While
attending a block party yesterday on the west side of Petaluma, I chatted with
a young woman who was enthusiastic about her recent move to Petaluma. As she described it, “I grew up in
Hawaii. Here in the North Bay, I’ve
lived in Rohnert Park, Novato, and San Rafael, but always wanted to live in
Petaluma because the local friendliness felt most like Hawaii.”
When she
noted that the block party was an example of the Petaluma camaraderie for which
she had longed, I was hooked. It was
time for another block party post.
As block
parties go, yesterday’s party was a relatively modest affair. No bounce houses or water slides. No elaborate bars in garages. No mass of noisy children roaming between
attractions. No crowds of 200 or more.
I departed before
yesterday’s party reached full fruition, but I doubt it was going to be more
than about forty folks, most of them adults although with a couple of youths on
skateboards. And the principal event was
casual chatting, before tucking into a potluck dinner.
In its sedateness,
the party had a comfortable neighborly feeling.
Middle-aged adults enjoying a rare opportunity to catch up with busy
neighbors and to remind themselves about the multi-faceted neighborhood they shared. Although I was an outsider, continuing my
summer-long past-time of party crashing, I enjoyed talking with several folks
and even made tentative plans for a trip to Italy.
Not wishing
to tarnish her honeymoon with Petaluma, I didn’t choose to tell my young
Hawaiian acquaintance that the block party she found emblematic of her new
community was actually forbidden by the Municipal Code, which allows block
parties only on cul-de-sacs. The block
party she was enjoying was actually a gathering of scofflaws. It’s a topic on which I’ve written many
times, mostly recently here.
I chatted
with one of the party organizers.
Although she hadn’t been the person to approach the Police Department
about the party, she was able to relate the story. It was similar to the stories I’ve heard multiple
times this summer.
In response to
a call from another of the organizers, a police officer advised her to block
off the street with sawhorses that could be easily removed and to place anything
in the street near one gutter so that emergency vehicle access could be
maintained, but not to expect a formal approval from the Police
Department. The organizers complied
fully with the directions and proceeded, in violation of the explicit standard
in the Municipal Code.
As I’ve
written before, this isn’t a criticism of the Petaluma Police Department. I find that they’re doing a reasonable job of
reconciling the community good of block parties with the unnecessary and inappropriate
prohibition in the Municipal Code.
Instead,
this is meant to be a continuation of my complaint about the Municipal Code and
the seeming lack of enthusiasm to change it.
The support of a few Councilmembers to either change the code or to find
a more comfortable workaround hasn’t yet borne fruit. Nor is change likely in the midst of an
election campaign. But it’s a campaign
that I’ll renew after November.
As a one
more thought about block parties, I should mention a recent Petaluma event.
National
Night Out is a police-sponsored evening in early August when neighbors are
encouraged to spend their evenings on the streets and sidewalks of their
neighborhoods, building the neighborly relationships that can deter crime.
The Petaluma
Police Department chose to recognize the evening by hosting a community party
in the Target parking lot. Puzzled by
how a party in a field of asphalt far away from any homes could build good
neighborhoods, I attended the event, expecting to be underwhelmed.
I was wrong,
at least partly. The event was
well-attended, with perhaps 200 folks there during my walk through. Many were children enjoying the bounce house,
but there were also adults chatting among themselves and small groups dining on
a range of food options. People seemed
to be having a better time than I would have expected.
Nonetheless,
I also noted two shortfalls on the path to better neighborhoods. First, most of the dining groups seemed to be
single families, or at most two families sharing a table. It’s hard to get to know your neighbors when
you’re not breaking bread together.
Indeed, it’s likely that most of the attendees came from scattered
neighborhoods anyway.
Second, only
a few people were engaging with the police officers and fire fighters who were
present. The interchanges seemed
friendly, but if the one of the goal was better citizen/emergency services
relations, it was being only poorly met.
I know that
funding often comes in baskets between which transfers can’t be easily made,
but it seemed to me that the goal of National Night Out could be better met, at
a similar cost, by revising the Municipal Code to allow block parties in more
locations and then having police representatives visit each party. Not only could they check that the emergency vehicle
access requirements were being met, but could also meet with cohesive and
involved groups of neighbors.
It would have
seemed a more effective strategy than holding a party in the parking lot of a
big box. Plus, the neighbors, not the
Police Department, would be paying for the bounce houses.
It would
also seem a way for the reality of Petaluma to begin conforming to the perception
of my Hawaiian acquaintance.
In my next
post, I’ll relate a story about a land use process that went sideways because
of a communication failure. I think the
lessons bear on the points I’ve made in recent posts about the Brown Act.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I attended the National Night Out, too. I thought it would be great to have it rotate each year to a different neighborhood park, alternating East side and West side.
ReplyDelete