure 20 depicts a slight correlation between the number of city-owned vacant lots in a community area and the degree of mistrust that residents within that area feel for the local government. I removed from this data the community areas of North Lawndale, New City, West Englewood, and Englewood due to their outlier status regarding the number of vacant lots reported in those areas (827, 860, 929, and 1262 respectively)[1]. For reference, the highest number of vacant owned lots held by the city in a community area just beneath these four is 531.”
[1] Trust in the local government in these neighborhoods was 30.9% (North Lawndale), 33.7% (New City), 43.3% (West Englewood), and 40.3% (Englewood).
It’s evident that there is a relationship between the formation of mistrust and the prevalence of vacant lots, particularly on the South and West sides of Chicago. The existence of vacant lots and the deep historical tie to that vacancy erodes trust within the community as a signal of neglect from the city. This mistrust is multiplied when the city fails to follow through on the very rules that it attempts to enforce on others, leaving the land in disrepair.
Community Meetings
Amir and I took an Uber from our design firm’s office in the Loop to the far South side of Chicago for a community-engagement meeting the firm was helping with. It was scheduled to take place at a local library and intended to gather resident feedback on where to place bike lanes most strategically. Our driver was friendly and quite talkative along the ride. As we approached the library, he warned us, “When you’re done with your meeting, get a car and go straight home. Don’t look around. This part of town is called the Wild Hundreds.” He was referring to the fact that we had passed 100th street, past the last stop on the Red Line. “Most of the crime down here is committed by these teenage kids who don’t fear anything,” he said. We arrived at the library early, and asked the librarian if we could head downstairs to the meeting room to start setting up.
“Your event starts at 5:30 PM?” she asked. When we confirmed the time, she shook her head, “Then you can’t head down until 5:00 PM.”
A man sitting at one of the nearby tables overheard us and waved us over. That is how I first met Liam, another planner hosting the community-engagement meeting. As we waited, I asked him about his work on the project. And he told me that he knew a lot about biking in South Chicago from personal experience, but that it was hard to get people to show up to express their thoughts and concerns. Liam explained that the previous night there had been another meeting for the same project in the town south of the city where only one person had shown up: the mayor; unfortunately, not enough to be considered community engagement. I asked him what number of people would be ideal and he laughed, “We take whatever we can get.” According to Liam, at least as many stakeholders as planners in the room would be great, but that would be hard with the bike project since there were already eight people working on it. “20 would be amazing,” he said, “40 incredible. I can’t even imagine an instance where we’d come anywhere close to too many, though 100 might overcrowd the room. But if we have two people tonight…hey, that’s double what we had at the last meeting.”
The others arrived later, and at 5:00 PM we were allowed to head down to the basement where the event would be hosted. We walked down the stairs, passing an auditorium with a symbol on the door to remind visitors that there were no guns allowed. We all set up large maps in a circle around the room, some with data on auto and bike accidents, others with data on land use, others with data on existing bike lanes, both protected and unprotected, on which people could write or place sticky notes. Once set up, we all stood around waiting. “No one’s going to come,” Liam said, cracking a joke. “I’m not hoping no one comes, I’m just preparing. Just being realistic.”
At the meeting I attended that night in the Wild Hundreds, people did show up. In addition to a city official, about four residents walked around our signs making notes on the boards or just reading about the proposed project and the current statistics posted. Once they left, the planners and I gathered around the table in the middle of the room talking. I mentioned my thesis, and Liam shared his own observations about the struggle of getting people in the room.
“A lot of times, those living in affordable housing won’t come because the market rate folks are so loud,” he chuckled. “The biggest takeaway I got from that was the importance of soundproofing.” He also noted that sometimes it’s a matter of availability. “When people are available adds a whole other layer to who is able to show up to these conversations.” So, some lack of participation seems to come from less desirable aspects of community meetings unrelated to trust, but overall, it seems that much of the disinterest stems from an overreliance on or lack of trust in the local government and planners.
We Will Chicago
We Will Chicago was an initiative unlike any project that Chicago had done before, as the city recruited teams of knowledgeable residents and community organizers to offer their insights in addition to sending them into the city to gain more feedback. This process offers insights into the struggle that lack of trust can be in efforts to garner community feedback (even among community members), and ways creative communication can be employed to try overcoming these barriers. I first learned about We Will Chicago online, and based on the website, I arrived in Chicago thinking that most people knew what it was and had participated to some extent. I was wrong. Most of the work done for the We Will Chicago plan happened in committees–one for each of the main issue areas called pillars. To learn more about the community members who took part in this process, I watched recordings from one of the pillar’s meetings. That was where I first saw and heard from Ruth (South), whose stories I have quoted extensively throughout this project. At the very first meeting, once the city officials had finished presenting and discussion began, Ruth spoke up.
“I’ve participated in a lot of City of Chicago initiatives,” she said to those logged in, “I don’t know if the City of Chicago recognizes that for those of us who are not paid city employees, this is a heavy lift. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great work. I feel like I have to stay here and do it, but this is a huge time commitment, emotional commitment because it pulls up all sorts of things for us.” She continued, explaining some of her own family history. “I’m a second-generation Chicagoan so I’ve been in Chicago for quite a long time. My family was impacted by redlining, all of that, but it’s a heavy lift. And I just want to make sure the city knows when we participate in these types of things, we really do want to see outcomes and action. We are not here to just put a document together, to put some comments together that say, ‘Oh yeah, we had community participation.’ We are leaving our blood, sweat, and our tears at each of these gatherings and I just want the city to recognize that.”
These challenges and concerns seemed to permeate the entirety of the We Will Chicago process, including the final pillar meeting I watched. Even though I was only watching a recording of the online meeting, I could see and feel the tension within the Zoom room as the participants were told that the plan, they had created would not be going to the city council for a vote. “If this isn’t going before the council, then what’s the use of it?” Samantha asked. She and others were concerned that, much like the lack of continuity pointed out by my interviewees at the start of this chapter, that once new elected officials took office, all their work would have been for nothing unless it was made official through a vote in the city council.
“The recognition is that of course there are always more groups that we should be making an effort to engage with, especially around specific topics or ideas,” said Marco, one of the city professionals who was tasked with moderating the We Will Chicago pillar discussion. “We just want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence by reaching communities that are either excluded, have been excluded from processes, or that would be most impacted by those specific policy issues.” Marco was expressing concerns that city leaders had with the erosion of trust that might occur among residents who felt left out of We Will Chicago after it’s official conclusion. As well-meaning as it may have been, this concern failed to recognize the more relevant erosion of trust that failing to act on the work that had already been done would have among residents who did participate.
Samantha, a resident from the South side, was not satisfied with his answer. “Your explanation didn’t help, because what I said still stands,” she replied. “You all knew. This was an extensive process to choose who participated. You chose who participated. You should have chosen members of these ‘various groups’ from the start.” She continued, as others on the call nodded along. “I was getting pushback from my community for giving input because they said this very thing would happen. And now I have to go and go back and say ‘Well, they’re not going to put it through to [City Council]’ and have them say ‘I told you.’” Ultimately, she is saying that the social networks (and trust) that she leveraged to get feedback for the city may now be harmed by the city's trust-breaking tendency to not follow through on what they say. Samantha laughed, “It feels a little frustrating to try and convince someone that the process works when you get this sort of thing.”
Marco nodded, saying that he would bring that feedback to his superiors. Just before they moved on, Samantha said, “And one last thing: you have to stand on what you say. You can’t keep moving the goal post because that fosters mistrust.” If the city wasn’t going to adhere to the plan, it would instead be another major personal experience that residents would use to justify their lack of trust in planners and the local government, further harming the already very small amount of relational trust built through the course of the project.
The We Will Chicago Plan was eventually passed by the Council, assuaging the participants' fears, but the concerns of Samantha and the other organizers still resound, along with the concerns of other residents I spoke with across the city; trust is incredibly difficult to build, and the initiatives with the most potential for good also seem to have the most potential for harm.
We Will Chicago’s full effect on trust has yet to be seen because it is still early in the process of implementation, but it has the potential to either help or hurt city-wide trust. On the one hand it could improve trust levels, by normalizing creative forms of engagement with communities that have been otherwise left alone for so long. On the other hand, it could further sink already prevalent mistrust by not following through on its promises or getting bogged down in additional planning measures that reinforce the prevailing idea many residents have: getting involved is a waste of time. Challenges We Will Chicago experienced in communication and representation have highlighted the delicate balance between fostering hope and reinforcing skepticism, but community organizers seem to remain hopeful and committed to continue working for their neighborhoods.