Talk:Neighborhood Expectations Statement
From KpcaWiki
Contents |
[edit] Comments from John Cook
The "Neighborhood Expectations Statement" It is an aspirational statement about who we are as a community, and our vision of the community we want to become. It is a positive document, emphasizing the strengthening of the bonds between people as the best way to strengthen the community. It is a document that seeks to improve the community not through mandatory rules (KPCA is a voluntary organization without the enforcement powers of a homeowners’ association) but through the power of friendly persuasion. Creating expectations for an increasingly diverse community means first strengthening bonds between people, through our block parties, our new neighbor welcome dinner, and block captain efforts. Once we get to know each other better, we will understand each other, and most importantly, respect each other. Respect for one’s neighbors is a key element of these Expectations. There are three components to the “Neighborhood Expectations” statement. One, the statement calls for compliance with zoning and property maintenance codes. It calls for neighbors to work together to bring homes into compliance, and encourages residents to report continued violations. The statement condemns the possession, distribution, and use of illegal drugs and calls on residents to stop speeding, reckless driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Two, the statement “codifies” the “unwritten” rules we generally think of concerning our homes and properties. It asks residents to shovel snow from their walks, rake leaves, prune plants, and mow yards. It asks residents to keep up the appearance of their properties. It encourages us to be good stewards of the environment, particularly pertaining to storm drains and adjacent park areas. Three, the statement strongly encourages residents to build personal bonds with each other. It calls on us to make efforts to understand and get to know neighbors of different backgrounds, whether those differences be race, ethnicity, age, national origin, or socio-economic status. It urges us to respect others’ individuality, but seeks to balance individuality with “friendly persuasion” to consider the effect of one’s actions on the community as a whole. It asks us to help our neighbors in need. And, it encourages all of us to be active participants in the community. In short, it calls for us individually, and collectively as a community, to be the best that we can be.
Note from Fred: I moved John's comments here. There were originally part of the introduction on the article page, but I moved them here as I though they were more of a discussion. --Fred 18:02, 7 March 2008 (MST)
[edit] Detailed Comments
NEIGHBORHOOD EXPECTATIONS
We, the members of the Kings Park Civic Association (KPCA), adopt these neighborhood expectations and invite all residents of Kings Park to embrace them as well. This “Neighborhood Expectations” statement is our statement of who Kings Park residents are and who we want to be as a community. We participate in a voluntary organization, the KPCA, and this statement is not a “rule book” or other legal authority. Instead, it is an aspirational statement of the values by which we try to live, both for the betterment of our individual lives and for our community.
VISION: We seek to be a community that is safe, vital, and attractive, and where the rights of all people are respected
CORRECTION TO THIS POSTING: The posting of the VISION paragraph is incorrect. The correct version is a VISION paragraph 6 sentences long and not 1 sentence. Readers will probably mistake that the posted VISION paragraph as incomplete and not a substantial VISION statement. This is a typical way to convey fallacious arguments or putting forth erroneous statements. The complete VISION paragraph is an excellent VISION statement and is an integral part of this excellent Neighborhood Expectations Statement. Readers should not fall for the argument(s) that take sentences “out of context” ---this is insulting to any Kings Park resident. The complete VISION paragraph is as follows:
VISION: We seek to be a community that is safe, vital, and attractive, and where the rights of all people are respected. We celebrate our right to the “pursuit of happiness” in our individual homes and lives and through our community. Strong communities are essential for our individual as well as our collective happiness and success. But, we recognize that a strong community does not happen on its own. Our community will only be strong if we continually commit ourselves to making it that way. Getting to know our neighbors, showing respect for others, conducting ourselves and maintaining our properties in a positive manner, lending our time and talents to the community, and participating in community events and organizations will result in a strong community of which we can all be proud.
As opposed to the above post, most people will understand that this is the discussion tab. The discussion tab is where you discuss the article - found on the article tab. And since this is the discussion tab, it is natural that the vision paragaraph and other parts would have interjected opinions, also known as discussion. Again, the entire statement, un- edited, appears on the article tab. --Marcus 08:29, 1 March 2008 (MST)
NOTE to all people who might be thinking of buying a house in Kings Park: We currently are a safe, vital and attractive community and we currently respect the rights of all people! The above is a statement, not a vision.
I feel that I have had my say at the committee meeting, so I am restricting my comments to those of procedure. On the artice page, the residents are told "If you have comments or proposed amendments, please send them to jcook@cookkitts.com." Why are we using a gatekeeper?
Should comments and proposed amendments be posted to a dedicated wiki page where all can see them? --Paul666 08:45, 3 March 2008 (MST) Modified--I have been informed (correctly) this note may indicate that I have concerns as to an individuals motives or actions. I do not. To the extent anyone read the note that way, I appologize. My goal is to try and move our processes to more transparent system. Calls for comments or amendments in the Wiki should be forwarded to a Wiki page for all to see. A case can be made this is different from calls for comments from the Gazette or other sources. I hope this clarifies my comment.--Paul666 08:59, 5 March 2008 (MST)
_______________________________________________________________________
We celebrate our right to the “pursuit of happiness” in our individual homes and lives and through our community. --96.231.200.107 12:24, 29 February 2008 (MST)
eh yeah, this is AMERICA! and has been the reality, as opposed to the vision, for what, a couple hundred years now. Note: Kings Park is part of the United States and yes, we currently understand the whole pursuit of happiness thing as we've had it, have it and will continue to have it . . . well . . . unless of course you are writting unfavorable things about the Expectations Statement then you might be asked to move out of the neighborhood or . . .eh . . .I don't know, you might get a threat of being sued or something HAPPY like that ;-)<p> Sarcastic comments do not push the issue forward but detract from it. Substantial comments should be offered for readers. The mysterious anonymous poster has angrily used words such as “sarcasm and divisiveness” and has couched these posts in a unfavorable light . . . trying to tell all Kings Park residents what should offend them and so forth. What I don't understand, however, is why someone who cares so much about the Expectations Statement would only criticize the style in which opposing opinions are offered rather than the opposing opinion itself. Reason: They cannot defend the document so they must therefore resort to criticizing the person making the comments. Hey, angry, anonymous poster person (AAPP), this is your opportunity to tell us why you think the document is important. Why do we need it? By criticizing just the poster and not the arguments the poster has against the Statement, you, AAPP, are not advancing the discussion at all. Don’t' be angry, defend the Statement. --Marcus 08:30, 2 March 2008 (MST)
conducting ourselves and maintaining our properties in a positive manner, lending our time and talents to the community, and participating in community events and organizations will result in a strong community of which we can all be proud.Strong communities are essential for our individual as well as our collective happiness and success. But, we recognize that a strong community does not happen on its own. Our community will only be strong if we continually commit ourselves to making it that way. Getting to know our neighbors, showing respect for others
Again, above argument is taking that part of the VISION paragraph out of context (actually separating it in pieces) and it appears to be using sarcasm as a form of argument. It is not clear if it is intended sarcasm is mocking a person, situation, or thing. But it seems clear that this type of argument is not moving the discussion forward but detracting from it. The entire VISION paragraph is well-written and if someone can offer a “substantial” rewrite, we should consider it---otherwise it is excellent.
I understand there will be several other re-writes available at the April meeting. People agree with the concept, just not the current vehicle for getting there. I hope the above posting is honest and will entertain other versions -- Marcus 08:34, 1 March 2008 (MST)
A. Who We Are
The following is like the Cowboy with his name on the back of his belt
1. Kings Park is a neighborhood of single-family homes located in the center of Fairfax County, Virginia, west of the Capital Beltway, bordered by Braddock Road, Rolling Road, Lake Accotink Park, and the Danbury Forest Community.
2. We are an increasingly diverse community. Our diversity extends to race, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, educational attainment, and socio-economic factors. We choose to focus on the positive benefits of our diversity, respecting our different backgrounds.
3. We are individuals. We celebrate our individual achievements and enjoy life in a society where the individual rights are valued, and where people have the opportunity to pursue their own goals and ambitions.
(AND TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN VIRGINIA AND BEYOND . . . WE HERE IN KINGS PARK ARE INDIVIDUALS AND WE ENJOY LIFE . . . with our without a statement.)
4. We celebrate our community. Living in a safe, vital, attractive, and respectful community(Wow, check it out. We are only at point 4 and already our vision has been realized.)
brings benefits to us as individuals as well as collectively.5. We welcome our new neighbors, and invite them to enjoy our community as we do. We look forward to the opportunity to grow personally by getting to know each other, respecting our differences and celebrating our commonality.
B. About our Homes
6. We recognize that our community infrastructure (driveways, sidewalks, water and sewer capacity, roads, etc.) is designed to support single-family homes, and not multiple-family dwellings. We recognize that Fairfax County has enacted occupancy, zoning, health, and safety regulations regarding the use of our homes to protect the individuals who live here, to ensure that our infrastructure can continue to support the community, and to maintain an environment of moderate density.
Not to be nit-pickey but what is this "we recognize" all about? I think this kind of language makes the document sound like a Congressional Resolution and in-turn lends itself to the thought that the civic association has forgot that it is a civic association and not a government body. --Marcus 15:38, 29 February 2008 (MST)
7. Fairfax County regulations permit three types of occupancy of our homes in Kings Park. First, a home may support an unlimited number of family members, that is, people related by blood or marriage, plus up to two unrelated boarders. Second, a home may support four unrelated occupants. Third, a home may support two single parents with their minor children, up to a total of six children. Because our community is zoned for single-family homes, regardless of which of these three occupancy arrangements exist in a home, the home must continue to be a single-dwelling unit. Primarily, that means the home may only have one kitchen, unless a special permit is obtained from Fairfax County.
8. Fairfax County Property Maintenance Code requires that each sleeping area be provided with an emergency access window, of a minimum area of approximately six square feet, and a smoke alarm.
9. Because these regulations provide for the health and safety of our residents, we encourage residents to become aware of these regulations and to comply with them. Residents should attempt to resolve violations by working together, and communicating directly. However, if issues persist, residents should report concerns to Fairfax County. Confidential reports can be made by calling 703-324-1300 or going online at www.fairfaxcounty.gov/DPZ/eservices.
10. Because we take pride in both our individual dignity and our community, we strive to maintain the outward appearance of our homes in an appealing way. We cut our grass, prune plants, rake leaves, and shovel snow from our sidewalks and driveways. We maintain our yards in appropriate ways, and do not pile up trash or storage items in an unattractive way. We understand that these efforts not only keep our homes and community attractive, but will serve to increase the value of our homes.
11. We only park vehicles on streets and driveways. The current Fairfax County ordinance prohibits parking on yards and we encourage residents to comply. We learn about and comply with regulations governing the parking of commercial and oversized vehicles.
12. We support the Fairfax County recycling, waste treatment, and environmental programs. We do not clutter our yards with yard waste and leaves nor allow environmentally unfriendly items to block/pass into the storm drainage system. We respect our parkland and stream valley and do not encroach on these lands. We are aware of the fact that most of the storm water in the Kings Park Community eventually flows to Lake Accotink, the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay.
13. We respect our neighbors’ individuality, and strive not to judge their artistic or architectural tastes, recognizing that we may have different opinions on paint and siding colors, styles, and designs of our homes. We also strive in our artistic and architectural choices to respect the character of our neighborhood.
14. Because we live in relative proximity to each other, we are respectful of our neighbors’ rights to peace and quiet, and we control the noise levels and celebratory and recreational activities in our homes so as to respect our neighbors, while recognizing that they respect our rights to enjoy festive occasions.
C. Helping Each Other and Our Community
15. A strong community is one where neighbors help each other. If a neighbor, due to age, disability, military service, or other reason needs help mowing the grass, raking leaves, shoveling snow, cleaning the house, or with simple maintenance, a neighbor helps out.
16. Strong communities are an asset to the individuals who live within them. Strong communities require individuals to participate in them. We encourage every Kings Park resident to be involved in at least one community activity: neighborhood watch, block captain, clean up projects, school volunteer, etc.
17. We help those who are not our direct neighbors through a neighborhood communication and assistance system. Block captains or others can put out the word that a neighbor is in need, and people will step forward to assist.
18. Neighbors watch out for each other’s safety and for the security of their property. We support our neighborhood watch program, which helps us deter crime.
19. We support emergency preparedness measures, both for our own personal safety and also to be prepared to assist others in the community during an emergency.
20. Strong communities also require strong community institutions. Our youth community service committee, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts engage in projects to better the community. We encourage residents to support and participate in the KPCA, Kings Park/Kings Glen and Lake Braddock Parent Teacher Associations, Parliament Pool, Kings Park Band, area youth clubs, religious activities, and much more.
21. We encourage residents to follow the political process and those eligible to vote in each election.
D. Our Personal Conduct
22. We respect the law.
23. For the safety of all of our residents, especially our children, we encourage all to drive safely. We are mindful not to speed or drive recklessly. We do not drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If we see others with whom we socialize prepare to drive under the influence, we encourage and assist them to consider alternatives.
24. We strongly oppose the possession, use, and/or distribution of illegal drugs in our community and we report these unlawful acts to the police.
25. We take steps to keep our community litter-free. We place our trash at the street in containers or take other measures to prevent trash from blowing down the street. We remove trash containers from the curb promptly.
26. We treat each other with personal respect.
E. Our Community Traditions
27. To maintain the spirit and connectivity of our community, we participate in community events and encourage our neighbors to do likewise.
28. Through the KPCA, we sponsor an annual July 4th parade and picnic, and a December holiday party.
29. Each year we seek, through the KPCA, to hold a “new neighbor” welcome.
30. We encourage residents to have at least one block party each year.
31. Many of us decorate our homes for the holidays, special events, or to show national pride.
32. We sponsor, through the KPCA, an annual “seniors’ lunch” for our senior citizens.
33. Each year we sponsor, through the KPCA, a community yard sale and community clean up efforts.
SUMMARY: To work toward our community vision, we encourage Kings Park residents to abide by these neighborhood expectations. We welcome all residents to be active participants in the community and the Kings Park Civic Association. Additional information about the Kings Park community can be found at our web page (www.kings-park.org).
[edit] Fred's Comments
First I am glad someone is using the wiki and doing so with style. I also appreciate the huge effort involved in trying to build a statement.
The problem is, everyone involved with building the document wants to improve the neighborhood (good) which biases the view (not good). The document is really expressing what we do as a neighborhood association and things we feel are helpful and improves our neighborhood. Certainly if Martin Luther King was alive and a resident of Kings Park we would not suggest he needs to change his behavior because he is not shoveling the side walk of the widow next door. But the documents reads like we would.
Again, it seems the document is focusing on the expectations of the civic association, which includes residents that are focused on (very) local matters and trying to improve the world or at least the neighborhood. It is not focused on the Martin Luther King’s of the world who have a different, larger focus. Please don’t tell me a block captain would go to Dr. King’s house and say you should help the widow with her sidewalk. Hello, that is what we do! Let Dr. King focus on his own way to improve the world and not annoy him with our expectations.
So how do we express how we want to improve the neighborhood? I suggest changing the statement to apply only to the neighborhood association and the revitalization effort and encourage people to join us in our effort. If residents are focused elsewhere we should respect that, help them and not annoy them with our expectations. --Fred 11:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
[edit] Comment by John C. Cook, KPCA President
NEIGHBORS: This is a duplicate of my comment on the other page. Well, this is an interesting entrance to the "wiki" world, which is a bit new for me. (I don't even know if I'm posting this correctly.) I would hope we could have a discussion that would stay on the merits. For the record, this is my first post, and if I post anything I will include my full name. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and entitled to express them. Let's try to do it in an appropriate way. The draft Neigbhorhood Expectations statement began with a working group of myself, Ken Malmberg, Lucy Daris, Carlos Farfan, and Joe Camacho. We went through several drafts. We circulated a draft to all 36 neighborhood college graduates. For the record, several of this group are foreign-born, and represent a cross section of our population in many ways, not only race and national origin but also age, profession, and length of time living in Kings Park. Their comments were incorporated. Then a new draft was debated among our executive group (board of directors plus committee chairs). Mr. Dunn submitted many written thoughts and discussed his position fully in our exec meeting. Everyone on the Exec Group had the opportunity to participate, and in the end the current draft passed by an 11-2 vote. I'm sure the draft will continue to improve as neighbors submit their constructive ideas. John C. Cook, President, KPCA.
Mr. Cook presents the situation correctly; this is an ongoing debate. We had a similar situation last Fall when the Revitalization Plan was debated. In that instance, the draft plan was shown to countless people and was passed overwhelmingly by the board. But during the full neighborhood meeting, a majority of neighbors disagreed with the board and made changes. That's how it goes. Fine, 100 people have seen the Expectations Statement, think it's great and vote AYE. But if 101 show up to vote NO, then that's the way it goes. Either way, I'm good and not planning to move. Myself and others have different views. We reserve the right to express those views and appreciate the Wiki. --Marcus 16:21, 1 March 2008 (MST)
[edit] Comment from KPCA Member:
Writers of Expectation Statement, this is not a document that I personally would present to any new KP residents. It is not a very welcoming document. Although it says some good things that most reasonable people would agree with, I feel it is a little pompous and condescending. We the People of Kings Park, in Order to form a more perfect Union… The title is also a little inflammatory. If this was given to me upon arrival into the community, my first reaction would be somewhat negative. It’s too preachy. I do not like people telling me what I should do and what they expect of me. I think it is going to be very difficult to put a position piece together that welcomes people and cites the Fairfax County Code/Ordinances. And where do you draw the line? You didn't cite the Pooper-Scooper Law and that may be more important to me than someone pruning their plants. This document also proposed to speak for the entire KPCA membership. Good luck with that. If my neighbor paints their house pink I certainly will judge their artistic tastes.
[edit] More comments from Fred
I have both suggested changes and general comments. Here goes...
[edit] Specific changes
- Rename it Kings Park Civic Association Statement
- Remove 10, 13, 14, 21, all of section D (22 - 26), 31 and the Summary
- Everywhere is says resident change to KPCA member
[edit] General Comments
As written the "Neighborhood Expectations Statement" makes me uneasy, perhaps this is due to my experience with "Neighborhood Expectations" when I was a cub scout in Montgomery Alabama. My father had his "retirement home" built in a nice neighborhood and he was looking forward to retiring from the military in a few years. My father received orders for Viet Nam and decided that retiring sooner than originally planned was a good idea. He found himself a job as a high school teacher - at a black high school. Our neighbors informed us that a member of the neighborhood working at black high school did not meet "neighborhood expectations". Instead of retiring in Gov. Wallace's Alabama, my parents decided it was better to retire elsewhere and we moved.
So, even though Neighborhood Expectations Statement is meant to welcome, statements that project expected behavior on someone because of where they live makes me uneasy. Why does the KPCA get to make such a statement? Perhaps, there is a Dixiecrats of Kings Park Association that wants to make a statement as well. Would we welcome such as statement as well?
I would rather see us make statements of what KPCA is and what it's members should do and restrict it to that. And not go telling neighbors how to meet the neighborhood's expectations.--Fred 18:02, 7 March 2008 (MST)
And I too understand the intent is to welcome but the current statement does not get us there. I agree that a trimmed-down version would suffice. From the beginning I have said Kudos to the working group and others for bringing this forward. It is undoubtedly easier to peal away than to add and thanks to the hard work of others, we are in a position to peal away. -- Marcus 19:21, 9 March 2008 (MDT)
[edit] Neighborhood Expectations Draft
I have reviewed the most recent draft of the Kings Park Neighborhood Expectations statement and have read the associated comments. Unless I'm mistaken we have comments from John, Marcus, Fred, and now myself. Thus, despite the statement from Marcus about what he, "and other neighbors prefer," I would argue the views expressed by four individuals presents a very limited expression of the issues.
With this said, I'd like to portray myself as a neutral party. However, I do have to recognize myself as a Kings Park College graduate and 18 year resident of the KP community. My personal bias is toward community.
POSITIVE OF EXPECTATIONS: The goal is to further build and improve the KP community. Hard to argue with this premise. Perhaps there is disagreement as to the definition of community. So here is the dictionary definition:
A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE SAME LOCALITY AND UNDER THE SAME GOVERNMENT. A SOCIAL GROUP OR CLASS HAVING COMMON INTERESTS. SIMILARITY OR IDENTITY: A COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS. SOCIETY AS A WHOLE; THE PUBLIC.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
NEGATIVE OF EXPECTATIONS: Neighborhood Expectations might be an emotionally charged title along with the use of "WE" which implies us and them.
DISCUSSION & SUGGESTIONS:
1. Change Neighbor Expectations to, A Statement of Shared Community Values. Discussion could focus on whether the document accurately captures shared values.
2. The statement that the document is beyond the scope of the KP Civic Association because it addresses values, societal norms, and personal behavior choices is worthy of further examination. I myself can find nothing in the ByLaws to support the statement. It would appear the statement is one of opinion. I think fundamental to the discussion is the issue of family, community, and individual rights.
3. I would propose the term COMMUNITY is similar or equal to the word FAMILY. I have known individuals who grew up in large extended families. Oftentimes shared values and expectations were co-mingled. I just know that being polite, having a clean room, working hard in school, and attending church were FAMILY (i.e., small community) social norms, values, and yes, expectations of individual behavior.
4. I can find no where where commenters opposed to Neighborhood Expectations have been smeared. It is my judgment that no one has attempted to stain or destroy the reputation by vilification another member of the KP Civic Association.
5. Perhaps Section D: Our Personal Conduct could be deleted. In my opinion it is implied throughout the document what is expectd of personal conduct. Maybe replacing we with the words Kings Park Civic Association. Maybe the first sentence of D25 represents a shared value. The KP Civic Association supports a litter-free community. Delete the remaining sentences which might be interpreted as demands on personal behavior. Hopefully, this will be viewed as a substantive suggestion :-)
Christopher La Londe 5604 Kings Park Drive
Mr. La Londe, thank you for your post. I think your above suggestions are very constructive. My understanding is we will have other versions to choose from at the April meeting. Regarding the smears - the comments are aimed at me and others who disagree with the statement as opposed to being critical of the complaints I have against the statement. On the discussion tab of the Open Letter to my neighbors in Kings Park, one person calls me a "race-baiter." Not exactly nice and yeah, I think that qualifies as a smear. But there is history that influences my reception of the comments. A history I would be happy to share in another setting. Again, thank you for your well-presented comments. Marcus.dunn@verizon.net -- Marcus 12:21, 17 March 2008 (MDT)
In public policy work, whether it is in the international, national, state, or local fora, most professionals have learned to be “thick skinned” when people comment on their draft written work or comments thereto and not take comments personal or at least display it publicy. The same should be any for comments made on this wiki for posted work and posted comments. People are commenting on comments and, for the most part, not making personal attacks. Commenters need to learn to be thick skinned and not take comments on their comments so personal. --Former policy wonk 15:11, 18 March 2008 (MDT)
Well then, maybe this is a good experience and "thicker skin” will form but in a debate about a statement that professes to teach neighbors how to get along, I find it odd that proponents would choose a personal attack route verses a debate on the merits of the proposal. In my opinion they cannot defend the proposed statement so they therefore attempt to discredit those critical of the proposal. Not an unheard of tactic. But more annoying than the comments is that people never return to defend their comments! I guess there is nothing to do about it . . . I don’t know who they are so I can’t send them an e-mail saying “What’s up – hey, you got it wrong.” But I'll debate their characterization - no problem – unfortunately no response. So sad. Thanks, Wonk --Marcus 14:34, 19 March 2008 (MDT)
