Democratic Governance and Civic Health in Newark, Delaware A Case Study BY EZRA J. TEMKO On February 25, 2008, city council chambers in Newark, Delaware, overflowed with angry citizens hoping to stop a large housing development project on a country club site, as well as prevent an as- sociated road outlet for the new development that would flow traffic into an adjacent neighborhood by demolishing a house there. The mayor closed public comment before everyone was given an opportu- nity to speak. Council unanimously approved the project, because the comprehensive plan and zon- ing laws allowed the project and the council did not have a legal alternative. Less than two weeks earlier, the City of Newark’s Planning Commission had begun the process of updating Newark’s comprehensive land use devel- opment plan. A comprehensive development plan looks at land use development over the long run. The document is legally binding and is used to guide decisions, lay out a pathway for implementation, and give developers and others a sense of what lo- cality to look for, as well as constituting a marketing device. In contrast to the public hearing for the coun- try club development project, only three members of the public came to this meeting. Council and community members were displeased, to put it mildly, with the outcome of the coun- try club development project. Would things have been different if there had been a community fo- rum with the developer prior to the formal develop- ment process? Would outcomes have changed if the city had collaborated with the country club, which had dwindling membership and outdated facilities, and offered a purchase of development rights (PDR) package? One active Newarker writes, “Newark’s comprehensive plan is not really ‘comprehensive’ and does not include the community’s vision in its development.” What might Newark look like if, when Newark first developed its comprehensive plan, there was a participatory process that involved visioning and a wide cross section of stakehold- ers? Most important, what can Newark and other contemporary local governments do to ensure they are equipped and ready to address the opportunities and challenges facing our communities? This article argues that local governments should use democratic governance to enhance a community’s problem-solving capacity and civic health. It will explore the case of Newark, Delaware; evaluate the status of Newark’s civic health; and reflect on how democratic governance can be used to enhance the community’s civic health. Contemporary Society Contemporary society presents challenges of in- creasing magnitude to local governments, who face increasingly limited resources. In its Civic Index, the National Civic League (NCL) lists some of the underlying conditions confronting communities in- cluding frustrated and angry citizens, presumption of bad intent, negative media, and dysfunctional politics (1999, pp. 7–8). Citizens look askance at government-as-usual operations yet often feel help- less to make a difference or are unaware of the issues at hand. The relationship between many govern- ments and their citizens can be characterized as an adult-child relationship, instead of an adult-adult re- lationship in which citizens have avenues to deliber- ate and address the critical issues facing our society. Our society has been transformed by globaliza- tion, extreme changes that closely integrate the world economic, political, and cultural systems at a remarkably fast pace. Marked especially by in- terconnectivity and interdependence, globalization has led to citizens having instant access to infor- mation and greater ability to interconnect and mo- bilize around issues. The role of the marketplace has grown. Today’s young people came of age when commerce, not government, dominated much of cul- ture. The millennials, those born in the United States between 1977 and 1995, are more ethnically diverse than ever before; one in five have parents who are 52 c  2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) National Civic Review • DOI: 10.1002/ncr.20036 • Winter 2010