WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? ANYTHING?

It seems like that in the last few weeks, we have had event after event that has caused me to pause and wonder a lot about our current human condition. These events, both locally and nationally, have been gripping in their media appeal and ability to dominate the cable news, talk radio and grab the headlines in the print media.

But as one event knocks off the prior one for the top spot, I keep asking myself, what is that we’ve learned? I know that there is no law stating that we have to learn anything from any event, but for a community of thinking people with enormous intellectual capacity and who seem to value social progress, it seems to be a reasonable expectation. It’s as if we must be a living testament to George Santayana’s oft quoted line, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Let’s look at two examples. First, the Duke Lacrosse case, or the stripper false allegation case as some call it. When the case first broke in the media, the uproar was deafening and the responses were certainly predictable. Anger, disgust, outrage, hate, and repugnance were evident and came through in media reports loudly and clearly. The lacrosse players and their coach, and those defending them, appeared to have little support.

People firmly on both sides of the case accused those of us of all sorts of things when cautioned that in situations like this it was best to wait for some facts to come in before reaching a judgment. So when people called from all over our country and asked about the case, I responded that it had all of the ingredients that the media loves: race, sex, class, an elite university, and disreputable employment.

When the North Carolina Attorney General declared the three young men innocent, reactions were just as loud. Of course, some argued that they knew it all the time and others claim that you can’t be innocent when you have a team party with alcohol being served to underage teens while watching an “exotic” dancer. But the key point is that those who knew what they knew in the beginning were just as adamant when this development became public.

Then comes Imus and his non-humorous attempt at humor (he claims) and the Duke story is no longer number one. Again, we have race and a verified assault on a group of young women. People who supported Imus referenced the 1st Amendment and his opponents argued that he had no right to do what he did to those young ladies. No attorney general declared him innocent or guilty, the marketplace did.

When the broadcast sponsors were bombarded with complaints from the public, the TV and radio networks went from a suspension to a firing, but not because they really didn’t like what their star jock said, but because the market forces aligned against them.

What troubles me in this situation is that we didn’t get to discuss more fully the issues raised in this case. In particular, how much discussion has there been about the rest of what Imus said, that the University of Tennessee girls were “cute?” What was he saying? Was it solely because of the absence of tattoos or was it because of straight hair and fair skin? Note that this is not a new race topic that we can’t seem to discuss openly or honestly.

Do you see a pattern? We know what we know and the facts, whenever they surface, are not going to keep some of us from our rush to judgments in hot button cases. There are so many outlets these days like blogs and chat rooms where we can express whatever opinion we have without having any responsibility to know what we are talking about. After all, we have a right to our opinions and therefore the right to be 100% wrong.

But when it comes to both sides of the hot buttons of race, class, sex and other captivating topics, why is it so hard for even people of goodwill to have candid and honest discussions? Hence, I must keep wondering what it is that we’ve learned from these cases. It’s interesting that 30 years ago when the TV docudrama “Roots” first aired, we seemed to be on our way in making some progress towards being able to discuss hard topics. Now, I’m not sure we’ve progressed.

In our local community, we are facing some hard issues like redistricting and the achievement gap where race and class are prominent factors. How can we achieve solutions if we can’t have honest and open discussions? I want to be optimistic that we can show that we’ve learned something constructive and beneficial from these recent events. If we can do that, it would be a good thing.

DO YOU BOWL ALONE OR WITH A TEAM?

Do you have any bowling shirts in your closet? Are they from a league that you participated in? At one time, I had four or five that were classics. I haven’t been in a league since the late 80s so it’s anyone’s guess where those shirts are now. After all, we moved more than a few times so they probably ended up in a give-away bag. It’s an interesting thought to imagine whom if anyone is wearing my “Crusaders” team shirt with “Fred” in a fancy script over the pocket.

The reason that I mention this is because on Monday, November 27th I was in a follow-up meeting for the Madison trip participants and others. Thinking aloud, I said, “"We don't take a lot of time to discuss, what is it that makes us a community? People would answer that question so differently. What unites us?"

The bowling comes in because Robert D. Putnam wrote a book, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). Professor Putnam is at Harvard where he serves as the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy. I first met him when he was chair of Harvard's Department of Government, and later as dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The thesis of his book is this: he argues that we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures. He also offers ideas on how we may reconnect. His “evidence” comes from years of research and the bowling analogy is used because, even though more people may be bowling, they’re not doing it in leagues like they once did.

He deals with something called our stock of social capital. This is the idea that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all "social networks" [who people know] and “the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [‘norms of reciprocity’]”. From his nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century, he concludes that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. As for the cause, Putnam offers that changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's roles, and other factors have contributed to this decline of our social fabric.

I presume that you would not be surprised to learn that many scholars in a variety of disciplines strongly disagree with the Putnam thesis, and strongly. What about in our community? Can we see some support for his thesis here? We know that we have had pitiful voting turnouts, but the other aspects of his thesis may vary vastly within our community.

One aspect of interest to me is wondering if we have a good number of local organizations where the membership numbers might be up but few members are willing to serve in key leadership positions. My experience in the last few years is that when you ask someone to take a “key position,” they tell you how busy they are and they just don’t have the time to take on any more responsibilities. Do we avoid a higher level of commitment?

I guess that where I come down on this is believing that our community is more than just a geographical location. I see us as interconnected and interdependent while sharing a set of values and goals with others. Therefore, a community is not just the sum of the individuals who make it up, but something much more.

What then unites us as community? I presume that our personal experiences tell us that having something to unite us in no way means that we are united. Just ask people about the drama at their Thanksgiving or other holiday get-togethers. Family and friendship may unite them, but they are nowhere close to being unified. I could make a good case for planting yourself at the “kid’s table” and dealing with the more manageable drama there!

How many communities do we feel a part? How connected do we feel to others in those communities? Do we have a “community spirit,” positive attitudes, optimism, and a sense of loyalty? I personally am still struggling to get my arms around all of this.

I have concluded one thing however. The things that we rally around say a lot about who we are as residents of Orange County, Chatham County and their municipalities. Winning the Women’s Soccer National Championship may not actually unite us as a community, but I suspect that there is still great pride in what that “local” team accomplished. Let’s hope that our two great “roundball” teams can do it too — that will also lift our spirits and it will be another good thing for our community.

WHAT’S AFFORADABLE HOUSING ANYWAY?

What a Thanksgiving! With our two and a half year old grandson and his eight month old sister visiting (yes, they brought their parents along too), it’s been a really fun time. It’s something getting acquainted or reacquainted with Thomas the Train, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Sesame Street, Higglytown Heroes, and Little Einsteins, but what could be more fun?

As we sit on the floor of the family room playing and watching and laughing, the weather outdoors is no problem because of the warmth of our home. We have much to be thankful for and it’s difficult not to think how different the days and nights are for the homeless. Those parents and kids who have no warm home to live in are far too numerous.

Thankfully, we are trying to address the problem through the Orange County Partnership To End Homelessness. Key to any solution, however, is having a stock of housing that people with a range of incomes can afford to buy or rent. We like to call this “affordable” housing, but I prefer the label “workforce” housing. As with most labels, we need to be clear on what we mean. I think workforce housing should be affordable to the entire range of incomes in our community. It should simply mean that all people, and especially those who work here, can find a home to fit their budget.

While we were in Madison on the Chamber’s Inter-City Visit in September, we had a breakout session on workforce housing. Housing stalwarts Robert Dowling, executive director of the Orange County Community Housing and Land Trust, and Delores Bailey, executive director of EmPOWERment, Inc., led the session. We heard about the Madison approach from Bill Perkins, the executive director for The Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development, Inc.

Madison is in Dane County and they studied their situation and concluded that they had a serious problem. They found that to be able to afford the fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment required an hourly wage of $12.45, or $25,896 annually. Some 30% of their workforce made this wage or less. Some of the jobs represented included emergency medical technicians, restaurant cooks, home health aids, preschool teachers, nursing aides, and many others.

They also found that an income of $34, 100 was half of what was needed to buy their median-priced home in 2005. Sadly, 55% of their workforce made less than $34,100. Bus drivers, secretaries, dental assistants, maintenance workers, and police, fire and ambulance dispatchers were in this group in 2005.

So to buy that median-priced home in 2005, the annual income required was $68,200. They were distressed to learn that 94% of the Dane County workforce made less than that required income, and that included among others teachers, police officers, firefighters, mental health counselors, school counselors, and licensed practical nurses.
What’s the situation in Orange County? Sad to say, it’s generally worse. Did you know that in 2005, the median price for a single family home in Orange County was $286,000? Are our workers paid what’s required to afford that home? Not usually, so it’s no surprise that too many who work here can’t afford to live here. They live in other counties and must drive into Orange County everyday. Meanwhile, many who can afford to live here work outside of Orange County and they drive out every day. What’s wrong with this picture?

Our Community Housing and Land Trust, EmPOWERment, and Habitat for Humanity, are making a herculean effort to increase the housing stock so that our workforce can afford to live where they work. The Town of Chapel Hill also took a big step last September when they established a task force on inclusionary zoning.

With representatives from various constituencies including the development and real estate communities, the business community, nonprofits engaged in providing affordable housing in Chapel Hill, and interested citizens, they hammered out a proposal on inclusionary zoning that was presented at the Town Council Meeting on November 20th.

At its simplest, inclusionary zoning requires that a certain percentage of homes be set at officially "affordable" prices, along with market-rate homes in the same project. We need several tools that will work and this has the promise of being one of those tools. Stay tuned to see how this plays out, but remember, the solution to the housing situation cannot be placed entirely on our developers.

As those of us who can afford to enjoy our loved ones in our own warm homes, let’s remember that there are too many who can’t do the same in the community where they work. We have to do better, and doing that will be a good thing.