Latest news with #BlackResidents
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mayor D.C. Reeves postpones Fricker Center meeting after backlash from Black residents
Pensacola Mayor D.C. Reeves postponed a second public input meeting on the Fricker Center renovation – a day before it was set to take place – after the city was met with anger from some Black residents over gentrification in the city. The newly scheduled meeting at the Fricker Center will be at 8 a.m. Aug. 13, instead of at 6:30 p.m. July 31 as originally planned. Reeves said the purpose of moving the meeting was to ensure the meeting was about feedback on the community center and not other issues, which he said can be addressed at a town hall he will host on the evening of Aug. 26 with Councilman Delarian Wiggins. The location hasn't been set yet. 'This is a rescheduling of an event,' Reeves said. 'It's not the cancellation of an event. We've just given you the dates, and certainly folks can go there, or they can go to a town hall as well and share some of those issues." Gentrification fears: Fricker Center renovation sparks tension as Black residents tell city: We don't trust you Pensacola has $9.5 million in state grants to fund a renovation of The Fricker Center and held a public meeting on July 23 to get feedback on the center's renovation. A large portion of the meeting was dominated by concern about the gentrification of historically Black neighborhoods, anger over the mayor's absence, and several commenters who voiced distrust of the city's motivation for renovating the center. 'I've never seen the city of Pensacola dump $9 million into the Black community," Pensacola resident Jermaine Williams said at the July 23 meeting. The share of Pensacola residents who identify only as Black has fallen from about 30% of the city in 2000 to about 21%, according to the most recent Census estimates. 'Anybody bringing any concern that they have with the city, it is important to allow that opportunity,' Reeves said. 'But I think in this specific case, there were things that might be more relevant as a town hall discussion and a larger discussion about the community at large, and concern about the changing community and what does or doesn't cause that.' Reeves also pushed back on the idea that there was some ulterior motive behind the renovation. 'I don't take it personally when someone says it's hard to believe that the city is going to just come in and put in $9.5 million and there's not be some ulterior motive,' Reeves said. 'We have no ulterior motive other than we want to take a facility that has been left behind – the same way we've done with the Cobb Center, that's about to take on $1.7 million, so it wasn't going to need to be on the list of being in danger – because we want these to stay. We want these to thrive." Reeves said if the community doesn't want $9.5 million spent on their center to be renovated, then he would 'take heed to that.' 'The community as a whole, not one or two people,' Reeves added. Reeves also pointed to the benefits of a renovated community center for current neighborhood residents, which will upgrade the center's classrooms, restrooms, playground, kitchen facilities, computer lab, and add a senior center that will be a health education and outreach facility with Baptist Health Care. 'There can be no better definition of the actual term community center than what's being discussed right now,' Reeves said. Reeves said he would put his track record of engaging with the community in public meetings and town halls over that of any previous Pensacola mayor. 'In almost three years I've been here, I think we're up at over 100 on every project,' Reeves said. As far as moving the meeting to the morning, Reeves said that most public input meetings happen at different times, so people with varying schedules of work can attend. He said the Fricker Center meetings happening back-to-back a week apart at the same time is an unusual schedule compared to most public meetings. "We thought we had some limiting factors with the Florida (Department of) Commerce to have it done by Aug. 1, but with some of the condition issues we're looking at in the building right now, we have an extension on that,' Reeves said. 'So we were able to not have to jam these in, two within eight days.' This article originally appeared on Pensacola News Journal: Mayor D.C. Reeves postpones Fricker Center meeting after backlash Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
02-07-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Baltimore Mayor Scott releases preliminary plan to curb city opioid overdoses
Baltimore City Mayor Brandon Scott released the city's preliminary overdose response strategic plan Wednesday. The plan is part of an executive order detailing how the city will spend $242.5 million in settlement funds won in a lawsuit against multiple pharmaceutical companies. Data on opioid overdoses in Baltimore City According to Baltimore City's Overdose Needs Assessment, overdose deaths are declining – but the city still leads metro areas nationally in overdose mortality. Black male residents who are 60 and older are 4.6 times as likely to experience a fatal overdose compared to their white counterparts. The leading cause of maternal mortality in Maryland is overdose, the city's report cited. What is the plan to reduce overdoses? The overall goals of the city's preliminary plan include addressing inequities in the overdose crisis, dismantling silos and improving connections within care systems, reducing the stigma surrounding care, and improving the quality and accessibility of substance use services across the city. The city said that when community members lack access to housing, food, employment, and transportation, their access to harm reduction, treatment, and recovery services can be impeded. Housing is the most essential need to support those who use drugs, according to the assessment. The report also highlights a need to increase youth engagement programming in the city. Other needs included in the assessment are public health education and awareness campaigns, expanded access to mental health services, and more harm reduction spaces. In a community input form, community members said pharmacy access was also an issue. What are the next steps? Mayor Scott says his goal is to reduce fatal overdoses by 40% by 2040. "This is a major milestone in our work to end the overdose crisis in our city and address decades of harm done to our residents," Scott said. "We made the decision to directly take on Big Pharma for their role in this crisis, and we won millions in settlements and awards. This strategic plan lays out how we'll invest that money back into communities, with the goal of reducing fatal overdoses at least 40% by 2040." The city will hold four listening sessions in July where residents can provide feedback on the plan: Wednesday, July 9: 5:30–8:00 p.m. at Cherry Hill Elementary and Middle School, 801 Bridgeway Rd., Baltimore, MD 21225 Thursday, July 17: 5:30–8:00 p.m. at Gethsemane Baptist Church, 2520 Francis St., Baltimore, MD 21217 Wednesday, July 23: 5:30–8:00 p.m. at Pimlico Elementary School, 4849 Pimlico Rd., Baltimore, MD 21215 Thursday, July 31: 5:30–8:00 p.m. at Henderson Hopkins Elementary and Middle School, 2100 Ashland Ave., Baltimore, MD 21205 The full Overdose Response Strategic Plan is available here.
Fast Company
26-06-2025
- General
- Fast Company
As Metro Detroit grows for a second year in a row, neighborhoods have shifted
Following decades of population loss, Detroit may finally be turning a corner. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimates, the city saw an increase in population for both 2023 and 2024. An additional 11,000 people moved into the city in the years 2023 and 2024, a small gain in a city with a population of 645,705—but one which marked a symbolic shift. The census data shows just over 1% growth in the past year alone and 0.7% the year before compared with a nearly 25% loss between 2000 and 2010. As an urban sociologist studying issues related to race and ethnicity, I am interested in how Detroit's population is changing, and where different groups live in both the city and its suburbs. Analyzing population trends in the metro Detroit area using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, I wanted to understand how racial, ethnic and socioeconomic trends are unfolding, and what those changes can tell us about the evolution and vitality of Detroit. Black Detroiters relocate, city diversifies From 2010 to 2023, Detroit's racial and ethnic makeup continued to gradually diversify even as the city was declining in population. While Black residents are still the majority, their proportion of the total number fell from around 84% to 79%. Other groups, in contrast, increased their share of the city's population. Between 2010 and 2023, the percentage of Hispanic residents grew from 6.6% to 8.3%, the percentage of white residents grew from 8.2% to 10.7%, and the percentage of Asian residents grew from 1.3% to 1.7%. These shifts reflect a steady and ongoing diversification of Detroit's population, indicative of new migration trends and shifting neighborhood dynamics. Suburbs in flux In addition to Detroit's recent population growth, a broader story is unfolding in the city's suburbs. The population of the suburban area as a whole increased 0.73% from 2023 to 2024, but growth was not evenly spread. Collectively, the outer-ring suburbs gained almost 20,000 people, increasing by 1%. Communities such as the city of Troy and Macomb Township accounted for a significant share of that growth. Inner-ring suburbs, such as Southfield, Warren and others, grew less vigorously – gaining just 4,000 people, or 0.31%. These differences highlight the necessity of complicating the conventional city-versus-suburb narrative to acknowledge the many economic and racial divisions across the metropolitan region. The socioeconomic statuses of residents of the inner- and outer-ring suburbs diverged between 2000 and 2020. My analysis of census data shows that although both subregions witnessed increases in median household incomes, the rates of change were significantly higher in the outer-ring suburbs, with a 37.7% increase versus a 16.8% increase in the inner rings. The data shows a similar trend in higher education attainment. Outer ring suburbs gained 7.1% more residents with college degrees or higher during this period, while the inner suburbs lost 7.5%. Homeownership patterns in the two suburban regions also diverged over those two decades, increasing 18% in the outer rings and decreasing 10% in the inner rings. The data on poverty and immigration also reveal contrasting results. According to my calculations of census data, inner-ring suburbs experienced a 77% increase in poverty, while the outer ring experienced a lesser, though considerable, 50.8% bump in poverty during the 2000-2020 period. Meanwhile, during the same time period, the foreign-born populations in the outer suburbs expanded by 24.9%, with increases of at least 10,000 in places such as Sterling Heights, Novi and Canton. In contrast, the inner suburbs saw more modest gains—around 5,000 in cities such as Dearborn Heights and Warren—while their overall foreign-born share declined by nearly 20%. Together, the above trends highlight the necessity of not viewing the suburban area as a monolith. These patterns reflect national trends, in which many older, inner-ring suburbs are experiencing socioeconomic stagnation or decline while newer, outer-ring suburbs continue to attract more people who have higher incomes. Mixed neighborhoods grow Residential segregation also differentiates inner and outer suburban rings. Segregation levels remain high in the inner suburbs, especially between white and Black residents. While outer suburbs tend to be more integrated today, the rate of change there has been more modest over the past two decades. Social scientists measure segregation using a tool called the 'dissimilarity index.' The index represents the proportion of one group that would need to move to establish an equal distribution of the population based on their relative numbers. It ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means equal distribution across neighborhoods, while a score of 100 means the two groups live in completely separate areas. From 2000 to 2020, white-Black segregation across the region decreased from 84.4% to 68.3% on the index, while white-Hispanic segregation decreased from 47.6% to 39.9%. Together, these numbers indicate a broader trend toward more integrated living patterns. In the inner-ring suburbs, segregation fell across the board. White-Black segregation went down by 15.6%; white-Asian and white-Hispanic segregation dropped even more, by 43.2% and 30.7%, respectively. These trends suggest that while the outer suburbs currently have lower levels of segregation, the inner suburbs are integrating more rapidly, reflecting shifting patterns of neighborhood change and increasing racial and ethnic diversity.
Fast Company
29-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Today's housing crisis could learn from this 1960s anti-poverty program
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I've studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. Building a great society The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as 'comprehensive' and 'concentrated' efforts. It wasn't just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. A revolutionary approach to poverty What made Model Cities unique wasn't just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on ' widespread citizen participation,' which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a ' Domestic Marshall Plan ' – a reference to the federal government's efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality. Young's vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents weren't just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called ' guerrillas in the bureaucracy.' These were radical planners—often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program's goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. Strengthening community ties In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place—a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city's poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. What went wrong? Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from 'people programs' and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of ' neocolonialism,' one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. A legacy worth revisiting Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called ' a little noticed revolution.' In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities' insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation.
