Harold DeRienzo’s chapter works on a technical level to identify what communities are and what problems they have. Essentially he defines communities, which relates to Alice O’Connors chapter in The Community Development Reader. O’Connor pointed out that community development is a term that holds various meanings. The interventions and federal policies that it encompasses are not comprehensive and coherent, thus leading to failing programs that do not learn from past mistakes. DeRienzo emphasizes that in order to tackle an issue, we must have a clear, precise understanding of what that issue means. If we are not specific about what we are doing, then it can harm the very people we are trying to help. In defining what communities are, he lays to foundation for addressing O’Connor’s issue with the notorious ambiguity of community development.

From his definitions, we sum that communities exist through common issues or circumstances that a group of people hold, economic interdependence and the capacity to tackle common issues through institutions. In the case of the poor, although the first two components seem reachable, the last one – which he calls collective capacity – does not. To be able to accomplish goals, they have to have control over their institutions. They simply do not have to resources, education, or skill to do so. This idea of power coming from within a community, rather than from external forces relates to Tom Angotti’s critique of the U.S. rational-comprehensive planning model. This is a very orthodox approach that essentially gives professional planners all the power and is too grand to take into account all the differences people and neighborhoods have. Without taking all this in, developers are not specific enough and thus harm the people of these communities. This specificity is seen in advocacy planning – the basis for progressive planning – that Angotti discusses later in the chapter. This type of planning addresses minority interests, it is not just one big plan for a whole city. It also encourages people within neighborhoods to create their own plans.

DeRienzo also introduces two models of community development: the Static Enhancement Model and the Transformative Model. The former does not fix problems; it only helps residents on a surface level by better equipping them to tackle problems. The latter is preferable as it acknowledges that people can make a change and not just subject to the changes of life. Again, this relates to O’Connor’s chapter because it aims at tackling issues at their core in order to prevent unnecessary and harmful attempts from reoccurring. The orthodox model mentioned in the Angotti chapter seems to be a Static Enhancement Model. It tries to use physical answers like public housing problems to solve the problem of urban poverty. This does little to tackle the fact that the poor are poor and only helps a select few. The point that Paul Davidoff made in his “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,” addresses this issue and how urban planning focuses on physical solutions too much. We should look at things from all perspectives: physical, economic, and social.

Discussion Question:  If professional planners have too much power and the poor are too under-equipped (money, education) to cultivate power, how should planning power be distributed?