In both the articles by Sanjek and Hum, the focus was on the histories, roles, and realities of some of New York City’s community boards. What struck me the most about both articles was how seemingly powerless and therefore ineffective the community boards were. In principle, these groups give power to the communities that they represent by providing a public forum where residents can voice their concerns. In practice, they hold no real leverage over the city or even over their respective borough presidents. There have been cases where if appointed community board members were outspoken against the agenda of their borough president, those board members were removed. Effectively, they are subject to the whims of those who appoint them, and there is nothing in place to protect them from being removed. Since their suggestions for funding or legislation are just that – merely suggestions – they do not hold any real political power.

The power has always and will always rest in the hands of the people. Yes, legislators are really the ones with power, but they are elected by the people. Also, the residents of a neighborhood will always know best what that neighborhood needs, so it is best that the change in that neighborhood is facilitated by its residents. This is a commonality between both articles – where the community boards failed to initiate change, local nonprofit organizations succeeded, or at least did better than the community boards in their efforts.

It is possible for these organizations to do this because they are not appointed and cannot be silenced or defunded in any simple way by the city. They raise the money on their own terms. This is just speculation, but there is also a feeling that since these organizations revolve around community and philanthropy instead of politics, they are more inviting and approachable to the public. Another benefit of these community based nonprofits is that there are many, each based on a different constituency or issue. Even though some of these organizations are centered around a particular constituency, they often work to change neighborhoods for the better, not just for that group but for all residents. The whole of these groups together better reflects the demographics of the communities they represent compared to the community boards. In dynamic and diverse neighborhoods such as Elmhurst-Corona and Flushing, new groups will continue to form even as older ones diminish in power, with each new group bringing its own support and resources to the community. This process of renewal and inclusion is what members of the community boards can only wish to have.