Partnership with the University,
1990-1994
The Ceola Accords
Up until 1990,
the Lessie Bates Davis Neighborhood House had been
the primary supporter of the EPDC. However, with its limited resources, the
Neighborhood House was finding it increasingly difficult to support EPDC while
concentrating on its core mission. When the
Despite Ms.
Davis’ early uncertainty, she also saw this as an excellent opportunity to
combine forces with the
Partnering with the
University
In 1990, progress towards developing the comprehensive plan
began, under the newly formed partnership between the EPDC and the university
(Professor Reardon and students) as well as under the new empowerment planning
initiative. Bi-weekly meetings with community leaders and residents were held
and community participation was employed in completing the land use, building
and site condition, and infrastructure maintenance survey of the Emerson Park
Neighborhood. Residents were paired with university students and sent to
complete their surveys, a tactic that generated considerable attention among
those who lived in the neighborhood. These research-related encounters with
neighborhood residents increased monthly meeting attendance from 15 to 125 in
the fall of 1990.
Not only did the university involvement contribute to EPDC’s organizing efforts, but EPDC made a lasting
impression on many students. Perhaps no one else has been impacted as much as
Vickie Kimmel Forby. Beginning in 1991, under the
instruction of Professor Reardon, Ms. Forby
volunteered in the ESLARP program and as a student through the East St. Louis
Planning Workshop. Ms. Forby was also instructed by
the leaders in the
The First Neighborhood
Plan
The planning students
needed only four months to draft a preliminary neighborhood plan, which was
presented to neighborhood residents for review in early December 1990. In
January 1991, local residents met to formally adopt the Emerson Park
Neighborhood Improvement Plan. Major components of the 1991
Neighborhood Improvement Plan sought to aid
One of the
most important and substantial areas of the plan included the implementation of
“small-scale physical improvement projects.” Beautification
and maintenance of vacant lots became an integral part of the plan as well. In addition,
the plan called for the development of a building and site code enforcement
program to preserve the changes made to neighborhood properties. And
recommended that public amenities and neighborhood infrastructure be upgraded.
Eleven specific activities were
mentioned to meet the above objectives. They included:
1. Organization
of a large-scale volunteer clean-up project.
2. Forming of a
locally organized lawn care cooperative, employing out-of-work neighborhood
residents to cut and maintain county-owned vacant lots.
3. Encouragement
by St. Clair County for owners of poorly maintained properties to hire the
above services.
4. Assignment of
neighborhood clean-up activities to those on probation with mandatory community
service hours to fulfill.
5. Development of
a “tool library” to provide equipment needed by residents for the outdoor
clean-up projects.
6. Formation of a
Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) to increase community involvement of
area youth by providing summer employment for clean-up efforts and to increase
education in the areas of neighborhood environmental concerns.
7. The passing
and strict enforcement of a no-dumping ordinance by the East St. Louis City
Council. This included stricter fines for offenders of illegal dumping.
Revenues collected from the stiffer fines fund the enforcement of the new
regulation.
8. Acquirement of
funding for a building seal-up and demolition cooperative. The local unemployed
would be hired for these projects, much like the lawn care cooperative above.
9. Acquirement of
funding for emergency street and infrastructure repairs, including the
replacement of missing manhole covers, the filling of large potholes, and the
installation of street signs and missing street lights.
10. Organization
of a grassroots effort between the community and
11. Completion of
a feasibility study by
The emphasis on small-scale neighborhood beautification
projects made the plan more tangible and enabled the ideas and goals to be
realized. The
implementation of the above activities was entirely reliant upon the organized
efforts of local volunteers. These activities also relied upon funding provided
by local professional and business organizations and required the cooperation
of state, county and city government. Federal cooperation was also needed for
the clean up of hazardous waste sites within the neighborhood. The Neighborhood
Plan recommended that EPDC hire a “full-time community organizer with community
development and housing experience” using funding provided by local, regional
and national foundations.
Community-based Prevention Plan
Discussion about the neighborhood plan led to the EPDC
asking ESLARP to assist in developing a community-based substance abuse and
crime prevention program. This plan focused upon improving safety and reducing crime
throughout the neighborhood. By analyzing then-current crime statistics for the
city of
1.
Physical Safety (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)
2.
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
3.
Creating a Community-based Substance Abuse Prevention Policy
4.
Organizing a Neighborhood Crime Watch
5.
Developing a Community Policing Plan in
6.
Implementation of the
Important
parts of the Community Safety Plan instructed residents on how to improve the
overall security of their homes. Guidelines attached to the document included
ways in which residents could take greater measures to protect against
intruders, including the installation of reliable window and door locks and the
construction of symbolic physical barriers in front and around the perimeter of
their homes.
Residents
had four main priorities for the first year of the Community Safety Plan’s
implementation. First was the creation of an effective Neighborhood Crime Watch
Program. Second on the list was crime prevention education
programs for residents listed (including instruction on home security
improvements). Next was the development of a crime analysis system, which would
provide residents access to monthly information on arrests occurring within the
neighborhood. Fourth, guidelines were to be established for basic Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
improvements. CPTED rests on the idea that the physical environment can be
changed or managed to produce behavioral effects that will reduce the incidence
and fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life.
Land Banking
EPDC also started buying up land parcels in 1994 in order to
prevent land speculation and to control future development in the neighborhood.
Ownership of land in the area later proved useful for the siting
of the new MetroLink stop and the development of new
housing. Through St. Clair County, the governing jurisdiction for
Land banking poses some challenges, particularly in the
demolition of derelict structures in a timely manner. The city moves quickly on
removing brick buildings, because they sell the bricks for a handsome profit,
whereas wood-framed homes provide the city with little monetary incentive.
Therefore, EPDC has had to struggle to clean up some lots, through no fault of
its own and to demolish derelict wood-frame structures on certain abandoned
properties. In 1994,
As of 2002, EPDC
owned approximately twenty to twenty-five percent of the vacant land, about
325 lots, in the neighborhood. In other word, these land purchases account
for about 50,000 frontage feet, or enough to build 100 single-family homes
with fifty front feet each. EPDC expects to purchase seven more in the next
year. EPDC spends approximately $150 to $750 per lot at the county auction,
and about $9,000 a year in property taxes and to keep the lots clean.
