2.5 Concluding points

• The task of regeneration in the European city can only be a piecemeal response to a much larger spatial reconfiguration.
   
• Partnership is frequently aspirational rather than real. Under the rubric of partnership, cities, neighbourhoods and regeneration programmes seek to address individual and collective interests deploying a range of different strategies. There is no consensus or coherence about the term partnership, not all potential partners are successfully mobilised, and the forms that partnership takes vary substantially across the cities and the across projects.
   
• The “community” is a term that hides a diversity of interests and roles. The community includes not only residents –both owners /occupiers and tenants –but others who work in the neighbourhood or who use the area for leisure. Different people want different levels of involvement- some to be kept informed of developments with the opportunity to be consulted, others who want to share in the decision making processes, and others who do not want to engage at any level (Glasgow Case Study).
   
• Partnership with the private sector is the exception rather the rule across the eight ENTRUST cities. Dublin is the only city that has a statutory requirement to engage in Community Gain through levies on developers, monitored by a community-elected monitoring committee. The experience of Dublin has been that it has not proved difficult to engage private companies in community regeneration where tax incentives and community gain policies are in place. These mechanisms provide for a stake for the private investor in the process. Both private development and the community can gain from the common gain objectives, set down on a statutory basis, and monitored by elected community representatives, during implementation