San Francisco Neighborhood Empowerment Network

April 14th, 2011 - Warren Edwards

One of the primary ways that governments at all echelons create resilience is to empower its citizens to take charge of their own lives and build a safe and secure future for themselves and their families. The San Francisco Neighborhood Empowerment Network seeks to do just that. The Neighborhood Empowerment Network, or NEN, is a coalition of residents, community, faith-based, academic institutions and government agencies whose goal is to empower neighborhoods to become cleaner, greener, healthier and more inclusive places to live and work. To me this certainly exemplifies the CARRI idea of bringing together the “full fabric” of the community and greater resilience for a community with these goals seems highly probable.

Led by an energetic Daniel Homsey from city hall, this city government sponsored program includes a dynamic set of strategic partnerships among government agencies, non-profits and community organizations, a NEN University to engage the academic community, an awards program, a storytelling arm and robust use of all social media. Its projects are organized and managed by the neighborhoods themselves, based on the core needs identified by the residents, and facilitated and encouraged by the city.

You can find everything about the San Francisco Neighborhood Empowerment Network at www.empowersf.org. The site is well worth your visit.

One of the things we at CARRI want to do is to highlight ways that communities are organizing themselves to become more resilient. If you have a example, contact us and let’s get these great stories told.

Comments (0)

Another Take on our Nation’s Infrastructure Crisis

March 22nd, 2011 - John Plodinec

The excellent recent postings by my colleague Andy Felts are doing a fine job of pointing out the crisis our country is facing with its infrastructure. It is a serious problem compounded by our federal deficit, and the very real lack of resources being faced by many of our cities, counties and states.

The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters – “danger” and “opportunity.” One facet of resilience is finding the opportunity in a crisis. When we talk about the state of our infrastructure we tend to stress the dangers – especially when talking to politicians. We will eventually fix our infrastructure. We may do it in a deliberate and planned manner, or in response to more incidents like the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. In other words, on either a “pay me now,” or a “pay me [more] later” basis.

But if we proceed wisely to repair and rebuild our infrastructure, I see real opportunities that are too often overlooked. Here in the US, by using better materials, building in better locations, using sensors to allow us to know the conditional status of our infrastructure at almost any point in time, we can again make our infrastructure a competitive advantage. Investments like these will reduce maintenance costs, provide greater safety, and allow us an extended life for what we rebuild.

And the use of these same new technologies can also spark real economic growth from foreign buyers. The infrastructure in much of the newer developed world (esp. what Thomas Barnett calls the “new core” – Brazil, India…) though younger than ours – is built on the American model, with American ideas. If we can push to make good investments and solve our own problems soon, the solutions we develop will provide economic opportunities for us as countries in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere begin to face the same challenges we are now. American firms can once more be in the forefront of rebuilding the infrastructure of the world.

Certainly we should stress the dangers when talking about our infrastructure crisis. However, we should also stress the opportunities inherent in dealing with those dangers. We should not allow our current fiscal mess to prevent us from investing in ourselves in ways that will provide a huge return on that investment.

Comments (0)

Water, Water Everywhere . . . And Not a Drop to Drink

March 8th, 2011 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

While it is ultimately difficult to prioritize segments of our infrastructures, the CARRI team has generally concluded that water is high on the list along with adequate power. Difficult to say which is more important since we know water systems need power to pump water. Hospitals can have emergency generators, but we know a lot less about how long they can go without water. We know as well that they consume very large quantities of it.

The recent cholera outbreak in Haiti has exposed twenty-first century youth to a problem as old as human communities—the need for clean water. It may come as a surprise to many, but it is widely held that the provision of safe, potable water is the single greatest contributor to our longer life spans.

There are many communities in the United States that have serious drinking water supply problems. Most know that the greater Los Angeles area is too dry to sustain its population and water must be piped in from a distance. Many other western cities have made the list of those facing water shortages. Closer to the east coast, Atlanta has now made the list. Doubtful that any would argue water shortage as an issue influencing a community’s ongoing resilience.

What may be less clear is the growing fragility of the water delivery system. Underground, out of sight, there are some very large man-made streams. Water mains in excess of 72 inches in size crisscross communities, having to endure extreme variations in temperature, pressure, and the constant shifting of the earth, including that created by cars on the surface.

The force of a large water main breaking is something to be reckoned with. It can toss cars like matchbook toys. It can flood basements in seconds. I can sweep people away with virtually no warning.

Here is another fact probably not well known. Most all underground water lines leak—that is what eventually leads to a major break, and it makes sense when seen that way. A loss of 10 to 20 percent of the water pumped is considered ‘acceptable.’ But a sudden drop in pressure from a burst line can require extraordinary precautions to maintain sanitation.

The American Waterworks Association tells us that a water main breaks every two minutes—for a total annual count of 300,000. The nation’s water system was mostly built in the 1950s and 60s—and is rapidly aging. Washington DC’s average pipe age is 77 years.

Needless to say, a community whose pipes do not hold water very well in normal times will probably experience even worse problems in the aftermath of a disaster. Water pipes are indeed, out of sight, and thus we don’t have to look at them as a part of our aging infrastructure. But we should.

Or are they really out sight? Aren’t they really readily visible when you walk in your kitchen and turn on the tap

Comments (0)

Infrastructure and Resilience–Or Lack Thereof?

February 28th, 2011 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

In this blog, I am pushing the limits of my knowledge—and hope that any kind readers would correct me if I’m wrong.

One of the most resonant statements we have made throughout the entire CARRI experience is that a community’s trajectory before a disaster will likely be exacerbated. Not something hard to understand. A community that has been experiencing an economic boom will likely do better post-disaster, and one that is not, vice-versa. Ditto for crime or housing problems.

So much of our attention on disasters has been focused on physical devastation that I think it is time to put the record straight. We need our water systems, roads, water treatment facilities, public buildings, bridges, to be in the best shape possible to increase community resilience. Out of sight does not mean out of mind.

So, I ask this question: Where are we, as a nation, heading on our infrastructure? When I Google “America’s decaying infrastructure,” I get myriad hits. Am I searching under the wrong street light?

Many years ago I had a wonderful point made to me by a woman working in transportation planning in Kingsport, TN. As we were talking about the need to plan for capital expenditures, she very gently pointed out to me that sometimes the unseen things in our infrastructure are neglected because they are precisely that—unseen.

In the face of that fact, it is easy to see why major stakeholders would favor a new coliseum over repairing a bridge. But if the bridge is necessary to carry people to the new coliseum, is it any less necessary?

I can make my point here quickly. If we as a nation are on a downward trajectory with respect to our infrastructure, then we are slowly becoming less resilient. Facilities that might have survived a natural or manmade event may show their age. Part of the interesting part about participating in CARRI has been how much it has expanded my vision. A viable neighborhood or community that becomes cut off as a result of decaying infrastructure has experienced its own manmade disaster. Only in this case, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

More on this topic to come, including some hard data…

Comments (2)

How Far We’ve Not Come

April 26th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts

I teach a Capstone Seminar in the master of public administration program at the College of Charleston—it is designed to bridge the students’ academic experience with the practitioners’ world. One of the assignments for the seminar is for students to work in teams of three or four on a real policy issue/problem. I ask local governments and nonprofits if they have issues or problems and the students choose from the list I get in response.

This semester, one group chose to examine and suggest updates for the City of Charleston’s policy addressing how employees will be expected to perform in the event of a disaster. While some employees, for example, those involved in public safety and health are clearly part of an emergency response plan others are not. Disaster or not, the city’s financial operations cannot shut down, public works crews need to be ready to quickly deploy for emergency repairs to critical infrastructure, and an orderly system of public communication needs to fall in place.

In previous blogs, Dr. John Plodinec and I have hinted at this by suggesting that any recovery plan should factor the critical role that public employees will play. Many employees may be required to work several days straight and then be on-call for an extended period. It is unreasonable for a plan not to acknowledge this and provide assistance to them in meeting family needs. It is unreasonable to expect that an employee will work two or three straight days and not know if their family is safe and secure.

A good plan for public employees would identify ”tiers,” from those that are deemed critical for the ongoing operations of the government, to those that may not be needed for several days. Employees should know in advance what is expected of them in a disaster, what they can expect in return, and, as best they can, make their own personal plans accordingly.

As the students did their research, they naturally decided to contact other East coast communities to see what their employee plans were for disasters.

One community representative, alarmingly, responded they would convene department heads and make a plan if a disaster was imminent. There are two pieces of news here. That is not a plan. Rather it is a plan to plan at what is probably not a very good time. Secondly, and more importantly, they should understand that a disaster is always imminent.

As if that was not enough to set off alarms in my head, the students reported that many communities said they had no plan at all for use of employees during a disaster. The students said they didn’t feel comfortable in asking them ”why not” since they are, after all, still students.

If you are reading this, alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head as well. Governmental response outside emergency management both during a disaster and in the extended recovery period is crucial. Lack of a plan that employees know and understand will likely not only dramatically affect the time needed to recover, but human lives as well.

Comments (0)