Joseph A. Montagna
From 1953 to 1958 the Urban Renewal Program in New Haven concentrated on the physical aspects of revitalization. This was about to change, for there was a need to address the problems that affected the people of the City’s neighborhoods. Mayor Lee and his staff were thinking in terms of people programs as a means of a holistic approach to urban renewal. Dick Lee and his staff were making efforts in this area, but they were meager ones. What was needed was an enormous pool of resources to combat the problems of those who lived in the city. Lee encouraged the labor unions to open their ranks to minorities because jobs were central to the improvement of the human condition. Small programs in homemaking and job training were developed. The election of John Kennedy gave credibility to programs designed to improve the human condition. As soon as people programs became nationally prominent, New Haven was among the first to capitalize on it. When the federal government began to call for research and demonstration programs in the area of human renewal, there was New Haven at the head of the line with a “bushel basket”.
At the hub of New Haven’s human renewal efforts was Community Progress, Inc. (C.P.I.). It served as an umbrella organization which coordinated the flow of funds to neighborhood corporations for their projects. A report entitled “Opening Opportunities” captured the philosophy of C.P.I. This report became the guiding light for programs in education, employment, leisure time activities, community services, juvenile delinquency, housing, and services for the elderly.
Not only should “Opening Opportunities” have been the philosophy of C.P.I. and New Haven, but it should be the goal of every civilization on this planet. The report embraced the idea of the development of the individual to his/her fullest potential. Mayor Lee wrote in the preface:
We in New Haven believe that the goal of a democratic society is the fullest possible development of the individual potentialities of all its people. In Urban America, despite great material wealth, there are obstacles to this goal. Most visible are the blight and obsolescence of the environment of a large portion of all but the newest cities. Equally present are social, cultural, and economic obstructions which prevent people from attaining a full measure of personal fullfillment.2
The steps that were about to be taken in tackling the human problems of New Haven were courageous ones, for they attacked a way of life that people tended to accept: racism, high unemployment of the poor, crime, poor educational facilities, etc. Now, a mechanism was developed to address these problems that had been festering for too long.
“Opening Opportunities” outlined the conceptual basis of the programs that were initially developed. The report put the individual as the focus of these programs, offering opportunities to raise horizons, develop innate talents, and break down the barriers to advancement that existed. These programs were important to the poor, for they provided a way of breaking the vicious cycle which held them captive.
Did these programs succeed? Did they go far enough? One finds that the answers to these questions vary depending on whom one asks. What definition of success might we apply? Neighborhood people were being provided with services that were badly needed. Excellent starts were made in providing the poor with badly needed services such as job training centers and day care centers. The former provided a person with a marketable skill to become employable and the latter provided a parent with the opportunity to become employed. That’s success! Community Schools were being developed, providing the community with services from morning to night. That’s success! People were participating in cooperative neighborhood activities. That’s success! The elderly were being provided with services and housing. That’s success!
There were many critics of Community Progress, Inc. and their criticisms took many forms. There were those who questioned the enormous administrative costs; Congressman Giaimo among the most prominent. He likened the structure of C.P.I. to an “inverted pyramid” which resulted in money being spent at the top of the organization, rather than it being directly applied to the neighborhoods. There were those motivated by racism or ignorance, or both, who questioned the very existence of such programs in the first place. At the other end of the spectrum were those neighborhood people who contended that the programs did not go far enough. Finally, there was the criticism that the system did not allow for greater participation in the decision making process by those affected by these programs, the people who lived in the neighborhoods.
The handwriting was on the wall about the flow of federal funds for these programs. President Johnson was disenchanted with the War on Poverty, as well as the war in Vietnam. The political climate of the country was one which turned attention away from the problems of the poor. The New Haven “riots” of the summer of ‘67 were interpreted as a failure of these programs to help those living in the inner city. Looking at events from the other end of the microscope, people saw the pendulum swing from one extreme to the other. They saw the federal government shift from a great deal of interest in the plight of the poor to little or no interest at all. To put the “riots” in their proper perspective, they were merely a manifestation of the frustration created by this shift of interest in the problems of urban areas by the federal government. Surely, it cannot be disputed that those engaged in violence during those two days were a minority of the total neighborhood population where the incidents occurred. However, political leaders failed to recognize that this minority was actually the voice of the majority of the poor. Mitchell Sviridoff, former head of C.P.I., maintained that the “radical element” must be consulted in order to keep one’s finger on the pulse of the community. Perhaps, if this had been done, then New Haven would not have had to experience those tense summer nights.
What of the future? It has been said that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those same mistakes. Nobody can question the goals that were developed for dealing with the problems of New Haven. One can only grieve that these ideals were not achieved, and hope that the future will bring another wave which will pick up where past teachers left off. This time we will not be embarking upon an unexplored frontier. We hope that we will learn from the mistakes that were made.