today, in theory - as well as in practice at times - there exists framework for representation of low-income/neighborhood groups in u.s. cities, this framework,which came into existence, in part, because of now-minimal militant community activism, includes various citizen participation 'opportunities' via community orgs, citywide advisory boards, election of minority and 'populist/progressive' local officials, and certain real changes have occurred as a result...
however, segmented re-development activity between public and private sectors, makeup of most local governing coalitions, and isolation of neighborhoods/communities from most important decisions of public (and, in many instances, quasi-public) institutions presents serious obstacles, private interests are principal forces in these decisions, as such, many decisions concerning location and type of investment are outside realm of public 'approval'...
election of 'good' candidates doesn't change dependence of public policymakers on private financial power, therefore, local governining coalitions tend to look good bit different than do electoral coalitions...
given that so many large public investment are controlled by independent state and regional authorities *and* fact that large portion of community development budgets goes for conventional capital expenditures, there is little discretion left, at best, low-income/neighborhood interests are looking at small amounts of residential-area money...
thus do such groups/orgs/representatves/constituencies find themselves as one part - and a comparatively weak one most of the time - of politics of redevelopment... mh