“Designing a dream city is easy; rebuilding a living one takes imagination.“- Jane Jacobs
So, how to take an ambitious and detailed 102 page city planning document and condense its contents for easier digestion. That is the task before me.
A note before I begin: Were this plan to be fully implemented, the only impact on myself would be a positive one. My home’s value would no doubt skyrocket (which is good) and I could go about my life and self-interests carefree, except for the nattering issue of morality and consideration I owe all my fellow of God’s children, most certainly the poorer and lower middle-class of my fellow Whitehallians. I believe this plan most negatively impacts these two groups of our town and that I owe them (us as a community) my attention and defense. Therefore, those who question my motivations in these writings, consider this: what gain is it that I would be rewarded with by fighting for the rights and consideration of poor and middle-class people, or fighting wrong among elected leaders at City Hall? Is it financial? If I got on to Council, that would ‘enrich’ me by about $6200 a year (which I’d still have to work for). If I rallied against this plan and it didn’t ultimately go through, that would negatively impact my property values. There seems to be no significant self-value for my protestations then, outside those I’ve always claimed; a duty to morality, particularly in principles of governing and a responsibility to care for our fellow human beings with compassion and empathy and consideration in society. Otherwise, simply shutting my mouth for self-interest and letting the city screw over our fellow Whitehallians while I take the money and run seems antithetical to all those standards and principles I’ve preached and lived my life by heretofore.
So, I would like to start by saying that I fully understand the problems facing Whitehall and know that the remedies are far from easy. I also understand that we use the talent we have, as evidenced by who sits in elected office. While I know Mayor Maggard is not the whiz kid visionary she makes herself out to be, I do know she’s smart enough and cagey enough to not only utilize all the tool boxes at her reach but also surround herself with not only capable professionals but, those who will maximally benefit herself, see: ‘The Team’. Despite my valid issues and reservations with her as documented in this blog, I understand, as I’ve heard in Whitehall: “she’s gettin’ shit done”. Be this as it may, I, and you, still have a right (and duty) to not only analyze and give credit where it is due but also, for the benefit of the community, point out the wrong, the flaws, the problems with how she’s getting that ‘shit done’. And so, this blog exists largely as a counterpoint to all the smoke our government is willing to blow up our posteriors to obfuscate that which they do poorly or with a damning damage to our government’s offices, the public trust or the citizens themselves. What they may do badly or underhandedly is wrong but, our unwillingness and/or silence in the face of it is, as citizens, worse. As for me, I will exercise my 1st Amendment rights and fulfill my civic duty, as I see fit to do so.
I would also like to remind Whitehall citizens here at the top that all I ever heard you calling for from your city’s leaders were: less crime, more restaurants and businesses locally and things for the kids to do. While this plan does indeed address all those things, it also does a great many more things which you never asked for or could’ve ever imagined happening here. In my view, with the aid of many entities with vested interests, the repercussions of the designs set forth for our community, if enacted, will utterly transform Whitehall into something which, while sustainable to a growing population (who has money), will ultimately be unaffordable to most middle and lower class citizens.
While there are many aspects of the plan I’m in agreement with, there are others I find troublesome based on a number of factors. Due to the number of complaints I receive characterizing these posts (packed with factual information and critical analysis) as ‘lengthy’, ‘confusing’ or akin to a ‘word salad’, I’ve decided to start with my bullet pointed findings at the top with my analysis following. That way, everyone can read what they may and not feel they have to slog though the entirety of my post to get my point (While my findings can be summarized in a sentence, those findings require, and are respectfully owed others, a thorough explanation as to how I arrived at them).
So:
- I don’t believe that this is a community-driven document.
- Suburbs are dead
- I don’t believe its ultimate vision makes room for poor people or Whitehall’s organic character and heritage.
- Developers are the caretakers of development. The city leaders are the stringent caretakers of it’s community’s human/sociological quotient.
- The city abuses its processes, like code enforcement, to use as anti-human, anti-citizen tools to get rid of people they don’t like or want and entice those they do. (Read into that exactly as you should)
• Firstly, I take issue with the way in which the fuller community wasn’t included in its execution. Throughout the plan it says things like, “…many interested parties…” and “community members” and “discussion with residents”. It continually refers to ‘the community’ as an entity which helped to shape this document. I disagree with that characterization and here is why: they mention opportunities for residents to weigh in on the plan at ‘local community events’ which turned out to be two. The National Night Out (which was rained out, how successful could the ‘weighing in’ have been?) and the ‘September Social’ which, through the city’s advertisement of it, never mentioned specifically taking part in OHM’s city planning works, as you can see here:
Outside of that, all the others were primarily Steering Committee meetings with two ‘public open houses’, neither of which I ever saw advertised by the city or heard spoken of at Council meetings, despite my attendance rate in 2018 being near-perfect. (Of course, on social media, I heard never-endingly about Dog Parks and groundbreakings)
Here is the chart in the plan showing the ‘project schedule’:
You’ll note that the man who ran the ‘Yes on 37’ campaign, Tom Potter, and its Treasurer, Steven Quincel, (our city’s treasurer too) whose campaign presented the voters with giving, among others, Kim Maggard, an opportunity for a 3rd term were picked for the Steering Committee.
Add to that, the Steering Committee were “identified by City Staff”. When I inquired of the Mayor who that ‘City Staff’ was, she told me: herself, the Public Service Department and the Economic Development Department, as you see listed at left. The three departments who have the biggest interest and hand in development in Whitehall decided who was going to be on the committee who would steer this plan for the community? Its like wealthy people commissioning a study to find out if wealthy people should make more profit and then choosing their country club cronies to sit on the committee that will help steer the study. So, given this then: when the plan says, “These goals help set the direction for achieving the community’s aspirations for the future” and “Feedback in all these areas was gathered from the Steering Committee, City Staff, and the community and incorporated into the land use recommendations. Therefore the future land use plan is rooted in the vision and aspirations of the community…” and the opportunities for the public to help with the plan were so slim, lackluster and/or badly advertised by City Hall, I would say to characterize this plan as the ‘visions and aspirations of the community’ isn’t really a credible claim or worthy of the community as a whole. (A third of the Steering Committee alone has some sort of relationship with Mayor Maggard.) In my estimation, and despite the parts of the plan that are excellent in their crafting, I don’t see this as a community-driven plan for the community so much as a Mayor Maggard-driven plan to bolster business and development and her ‘brand’. As such, I don’t believe it deserves to be thought of or approached as a community document (despite it costing our community $110,000). However, despite this criticism, I am still left with a document which, for all intents and purposes, will be used by our city ‘leaders’ (really, followers) as a ‘blueprint’ for change in our little town. That being the case, its contents then, despite my feelings above, still beg dissection.
• Secondly: the fact of the matter, which most people would find shocking and be unhappy to hear, is that ‘suburbs’, as we know them, are becoming a thing of the past, an anachronism. With the world’s population overwhelming space and resources, from a finite land-use perspective, we simply can’t expect to live in a house with our own big parcel of land like what was once so plentiful. It is a supreme irony that as we reproduce, we need more land on which to live but, we also need more food to feed those extra people, therefore, more land is needed to produce food. What is one supposed to do then? Whitehall came about in an organic way in the times it was ‘born’ but its not serving the interests of the population of today, nor those in the future, like it once did those in the past. Therefore, the future must be denser with more walkable neighborhoods. This plan has that in spades. Linear can’t cut it anymore, we have to think ‘dense’ and ‘up’, it is the only way to sustain the human race. Unless people stop procreating.
As Jane Jacobs, the author of ‘Death and Life of Great American Cities’ pointed out, there are a number of reasons cities work: density of neighborhoods, mixed uses and times of use, more walkable space as well as a myriad of organic components related to human habits and behaviors. This plan takes those tenets (intentionally or unintentionally) and alters Whitehall to reflect the crux of Jane Jacobs vision (Who had true vision. Jane Jacobs is actually a hero of mine. She gave a damn about people and only appreciated development and businesses as they related to the health and vitality of the people who lived and worked in communities.) While Whitehall was a classic post-war suburb, its viability in the changed world of the 21st century has decreased its efficacy. To survive (and thrive) it has to change. I knew this back in 2009 when I first came to City Hall to share Ms. Jacobs vision with my hometown. That which was thrown back in my face and cast aside. Seems they’ve finally discovered what I and the rest of the world knew long before.
Thirdly, this plan, the ambitions of which are mind-boggling and uber-expensive (Most alive here now will never see its plan come to fruition, due to time and cost), is the most well-prepared and equitable, in terms of the widest swath of mixed uses (business/residential), in transforming a suburban situation into an urban one for the 21st century and beyond. While its ambitions (rosy as they are) provide a great deal of change (and opportunity for developers and those with vested interests in its rise), as I see it, the plan’s results, born out of its hubris, will escalate community values, creating then, a community most of you will not be able to afford or be ‘welcome’ in (except to spend your money of course). This, I find, to be one of my most major contentions with it, particularly as a commissioned work you expect to ultimately help a community, that which is made up of human beings from varying socio-economic strata.
One of the biggest problems I’ve seen with entities who ‘plan communities’ is their lack of acknowledgement towards, and copping to, the entirety of the communities socio-economic realities and the organic nature of those places they wish to transform (which, I understand, is not necessarily, if at all, what they’re actually tasked to do). One can address trends and plan and create statistical models and use ‘synthesized implementation matrixes’ and ‘catalytic economic implications’, pulling in every piece of information available to consider how to inorganically build or fix a city but, as the guru of city planning, Jane Jacobs, showed the world, the nature of people and the organic quality and character of a city/community are really where its at. Whitehall, now and in its past, was as a result of organic forces that shaped it. Now, we are poised to use inorganic methods to shape it as we wish it to be (using professional services who make their living doing this), instead of allowing historical organic waves and trends to shape it. That is an intrinsic difference which could make all the difference in the world, for good or ill. Forcing inorganic change on a community (just for change’s sake or simply for economic upturn) can not only betray its historical, organic character but, oft times, be a detrimental influence on the communities lives and/or be a death knell for what had been enjoyed for many years and decades by those who’ve been its most loyal citizens. In light of this I have an important comment to make in regard to city leaders hellbent on ‘economic development’ and how that relationship with developers has the ability to negatively impact communities, like Whitehall:
Developers, in general, do a lot of great stuff. They are necessary in many aspects of our society and have produced some amazing projects/public works. However, I caution leaders to not treat them as end-all, be-all saviors of a community. To do so shows a weak framework of understanding of what makes communities ‘successful’. When the gauge you use only has $$$$ in front of it, you have failed before you’ve even begun. The important considerations of a community’s rich, organic human component should be the foremost consideration of any city leader before calling in development to ‘save your community’.* After all, it is generally not a developer’s purview to consider the basic sociological human component of the community where it has come to build. After all, developers develop, its what they do. Too often in my travels and observances though, I’ve seen them swarm into areas rich with opportunity, heedless as to its full sociological impacts on the neighborhoods where they land, create a situation which is not only successful (for various periods of time) but also can have dramatic and oft times varying deleterious underlying effects on communities, now and in the future and, once fed and $ated, fly off to another community, bringing with them promises of economic vitality where new city leaders, eager for ‘succe$$’, welcome them with open and eager arms. You can use the now-crumbling Brice Road development, south of I-70, as merely one example of many as to my point. In my opinion, this ‘need’ to develop creates an overabundance and glut which, through varying societal events, ultimately creates an environment for the corrosion and collapse of its very developments which, ironically, creates a need for re-development. Thus then becoming a sort of self-driving Development Industrial Complex.** So, while I may have my observances and opinions on developers, as a reminder: it is ultimately not the developers, not the entity commissioned to ‘advance communities’ through development plans, not anyone who has a vested interest in the busine$$ of the development process to mind the heart and soul and sanctity of the community’s organic human health but, rather, the people who lead the citizen’s government and city. They are the caretakers of the myriad responsibilities owed the people they serve. It is not enough to commission and hire others to shape a community that one leads, one must also have the acumen and aptitude in various areas which impact people’s lives in order for any development of the community to be truly successful.
Jane Jacobs, whose book was a groundbreaking work exposing the fallacies of orthodox city planning (after years of careful observation, with insightful reporting), showed what city planners, with all their transformative vision, were blind to and guilty of wrongfully creating (and destroying) in communities. Whereas most urban planners have all their charts and stats to show what is and what can be ( a ‘community’ by committee), that alone is not the entire picture, oft times ignoring the fuller humanity of the ‘participants’ in the giant gameboard called ‘our community’ which they stand over, ‘creating’. After all, it is their job to create the most pleasing, most economically attractive (and viable) picture for the town leaders whose community they’re serving with their expertise. Sociological issues like poverty then, are not given the same consideration as other thing$ simply because they aren’t part of the ‘rosy picture’ town leaders wish for in their ‘progressive vision’ for economic vitality that they want to see presented to their communities. That is why, I believe, there is too often a disconnect between what the results are that ‘community planning’ create and what Jane Jacobs understood about a community’s diverse, organic, human nature working most successfully for itself. So too, there are too many people (particularly those whose relationship with the book is only skin deep) whose deeper, to the soul, understanding of Ms. Jacobs observations and tenets is missing in their implementation of her point, that is, the human element at play. I was fortunate to have been introduced to her book through the Ric Burns documentary: ‘New York: A Documentary Film’, while living in Los Angeles and, afterward, moving back to New York City and spending 4 1/2 years observing and discussing her tenets with others whose interests were as keen as mine (I actually left flowers on the doorstep of her old building on Hudson Street in Greenwich Village the day she died). That is where I developed an intrinsic understanding, to the core, of what she was driving at. It is not enough to simply follow her guidelines but to also understand why and how they work and to witness them in action.
There is an excellent piece of film, while not complete to the original documentary, ‘New York: A Documentary Film’ by Ric Burns (brother of Ken) that well explains the meat of Jane Jacobs tenets. Its well produced and interesting and informative. I highly recommend it as a quick and base way to understand Ms. Jacobs and her impact on regular people and their right to live in the neighborhoods they inhabit, free from the encroachment of ego-driven, over-zealous, glory-seeking leaders and sometimes pie-in-the-sky planners:
Returning then to my concerns with the plan in regard to poorer and middle-class citizens. In my observances: here, in New York City and Los Angeles, where I lived, I’ve long-noted the increasing callous disregard to the needs of society’s poor (with the middle-class quickly joining the ranks of the disregarded). Where profit and avarice has supplanted the idea that as one of all of God’s children, we need to make sure that others in our shared society are watched after and not merely left to rot while others dine on fatted swine. The lack of such principles, as once was the norm in America, is seen in this photo below of homeless children taken by the reporter Jacob Riis in 19th century New York City, when disparity and callous disregard for the poor was at its zenith.
In its current incarnation (this callous disregard for the rising poor of today’s society); while witnessing communities, like Whitehall, struggling with the results of poverty (crime, low economic base, impoverished structural appearance), instead of anyone standing up and stepping forward to do something about the intrinsic core of this socio-economic issue, the lazier and more intellectually disadvantaged of town leaders, eager for economic vitality, ‘increased property values’ and personal and political glory, rather, inhumanely find inventive ways to devalue and purchase at low price; impoverished, ‘blighted’ and ‘problematic’ properties, kicking then that problem down the road for some other community to temporarily deal with. Or, as said in the documentary, ‘making the problems of one community the problems of another.’***
“Relocation and tearing down buildings is slum shifting.“- Jane Jacobs
While the plan’s intent is focused on economic vitality, I believe it is Whitehall itself who will no doubt use these means to facilitate the removal of ‘undesirables’ from our ranks. (Poverty: the cancer that never completely kills nor is ever fully healed. Rather, simply a pain we all ‘cope’ with and take larger and larger doses of ‘medication’ to cover over our collective karmic and psychic pain).
For example: this plan’s chart for future use shows the eradication of both the former Parklawn community and the former English Village community. Both, historically important to people of modest means. (Notice the historical trailer court on Main near Robinwood is also gone) They’ve been replaced with, respectively, medium-density mixed use and low density residential. Doesn’t sound like there’s room for people of modest means in that, does it?
How then is all this done? Eminent domain? Lofty prices offered for property they want to enrich? No. They simply use hyperbolic propaganda to manipulate community opinion for their cause and/or manipulate the people’s government processes like they did at Commons at Royal Landing and Woodcliff for the enrichment of not only ‘The City’ but all those in line set to profit handsomely from the end result of the city’s manipulation meted out to various property owners. It is an egregious underhanded misuse and abuse of our government’s processes to seek and have, at all costs, that development which the elected officials so crave. It is a repudiation and betrayal of its people for ‘The City’. As an act, it is grotesque and outrageous.
https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2017/08/12/the-politics-of-perception/ https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2018/08/29/woodcliff-v-whitehall-the-city-hall-sell-job-edition-with-counter-arguments/ 1. For instance, in the plan it suggests, “Action 1.2.2.: Facilitate property acquisition by amassing smaller sized parcels into larger developable sites using Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) funding objectives”. (Encroachment on citizen’s life and neighborhoods by development-focused CIC’s. As in Tom Potter, a former Whitehall councilman and President of the Whitehall Community Improvement Corporation (sounds good, right?). He headed the ‘Yes on Issue 37’ campaign which raised nearly $40,000 (in our little town?! Mostly from donors with deep pockets, businesses and those with vested interests) to get, among others: Mayor Maggard and her nodding teammates on Council, the opportune opportunity for another term in office. He himself has thrown his hat into the ring to serve as President of Council, thereby bringing about the possibility of one big, happy hand-holding, back-scratching, business-friendly developing partnership in our citizen’s government where no one says ‘no’ (unless it’s Gerald Dixon) and the YES is resounding (regardless of its negative impacts on the people’s community or anyone’s ability to even know if it exists)).
2. As well, in the ‘Implementation Strategy’ portion of the plan it suggests (and I kid you not!): “Action 2.1.1: Continue to use code enforcement to ensure proper home and property maintenance“. (Note the term ‘use‘; like a tool. Here, Whitehallians thought code enforcement was being used to ensure our community looked good and yet, its really being used as a tool for development’s (developers) benefit. (Ain’t no one gonna wanna develop in a shitty-looking town!) Meaning: we’re not citizens, we’re here merely as pawns in the city’s development schemes. They’re not here to guarantee us our Constitutional rights, we’re here for them to push us out or keep us as they see fit according to our value in their development interests.
3. “Action 2.1.2.: Create educational materials that inform residents about City property maintenance codes…” (Or, as former Service Director Ray Ogden said at the June 11, 2013 Council Committee meeting: “We do have the guides that go out annually, and so, we’re a age of technology where we have the ability to get information out there, so, you know, whatever we can do because our goal is education. Nothing makes us happier than if we do see a violation, whether we’ve seen it or whether its been reported to us or whatever, and we’ve given that person notice, explained what the violation is, given pictures to make sure they know what the violation is and, started that communication and then we go out there, we see that issue has been resolved, that’s a feather in our cap, not writin’ a frickin’ ticket…”
Don’t you know that the real problem that exists in Whitehall is not your untrustworthy or nefarious elected officials but rather, you simply haven’t been educated enough on what your responsibility to your government is. Shape up citizens or SHIP OUT! We’ve got rich people to enrich here!) I have written about this affront to our rights as American citizens and our city’s penchant to push us around for the inorganic business of ‘codes’ and their resultant business gains. All citizens who ignore this, do so at their own risk and that of the communities we share. Most succinctly, I’ve detailed it in this blogpost:
4. “Action 2.1.3.:” (remember: this is part of the plan’s ‘implementation strategy’, created for the city to help actualize this plan…) “Target repeat property maintenance offenders” (Paint chipping? Artificial flowers? ‘Rubbish’? What if they’re merely enemies of the Mayor or City Hall? Who gets targeted and who doesn’t?) …”and work with the prosecuting attorney to develop short term compliance objectives”. (Work with the people to get them to do what YOU want.)
I maintain then, as this plan’s suggestions seems to align with; that the city leader(s) use the government’s processes to abuse, in particular: poor people, the ignorant and all those in way of development, of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, in order to benefit itself as an entity (‘The City’). Do you remember being asked to set aside your care and morality for your fellow Whitehallians (or your Constitutional rights) when this kind of plan was being commissioned? Neither do I.
While I do not personally acknowledge any specific religion, having grown up in America, it is Christianity I heard most about and, while I’m not necessarily a believer of Jesus Christ, I am a devotee of his purported teachings.
The bottom line on the matter of poor people getting the short end of their own city’s stick is this: Whitehall has a rich history of diversity in income strata; poor, middle-class and wealthy. It has been that way for many decades, across many waves of socio-economic trends. A diversity of people: black/white, straight/gay, old/young, established/immigrant, make for a healthy, vibrant community, one that is exciting and interesting and fulfilling to be a part of ( I know, I lived that life in NYC, it was exhilarating and alive). When you kick out the poor (who are disproportionately people of color) and surround yourselves with the homogenous sameness of color and economic level, you live a false creation of dull, banal, corporate standardization (which Jane Jacobs called “the Great Blight of Dullness”) which may be excellent for developer$ and corporation$ but is poor in a community’s spirit and its true vitality. I believe this is what this plan, if fully implemented, would do. And while Kim Maggard may ultimately ‘win’ in terms of the tangible, the results of her exertion on the public will have a lot to ‘lose’ underneath, that which is not as apparent. It is a betrayal to Whitehall’s heritage of rich, diverse human complexity itself.****
“There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness and disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and be served.” -Jane Jacobs ‘Death and Life of Great American Cities’
So, while largely positive about the value and economic impacts this plan has the ability to bring to Whitehall, my concerns and reservations: the negative impacts its increased values will bring to poorer and lower middle-class residents; the spree of profit-making development its implementation will engender and my concerns that its more a Maggard-driven development document than a true human and humane community-driven document, give me grave reservations about it, as should anyone who values:
a) our country’s Constitution and the rights it is supposed to guarantee us,
b) people over profit,
c) humans over business,
d) a selfless care for the welfare of all of Whitehall’s citizens, not just that which is self- beneficial.
Until these concerns are addressed, the areas the plan doesn’t address (or those ‘The City’ will take underhanded advantage of) will cause harm to our community and unless, or until our representatives on Council acknowledge and cop to all the citizens they represent and not just the ‘ones they want‘ or merely the CEO in the front office, they will be part and parcel of the affront and undermining and decimation of our community as it has always been: a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not, of the wealthy and vested interests, by the wealthy and vested interests and for the wealthy and vested interests. That betrayal to the people will be theirs alone to own. Their names are Jim Graham, Bob Bailey, Chris Rodriguez, Lori Elmore, JoAnna Heck, Larry Morrison, Karen Conison and Wes Kantor, among others.
*It is a supreme irony that the person tasked with overseeing a community of people, in my observances and opinion, is not really a ‘people person’. She is more comfortable with businesses, that we’ve seen but, Whitehall is not merely businesses; its chief asset is comprised of its human value, the governance and empathy and understanding of which, to this community’s detriment, is not her wheelhouse. Kim Maggard only cares about people’s value as it relates to a blockage or freedom to her plans, that which has the power to bolster or undercut her glory. This is one of the chief underlying reasons she undermines and blocks, with her power and manipulative cohorts, my ascension as a community voice, in particular, one that doesn’t manipulate, tells the unvarnished truth and cares for all the citizens, not just the ones who are self-serving.
**A city should primarily have the goods and services to support itself as it once did, with perhaps, also, some things that might entice others from surrounding areas to drop in and enjoy those things our community offers, that which are unique (NOT corporate banality that populates every single community everywhere). We can’t keep having so much development everywhere that it causes a need for everyone to support every other community lest they fail. Its too much strain on everyone to compete rather than simply live. (That’s why when more corporate fast-food chains were hailed as ‘progress’ in this city, I could only shake my head. Where’re the incentives to entice small, independently owned and operated food establishments to produce something people might want to come and taste that’s not already featured in their own town?!)
****Often times, in todays greed-obsessed America, the poor are left more and more to fend for themselves (under the stern and unapproving eyes of the government, its bureaus and cronies). To assuage ‘bleeding hearts’, any guilt the city has in their ‘profits over people’ mentality or charges that they don’t care about poor people, they’ve come to piously include a percentage of housing stock reserved for ‘the poor’ (as opposed to entire neighborhoods of poor which bring all the values down and are then a drain on ‘profits’. Can’t have that!) It is nothing more than a disrespectful, chintzy ‘bone’ thrown to a group of people they kicked out wholesale to make way for development they can’t now afford. This is not leaders caring for the poorer of American citizens, it is merely a display of false, self-interested ‘altruism’.
Whitehall Watchblog 
Pingback: MY THOUGHTS AND PLANS FOR MY TIME ON COUNCIL: 2019 UPDATE | Whitehall Watchblog