Dear Councilmembers

June 25, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ 2 Comments

Dear Councilmembers:

Good morning!

I am writing in regards to a final vote set to take place at today’s (Wednesday) City Council meeting in favor of a preferred development agreement in Over-the-Rhine with 3CDC. As I’m not certain you’ll be taking citizen statements at the Council meeting, I wanted to forward my comment to you here. Thank you for your consideration.

My name is Liz McEwan and I am a resident of Over-the-Rhine. My husband and I, with our three young children, live on the most beautiful street in our city. We moved here 6 years ago for many reasons, but mostly because we believed that the urban core had been neglected for too long. We believe that strong families are the foundation of strong cities. And we wanted to help re-populate our city with a strong middle-class.

We are not hip urbanites. We are a conservative, Christian, homeschool family.

But we believe in this city, we love living downtown, and we would stay here forever if we could.

I am writing to request that you take more time to consider a community-led and equitable future for our neighborhood before approving a preferred development agreement with 3CDC.

We owe much of the economic viability of our neighborhood to the partnership between the City and 3CDC. And I believe that 3CDC may continue to have an important role in the future of the neighborhood. But I have seen, firsthand, how the high-income culture and standard of living that 3CDC’s developments have produced in OTR have widened the gap between low-income subsidized housing and the high-rent, high-cost housing in these new developments.

We are a working-class family. And both my husband and I have devoted the past 8+ years to working with non-profits that strengthen Cincinnati communities. Wealthy retirees and executives may be able to afford expensive condos, but we are the ones you should be fighting to have in your city for the long-term.

If the rest of Over-the-Rhine (and then, following suit, Mt Auburn, Pendleton, and the West End) is developed with the same homogenous, high-brow, entertainment-based culture as what we’ve seen on Vine St., south of Liberty, our urban core will lose the vibrant and diverse culture that drew us all here in the first place. And, because of the cost-gap alone, it won’t be the low-income residents who have to leave; it will be people like me.

The urban middle-class of Cincinnati will no longer exist when the only housing options are either low-income housing or inflated market rate units.

Subsidized, low-income housing requirements are important, but they are not enough to create a sustainable economy. The City needs to work strategically with current and future residents to create an equitable Over-the-Rhine and to open opportunities for hard-working, capable, and competent residents to take the future into their own hands.

Until 3CDC can guarantee this sort of community-led future for us, please withhold your final vote until there can be a better conversation between all parties involved.

Thank you for your time.

Liz McEwan
Resident, Over-the-Rhine

(Sent in the early hours of the morning. Forward as you see fit.)

What’s Missing From the “Affordable Housing” Conversation?

June 23, 2014June 24, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ 2 Comments

This past week, in Cincinnati, Facebook and Twitter were on fire with comments and conversation about a Cincinnati Enquirer article that revealed the Over-the-Rhine Community Council (OTRCC) is trying to put an end to 3CDC‘s monopoly on the development of City-owned vacant properties in OTR. I’ve been planning on writing about similar issues (specifically, my evolving thoughts on the implications of gentrification), but I’m putting that aside for a while longer to write a bit about the issues addressed in the article.

I’m going to try to be brief because, gosh, there is a whole lot to say and I’m not qualified to speak about most of it. I’m just going to speak as an “insider,” as someone who started working in OTR right about the time when 3CDC began their development and someone who has lived here for the past 6 years. And, also, as someone who has secured affordable housing in an increasingly-difficult urban real estate market. I’m the first to admit that there are many other residents who are more qualified than I am to speak about OTR’s housing situation and the specifics of housing subsidies. But I’m going to give it a shot anyway.

(A few nights ago, I wrote a longer, more comprehensive post about this issue, but decided to condense it before I posted it today. I wasn’t as successful as I’d hoped to be. Sorry!)

Here we go.

There are three really important questions missing from the conversation about housing in downtown Cincinnati. Let me draw out the conversation here and you can let me know if you see the void, too.

The conversation at-hand (and in the article) is about the region of Over-the-Rhine north of Liberty Street and whether or not 3CDC should have first dibs on the development of various properties that the city owns. One of the primary concerns is “affordable housing.” But let’s forgo the specifics for a moment and speak more broadly about the issue of urban housing, affordability, and what is currently at stake.

What does the term “affordable housing” actually mean? Well, according to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), it means housing costs that do not exceed 30% of a household’s income. But although the term “affordable housing” is a very broad term that applies to people at all income levels, those who concern themselves with fighting for affordable housing are usually speaking on behalf of those who are most vulnerable to rising prices. Because, really, when your income rises above a certain amount–$150k a year, for example–you could essentially choose to live most anywhere you want and find something that would be considered “affordable.” Usually, the term “affordable housing” is used in conversations about housing that is subsidized with public money to make up the difference between market rate prices and what residents can actually afford. (A local organization, the Affordable Housing Advocates, has some great fact sheets posted on their website that help explain the nuts & bolts of how this works out.)

Let me (try to) explain how this works in numbers, using the example of eligibility on the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) website.

As best I understand it, nationwide, there are a few levels of qualifying income for HUD subsidized housing and they vary from 30-80% of the median family income (MFI) for their particular area. But, in Cincinnati, the vast majority of people qualifying for the available subsidized housing are between the 30-50% of MFI level. The MFI in Cincinnati is about $71k a year and the average family size in the US is currently hovering around 2.55 people. So, using CMHA’s guildelines, a qualifying Cincinnati household could make between $17k-35k a year*. A single earner making $17k a year would make just over $8 an hour, a little over minimum wage. According to the data found here, the average full-time worker at this income level has less than a high school education. Now, for $35k a year, a full-time worker would be paid about $16.5 an hour.

So, there is your average HUD-qualifying family.

* I should have clarified that, according to the CHMA guidelines, the baseline for qualification is based on a four-person family. You can see the CHMA site to see how the income amount is pro-rated based on family size. Technically, my income amounts for a 3-person family are off by a few thousand dollars a year, but not enough to invalidate my estimates.

When we hear conversations about cities and developers guaranteeing “affordable housing,” we are usually talking about housing that this kind of family (as well as those who fall economically below this scenario) can afford at 30% of their gross income. So, to get specific according to government standards of affordability, affordable housing for this family may fall anywhere between $425/month and $875/month. If the market rate of rental units in any given area rises above these amounts, the government can step in and subsidize the cost for the family by either providing discounted housing or by paying a Section 8 landlord the difference in the amounts. Cities can also force developers into contractual obligations to provide this subsidized housing.

Now, let’s explore the rest of the people in our city and what would be considered “affordable” for them.

If we divide the US population into fifths, the lowest-income 2/5 of the population fall into the HUD-qualifying category ($0-35k/year). The next 2/5 fall into the “about average” median income category (which is 60-150% of MFI or about $36-100k/year). Remember, the MFI in Cincinnati is $71k a year. So, in numbers, affordable housing for the average family in Cincinnati would be $1,775/month.

What can the top 20% of earners afford to pay for housing? Well, the top fifth of Cincinnati households earn about $101k a year or more. Using the lowest earners in this bracket as our example, this high-income family could afford at least $2500/month in housing costs.

How does this all translate into the cost of home ownership? At the highest end of the lowest 2/5 income bracket here, affordability translates–roughly–into payments on a <$100k mortgage (including taxes and other costs). In the middle 2/5 bracket, we’re talking about payments on a $100k-300k+ mortgage. And, in the top fifth percentile, the price can increase astronomically.

What does this all mean and why does it matter?
Let’s bring it back to Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine specifically.
And I’ll try to wrap this up as quickly as I can.

What is currently available in market rate housing in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati?

For Rent (just a snapshot, obviously): http://www.trulia.com/for_rent/5427_nh/map_v

For Sale (again, a snapshot): http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/5427_nh/map_v

Unless you’re checking those links in the year 2020 and the market has either crashed or soared, you might be saying to yourself, “Hm. Over-the-Rhine still seems pretty affordable to me.”

Until you look at this: 3CDC’s available housing stock.
A quick search for available units under $300k yields only two condos with two-bedrooms, both around $250k. The rest of the options are studios and one-bedroom condos. Their site does not list apartment rental pricing (perhaps because the market moves so quickly or because so few units are actually available right now). And there are currently no single-family homes available. (Though their website lists them as priced from $290k.)

So, now, back to the article.
Why is the Over-the-Rhine community up in arms about 3CDC developing more of this housing north of Liberty? That’s actually a legitimate question seeing as 3CDC has done a fantastic job at increasing the economic viability of a few other areas of OTR. They are fiscally responsible, efficient, and historically-sensitive. And the overall safety, beauty, and quality of life in the neighborhood has undeniably improved. Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional, has never been here, or was never here before 2005. But the OTRCC (You can read their letter to City Council here.) and other groups concerned with the housing situation in OTR see a problem and I think they’re on to something.

There are many properties sitting vacant and neglected in OTR, especially in the area north of Liberty St. And my understanding is that City Council is considering giving 3CDC a blanket permission to develop many of them however they see fit. But, 3CDC is not developing OTR for the actual, average resident of OTR (which has been, for the past few decades, a low income demographic). And they are not creating affordable housing for the other residents of Cincinnati who would like to move to OTR. They are developing OTR for the people who will buy those beautiful $300,000 condos you see on their website. The top fifth of the population. The $100k+ earners. The doctors, lawyers, and executives. The ones with .5 children or no children at all. Or the ones who have already raised their kids or retired early with their pockets full and sold the big family house in the suburbs and moved here for a new season of their lives.

You know the adage “if you build it, they will come?” Well, they built it. And, boy, they are coming in droves.

So, can you blame the rest of the community for wanting a piece of the action? Some of my neighbors have lived here since long before 3CDC incorporated. And they want access to the properties that the City of Cincinnati is poised, ready to hand-over to 3CDC for another manifest destiny-type of neighborhood overhaul. And they want the new developments and homes and shops and restaurants to look more like them.

So, it sounds like I agree with OTRCC, right?
Well, I do.
Sort of.

I think that 3CDC should start bowing-out of the development and let a more diverse group of individuals and businesses take ownership of some other regions of the neighborhood. And I think the City needs to find a way to release some of their holdings to responsible parties that don’t have multimillion dollar budgets. But when I hear the rally cry of OTRCC and I hear them say “we want more affordable housing,” I know that it’s far too difficult for a government to guarantee actual, market-rate affordability and that their only solution will be “subsidized housing.” And then I see the proposed “solution” to the problem, which is that the City will make 3CDC sign a contact that guarantees a certain percentage of the new housing is affordable for low-income residents, and I go—

“Wait, wait. Aren’t we missing something here!?”

So, tell me, what’s missing from the conversation about affordable housing?

I think there are three important questions we are not asking.

First-
What are the implications of an urban core with no affordable housing for the average median family? You know, the middle 2/5 of Cincinnati households with full-time wage earners who keep the economy afloat by bearing the brunt of the physical work, skilled labor, trades, and small, community-oriented businesses? Where is the average family going to go when 50% of the housing in OTR is subsidized for those below $35k and the rest is at a market price that is rising so rapidly that it will be unattainable in only a few years? And what about a family with more than 1 child? What will be available for them when anything not subsidized is either a one-bedroom, $150k condo or a $350k+ single-family home (like the ones 3CDC has already sold!)?

A common misconception is that middle-class families don’t want to live in the urban core. But this is simply not the case. Remember: if you build it, they will come. And if you don’t think that the most (economically) sustainable way to build an urban core is to build it for the hard-working middle-class, you are crazy. In January of last year, I wrote a bit about the possibility that urban revitalization in Cincinnati would force out the urban middle class. This issue is even more pressing now that vacant or undeveloped properties are at a premium (and held hostage by the City and by developers) and finished, rehabbed properties are unaffordable for the average median family.

There will always be subsidized housing in cities (even if not with public money) because good people will always speak for the ones who can’t speak for themselves. But there will not always be actual, affordable, pay-out-of-your-pocket housing for the rest of us. It’s those of us in the middle who will have to leave.

Second-
Does subsidized housing alleviate the burden of poverty for working families, or does it simply perpetuate it? Think of it this way: if you were currently living in Section 8 housing in an area like OTR, increasing your income by $20,000 a year could easily disqualify you for subsidized housing (along with other available goverment aid). This would push you into that middle-income no-man’s land of affordable housing and make it nearly impossible to afford your current neighborhood.

Basically, subsidized low-income housing is a trap. And it’s easy to understand why so many people get stuck there. Why would anyone finish high school, attend college, apply for a higher-paying job, or encourage a spouse to find employment when it could mean being stuck in the middle-class where no one is looking out for you and you don’t always have the means to look out for yourself? Losing a housing subsidy may force a family to relocate completely out of their neighborhood, away from friends, family, and a wealth of job and educational opportunities.

Please tell me we can come up with a better option than subsidies.

Third-
Why aren’t we diverting more support to increasing home ownership among the working poor and low income families, rather than providing supplemental rent support? After all, the benefits of home ownership on families, children, and communities have been touted since The American Dream was first envisioned. I understand that short-term and emergency housing is necessary for some. But, surely there are many among the “working poor” would would rather find a way into home ownership than continue renting. If you ask me (and I plan on writing about this eventually), a goalpost of “gentrification” should be the economic mobility of all residents. In other words, how can we create an urban core where families stuck in cycles of poverty aren’t just placated there, but are actually moved upward and into self-sufficiency, while still being able to live anywhere they want for as long as they want?

There are still hundreds of properties left in OTR (as well as in Pendleton, the West End, and Mt Auburn) that would be fantastic opportunities for middle-income residents to develop businesses and create family homes in the urban basin of Cincinnati. And there are many good people with great ideas who would gladly take on the task. But there seems be a deep chasm between the desire of those who would and the resources of those who can. And, realistically, why would developers like 3CDC sell a property (that they bought for next to nothing) to a middle-income earner at $20k (for them to develop or renovate) when they could just as easily develop it themselves and sell it for $600k to a wealthy retiree?

I would love to see a stronger urban middle-class in Cincinnati. I think it’s absolutely necessary for the positive movement in Cincinnati to continue. (Read this 2009 piece by Joel Kotkin for a nationwide perspective.)

That’s why I don’t want “more affordable housing.” Instead, I want more opportunities for the working- and middle-class to develop a homegrown, economically viable community of their own in the urban core. And I believe that, when that happens, the fluid movement of all residents between income levels and social strata will be possible. And this is what is truly missing from the conversation about housing in downtown Cincinnati.

Thanks to folks like 3CDC, OTR is now viable enough to be the perfect ground for an experiment in what would happen if the people who “would if they could” finally get to.

The City of Cincinnati and 3CDC are holding the cards for the next phase of development here. I’m excited/scared/curious to see what the next ten years will bring here in Over-the-Rhine. And I’m hoping folks like me find a way to stick around and see it all happen.

Kids: The More, The Merrier? (Part 2)

June 10, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ Leave a comment

A few days ago, I rolled out some reasons why I support large families. You can read the complete post here but, in short, I offered these four reasons why having a big family might be better for parents:

1. Having multiple children spares you the delusion of your child as the standard.
2. More children means getting more use out of everything you bought for the first one.
3. Parenting a large family calls your priorities into question.
4. Parenting multiple children (especially when they’re young) is an endurance sport.

To follow up, I’d now like to offer three reasons why being in a bigger family might be better for your children:

1. Multiple siblings = built-in playmates.

This seems obvious, right? A kid with multiple siblings is never lacking for someone to play with–board games, baseball, a wrestling match, a pedicure, whatever. I know that play-dates with neighbors and friends are really important for socialization, but it’s nice to have a house full of friends. Will siblings always get along? Absolutely not! My two oldest are constantly hot and cold with each other. But, it’s awesome to watch their relationship develop and to see the sweet moments of love between them. This is particularly important to me as I consider what the future looks like for our family in the city. The “safety in numbers” rule will truly be tested with us as I teach my children to rely on each other and take care of each other in an environment that, though not particularly “unsafe,” requires a little extra oversight and preparation. But, even for families outside the city, a child with many siblings has no excuse for being bored or lonely.

2. Sharing with siblings teaches your child that the world does not revolve around them.

Right now, my two oldest children share a bedroom and my youngest will likely move into their room within a matter of months. And we are doing this by choice, not necessity. Three kids in one room. Crazy, right?

Not every only-child is spoiled. I know this. But, out of necessity, a child with multiple siblings must learn the art of sharing. With the exception of families with unlimited space and financial resources, there is no other option for multiple siblings. Why does it matter if a five year-old has to share a bedroom, his toys, or his mother’s attention? Among other reasons, it teaches him that the world does not revolve around him; he is not the only one with legitimate needs or desires. And it instils patience and generosity in the way he deals with those needs and desires in the people around him. It also teaches him that he is not an island, that his life affects others’, and that he has a responsibility to care for others’ things the way he cares for his own. Sharing a home with multiple siblings teaches a child the importance of shared responsibility and respecting shared space. It will (hopefully) make him a better friend, a better college roommate, and a better husband.

3. Having multiple siblings allows your children a built-in support system at the end of your life.

“End of life planning.” A major kill-joy, right? No one wants to think about their impending death or the impact it will have on their family. But, even if we assume that we will live to see our 90th birthday, we have to consider now the responsibilities that will fall on our children then and how to insure that they will not have to bear the weight alone. Caring for elderly, ailing relatives is a big job. And it might be even more emotionally demanding than physically. There is a benefit to multiple siblings sharing the responsibility, especially when there are two parents ailing at the same time. This obviously has its own mess of difficulties, because not all families of siblings will manage the shared responsibilities well. But, if parents are proactive and make decisions early about how their children can help manage it all–their medical care, finances, living situations, and (eventually) their deaths–then there is less decision-making for their children to do and they simply have to divy-up the job. Their multiple siblings will be a built-in support system when they face this difficult situation, one we all face eventually. They will not be left alone. They will still be surrounded by family.

Even though I am a huge supporter of large families–for both the reasons I’ve outlined and more–I’m not willing to force the issue of family size into a black-white category.

So, I’m curious–How many siblings do you have?
How many children do you have?
If you had a choice, how many would you have??

Have you found any of these reasons to be true in our life and family?

Kids: The More, The Merrier? (Part 1)

June 4, 2014September 12, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ 1 Comment

It’s happened to all of us with young children.
We’re in the store or the library or on the sidewalk waiting for the walk light with our children when a well-meaning stranger takes a look at our morning hair, mismatched clothes, and pint-sized companions and says: You’ve sure got your hands full!

Duh.
Thanks for the reminder.

I have three children, 5 years and younger. And in today’s America, that is considered a “large family.” A few years ago, I read a news story about a pretty significant reduction in birth rates over the past 50 years, but I didn’t need anyone to tell me that families are shrinking in size. One child is nice; two children is good; maybe have three if you’re feeling brave.

I’ve heard a lot of reasons for limiting family size–everything from ecological (“The world is ending! We need to stop procreating!”) to economic (“Kids are too expensive.”) and personal (“I hated my sister; I want my daughter to enjoy being an only child.”) reasons. But, even if the trends for post-Boomers were leaning toward having fewer children, I read an article recently that suggested birth rates may be increasing among (Canadian) Gen Y and Millennial moms. And, not only that, but another article suggested that more young women are choosing to be stay-at-home moms (Gasp!).

I, for one, welcome a rise in birth rates, not only because it means more playmates for my kids but because I believe that big families are good–good for kids and good for parents.

So, the more, the merrier.

I understand that many people would welcome a larger family if they felt it was possible. And there are plenty of my peers who stop at only one or two children because of circumstances outside their control (like infertility and difficult adoption costs and processes, for example). I know plenty of parents of single children who are awesome, loving parents; and I know plenty of only-children who turn out to be fantastic adults (I married one). So, this is not an indictment against those people. This is a statement of support for big families. I write this mainly for those who are still undecided about what numbers is the “perfect number” or for those who have already settled on a small family. And, especially, for those who want a big family but need some encouragement to take the leap from 1-2 children to 3+.

Why having a bigger family might be better for you:

1. Having multiple children spares you the delusion of your child as the standard.

When you have your first child, it’s easy to assume that your experience can be translated to every other parent/child in the world. It worked for you, so it will work for them, right? Everything from childbirth to sleep-training, breastfeeding and learning to ride a bicycle–people with only one child tend to think of their child as the plumb line for everyone else. But, what happens when you have more children? You realize that every child is different. You can parent four children in the very same way and come up with four very different “results.” One will want to be held; one will want space. One will sleep well from birth; one will fight sleep until they turn six. One will learn to potty-train at 2 years-old; one will struggle into preschool. Parents with more children seem to be more adaptable to different children (those both like and unlike their own) and more gracious in the way they deal with other parents because, when it comes to difficult parenting situations, they have been there and know that no one gets it right the first time every time.

2. More children means getting more use out of everything you bought for the first one.

When they are young, I buy most of my kids’ clothes used. Sure, it saves me money. But it also saves resources. Walk into any kids’ used clothing store and you’ll be amazed at how much stuff people buy, use once or twice, and then get rid of. Having a big family is often viewed through the lens of sustainability, in which increasing the population increases waste. But large families aren’t necessarily wasteful. Most large families that I know take good care of their kids’ stuff (because there really is a lot of “stuff” that comes with kids) and keep it through multiple children, often handing if off to another family when they’re done. In this area, the difference between having 1-2 children or having 3+ is very minimal. When my third child was born, there was basically nothing I needed for her. Everything–clothing, furniture, toys, and diapers–could be reused from my older children.

3. Parenting a large family calls your priorities into question.

Adding more children might not be the earth-shattering financial disaster that some small-family proponents would lead you to believe, but having a large family does require particular sacrifices that small families do not have to make. Need an example? Try finding an affordable/fun/logistically-feasible vacation for a family of 5+. (Have you ever priced plane tickets?) Another example: Forget your anti-minivan ideology–you’re moving into 12-passanger van territory here. How about this: It’s pretty easy to find a babysitter for one or two darling children. Who’s going to come watch 4-5 of them while you go on a date or go somewhere overnight or go to get your haircut?

A large family necessitates reorganizing priorities. And I mean this in a good way. Committing to parenting multiple children means committing to a near-lifetime of sacrificing the convenience of a child-free life for the full-time, nonstop world of underage companions. Regardless of your family size, parenting requires a lot of work and sacrifice. It involves a lot of saying “no” to yourself–time alone, career aspirations, creative projects, shopping trips, etc.–for the sake of caring for those children. For many young adults, this is reason to postpone, or avoid completely, the task of parenthood. But, to be honest, most of us could afford a little more generosity with our time, money, and energy. I’ve heard it said this way: You’re going to spend it somewhere. Why not “pay it forward” to a brood of children, rather than spending it all on yourselves?

4. Parenting multiple children is an endurance sport.

I’m not a runner and I don’t have an hour a day to swim laps or walk on a treadmill, but catch me at 8pm on any given day and I feel like I’ve been running for miles. Keeping up with kids (and taking care of a home and making food and keeping myself breathing and adequately dressed) is hard work. And, similar to running a long-distance race (or so I’d assume), it requires just as much mental and emotional training as it does physical. It is good for you. It is challenging and difficult and, if you let it, it makes you better. There are some days when I collapse after bedtime and think, “I can’t believe I kept them alive today.” And then there are days when I, literally, feel like I just climbed Mt Everest and I feel awesome. Like a superhero. Like I can conquer anything.

Parents of big families have nothing to prove. They don’t need fancy cars or spectacular homes or impressive resumes to show that they have made something of their lives. They are–literally–growing a generation. Assuming that their children don’t end up as spectacular disasters, which is possible, parents get to sleep at night knowing that the fruit of their labor is not accumulating dust in the garage or “appreciating” in a bank, but that it is slowly growing into the men and women who will one day conquer their own mountains and run their own races. Parenting is a long-term investment. It is a marathon–not a sprint. When it’s over, you will be dog tired and wonder how you had the strength to do it. And you will feel awesome about the way you spent your days, even if all you have to show for it is a full heart and a full home.

Need more convincing?

Look me up in a few days for Part 2: Why being in a bigger family might be better for your children.

Where We Play: Lytle Park

May 28, 2014September 12, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ 2 Comments

Lytle Park– Central Business District (CBD)

Overview: Lytle Park is located in a historic district of downtown, just over a mile walk from our home. It’s next to the Taft Museum and just a few blocks from the Purple People Bridge (which leads to Newport, KY) and Sawyer Point. The park is neat, well-maintained, and has a fantastic view of the skyline. It feels like a truly “urban oasis.” The playground itself is a bit small and outdated and doesn’t keep my kids occupied for very long, but there is a large open field to run in and a few trees to climb. The park is used (mostly, it seems) by downtown workers on their lunch break and older, CBD residents walking their dogs. In the half-dozen times we’ve been to Lytle Park, we’ve never seen another child. The hallmark of this park is the historic bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln and the large, landscaped field. Even though it’s a small park, this would be a great side-trip for families exploring downtown or visiting the Taft Museum.

General Cleanliness: Very neat and tidy.

Parking: Street parking, metered.

Bathroom Facilities: Yes, though we didn’t check to see if they were unlocked.

Picnic Area: No tables that I remember, but many benches and lots of open grass.

Playground: Small, with no swings.

Other Amenities: The seasonal flowers are great. There is a large amphitheater-type paved area that we’ve never seen used. We also spotted a bocce pit and there is a small firefighters’ memorial in addition to the awesome Lincoln statue. There is a water fountain, too.

*This is the first in the “Where We Play” series. If you’d like to contribute a park review as a guest blogger, send me a note at ejmcewan@gmail.com.*

Why Diversity Matters To A Conservative Mom Like Me

May 10, 2014 ~ ejmcewan ~ 1 Comment

Diversity matters to me.

It seems counter-intuitive, doesn’t it?

When imagining the lifestyle of a “conservative Christian housewife,” the mind isn’t usually drawn to pictures of diversity. Instead, we usually picture privacy fences, kids who “don’t talk to strangers,” and family conversations about Us vs. Them. But one of my deepest commitments in the way I parent and educate my children is to their early and intentional exposure to diversity.

This is one of the things I love most about our life in the city.

In the most basic terms, the defining characteristics of an urban environment are density and diversity. Conversely, sub-urban areas are characterized by sprawl and homogeneity. One of the most common misconceptions about sub-urban places is that they are better for families. And, more often than not, what people mean by “better for families” is that the social, economic, and ethnic homogeneity makes it easier for parents to navigate.

When most of your neighbors look like you, make about the same amount of money as you, and vote like you, their culture is familiar. There are fewer conversations with children about why the neighbor “looks like that” or “eats that kind of food.” And there are fewer difficult conversations about why that other neighbor does that thing that you absolutely do not do.

But, does that really make it “better?”
Better by what definition?

Do parents consider the long-term effects and implications of a childhood with little to no experience with anyone different than themselves?

Now, some sub-urban areas are more dense and diverse than others, especially as many suburbs are being retro-fitted with more characteristically “urban” developments. And every childhood is formed under the direction of parents, so every suburban child’s experience will be different. But, I suggest that parents–especially those who identify as Conservative–should consider the benefit of building a family life in which their children are regularly and positively exposed to diversity, regardless of where they live.

Let me offer two reasons why diversity matters to me.

First, early and intentional exposure to diversity could help release my children from bias and bigotry as they grow older. This is obviously not a guarantee. I believe that bias is a natural (fallen) reaction to cultural differences. But parents can direct a child toward experiences that help them navigate diversity with wisdom, not fear or misunderstanding.

I was a suburban kid. And most of the people I knew as a child came from families very much like mine. But, I went to a public high school that was about a million times more diverse than the neighborhood I was from. So, even if my early childhood was not characterized by diversity, my adolescence was a bit more. I didn’t understand the impact this diversity had on me until many years later when my husband took me to a high school football game in his hometown. It took me a few moments to realize why the crowd was so strange to me.

“Wait,” I asked him, “where are all the black people?”

My husband attended a high school where the student body was nearly 100% white. But I, though I lived in a predominately white suburban neighborhood, attended a high school that was remarkably diverse, both ethnically and economically. So, my early experiences with my minority peers–particularly African American and Middle Eastern–were as diverse as these cultures themselves are.

There was nothing inherently wrong with the homogeneity of my husband’s almamater. Public schools simply reflect the lines drawn by school districts. But I do believe there was an inherent strength to the diversity of my school.

It’s impossible to be completely bias-free, but I credit my diverse high school with helping me have a bit more realistic view of people who are different from me. You see, black people and Muslims and gay kids and poor kids and unwed mothers were not “those people” who lived in the other part of town or went to the other school. They were my classmates. They were football heroes, the student council President, and my co-star in the school play. They were people. Actual people. People with names and talents and fears and dreams–just like me.

The diversity that my children experience in the city on a day-to-day basis can be difficult at times. There are still questions that I haven’t figured out how to answer about the differences between our family and some of our neighbors. The questions we do answer, we sometimes only answer in part while our children are young and are satisfied with simply, honest answers. We are still different, after all. And our children get that, even if they don’t understand to what extent.

I can’t guarantee that my children won’t carry bias into their adulthood, but what I’ve tried to provide is a more broad experience in their childhood so that “those people”–the people who are different from us in any given way–are not strangers or numbers or ideas. They are people. Actual people. They own businesses and restaurants; they have ailing parents and they have rowdy children; some have good jobs and some ask for change; some are lazy and some work really, really hard.

They are our neighbors and friends.
They have names. And talents. And fears. And dreams.
Just like us.

I believe that our experiences with diversity as a child influence our interaction with diversity as an adult. When people who are different are kept at an arm’s length, they have no identity other than the thing that makes them different. They have no humanity. No dignity. And their complete other-ness makes them easily misunderstood. Teaching my children to acknowledge them as more than “different from us” teaches them to acknowledge their God-given dignity. And that is the foundation I would like to build for my children as they approach adulthood so that they don’t need to spend their young adult lives undo-ing the bias they were given as children. Instead, I want them to spend their young adult lives determining how they will engage with the world as adults.

And this relates to the second reason diversity matters to me:

I believe that the Christian faith lends itself to an active relationship with a diverse society, a relationship that is mutually efficacious.

Now, I would be foolish to claim that I am even near to perfecting this subtle dance between remaining apart from the world while establishing relationships and engaging those who are different from me. (Especially when my young children are involved.) But I know that this dance can’t be learned without first jumping in.

In the same way that Christians have to learn to human-ize people who are different from us, I want to help make Christians more human to those for whom we are “those people.” You see, when Christians disengage and remove ourselves from diverse populations, we become nothing more than a foreign idea. We appear irrelevant to the world. And we have no identity apart from our other-ness. But when we engage, when we make ourselves present in the lives of people are are different, they can begin to understand us as real, actual people. And that will, perhaps, give them a better understanding of what, exactly, this peculiar people who call themselves “Christians” are actually all about. And I believe that what Christians are actually (supposed to be) all about is good for the whole world.

We may be kind of weird to some of our neighbors. And they may not understand why we vote the way we vote or why we homeschool or why on earth we head to church every Sunday while they head down the street for waffles. But they will, hopefully, know us in other ways. They will know the names of our children and they will sit at our table or chat on our front stoop and they will (hopefully, someday, when I figure this all out) know that we love them.

I want my neighbors to know that we see them as more than “those people” who live in a different part of town.
Because they don’t live in a different part of town.
They live here.
With us.
And that actually makes a difference.