Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on October 12, 2010 at 8:30pm

So, if I am tracking this correctly, the citizens of the 19th ward were characterized as "rigid", engaging in 'bullying' behavior and reacting out of 'fear and intolerance'??? (I was not at the meeting so correct me if i am wrong).
It seems to me that the CDC has completely lost touch with "sector 4" and seemingly learned nothing from the last go-round with the Urban Brew/Boulder fiasco (just 2 years ago)! That event created a great deal of community anger, pain, mistrust, etc and here we are again feeling as though community input doesn't really matter and that the real power is held by a select few who make 'back room deals'. Very sad and very frustrating.

I continue to be interested in knowing exactly what the CDC does, who is in charge, what happens with their funding, how it relates to the City, etc. I've never come across a not-for-profit organization that is so difficult to understand and/or get information from/about. So many questions! So few answers.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on October 12, 2010 at 11:38pm

To promote transparency and make it possible to refer people coming with questions to a forum they can read without having to be a member, I've suggested on other forums such as the19thward@yahoogroups.com , that people post their comment on the meeting and this issue here on Location19 and if they wish place a link on the other site to this forum.

It is important that the CDC hear from as many residents as possible before Friday when a decision on the sale of the coffee shop will be made. Signing or not signing the petition is one way to have input but an email would also be more informative. I encourage you, and please encourage your neighbors, to email the CDC whatever your views or their views. The email should be addressed to Sector 4 CDC Office at sector4cdc@yahoo.com. I would also encourage copying the 19th Ward Community Association <19thward@19wca.org> so they get your input also. Ann Robinson the will keep a folder with those emails so the Association can review your opinions. You are of course always welcome to post your thoughts to Location19 to share them with the community.

I highly recommend that you subscribe to the Daily Email Digest (Box on the upper left of Main page) so you don't miss anything. That will bring a daily list of topics that people are posting. The email will resemble the Latest Activity column on the Main page of the site. Once an item scrolls off the bottom of the Latest Activity column it is very hard to find it in the structure of this site. It is in periods like this when there is a lot of activity that the column scrolls fast.

As always, lets all try to keep the posts constructive and well thought-out. That's not always easy to do when the clock is ticking and the adrenaline is coursing through our veins. Lets all keep in mind we need to be able to work together on the next issue even if we disagree on this one. It's a lot of hard work to build a multicultural community. Lets help each other stay on the right course.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on October 13, 2010 at 11:04am

Monday night's meeting was extremely disappointing and disillusioning. The whole evening--starting with the bogus accusation of our religious intolerance--was a sham. We are not concerned about the religious practices of the Chabad community, and it was damaging to say otherwise.
I feel betrayed and have lost confidence in some of our decision-makers. Minimally, we need an apology for the opening remarks that incriminated us in the eyes of people we are anxious to welcome into our neighborhood as friends. If there is any substance in the charge, then we should know the sources of bigotry upon which these remarks were based. That observation, if true, means that our neighborhood is in serious need of education, and I'd like to start working on that effort sooner than later.
We recently had a "Burglary Alert" circulated in our neighborhood. After Monday's meeting, I'm concerned that we ought to be circulating a "Trickery Alert," too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on October 13, 2010 at 11:21pm

I need to say a word of apology to Dana Miller for the above comments.
I guess I just live in a very sheltered environment, as I have never heard anti-Semitic comments or anything even vaguely close to what he referred to in his opening remarks on Monday. I should have asked him for corroboration before writing my angry note, but he was kind enough to educate me privately about matters of hate of which I have been blithely ignorant. We haven't quite become the beloved community that I'd thought, and his comments were a reasonable response to hateful remarks from real people.
My disappointment was based on the years I have known and grown to trust and respect Dana, and I was just so flabbergasted by what I heard that I overreacted. I hope Dana can accept my apology for this very public lapse of faith in someone I've known and trusted for years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on October 14, 2010 at 9:00am

I heard one anti-Semitic comment at the Brooks Landing meeting in 2009 but nothing since then. sadly, there have been plenty of comments in our neighborhood that reflect hate and intolerance - I've heard comments directed toward/about blacks, whites, gays, welfare recipients, suburbanites, kids, etc..... we have plenty of work to do in creating a true sense of community and tolerance.

I was not at the meeting so don't know the context of the comments that Dana made but I believe that the issue re: Boulder is primarily about the use of that particular building and the deep desire to keep it a public/accessible space for community members. The larger issue (in my opinion) continues to be one regarding decision making, community input, transparency and communication.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on October 14, 2010 at 10:21am

Ken, the impression was given in his remarks that the entire opposition was characterized by anti-semitism. By stating it the the context that he did, in conjunction with the statement "We will not be bullied by petitions," he drew a broad brush across ALL the petitioners.

If there were a few who contacted him privately, that should have STAYED private, because in NO WAY did it represent the totality of the community.

I have no doubt that there are some anti-semites in the 19th Ward. I have no doubt that there are racists in the 19th ward. And I know for a fact that there are people in the 19th ward who stereotype our middle eastern merchants without bothering to get to know them.

But those are a MINORITY.

He could have said that he knows the majority in the 19th ward are not anti-semites, but that he had received anti-semitic comments in response to the proposal. Instead, he lashed out at the WHOLE.

Now, I know from the yahoo group discussion that there were a few people who questioned the Lubavich movement (of which Chabad is a part) for what was suggested to be anti-black sentiment. The Crown Heights incident could be interpreted as an example of that. I don't happen to agree with that assessment, but I can understand how, given the kinds of tensions in the Crown Heights neighborhood over that, someone could interpret it as such. It is a position with which I would disagree, but nonetheless it does not necessarily represent anti-semitism.

There are also people who question Israel's policies against the Palestinians. Are they anti-semites? Some would and DO say yes. I profoundly disagree with THAT sentiment as well. One can be a strong critic of Israel and not be anti-semitic.

I do not know if the Yahoo group comments were the referent. NOBODY knows what he was referring to because his comments were made as a GENERAL CHARGE against petitioners, OF WHICH I AM ONE.

Dana Miller owes this community an apology, not the other way around.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Knoth on October 13, 2010 at 11:13am

Attached is a letter from the Barton Street Block Club objecting to the change of use

Attachments:

• BartonStreetLetter.doc, 70 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on October 13, 2010 at 11:19am

Thanks for this letter, neighbors.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on October 14, 2010 at 6:56pm

Here are a few picture for those who were not there so you get a feel for the crowd that was there and and but some faces on the names you have heard.
The meeting at the Staybridge Suites started at seven and people signed in as they arrived:

The crowd is still filling in and the room will soon be full:

Dana Miller started the the meeting and introduced Rabbi Yarras and Lyjha Wilton:

First Lyjha Wilton spoke:

Then Rabbi Yarras Spoke:

This was followed by a very spirited discussion with the community presenting its views as you can reed in the posts:

You can click on the images to the then enlarged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on October 14, 2010 at 10:13pm

At tonight's 19thWCA delegates meeting, 8 delegates voted in favor of upholding the deed restriction to coffee house use, 3 opposed the motion (that is, supported the CHANGE of use), and 2 abstained.

There was extensive discussion of the issues and I myself came away much better informed of the details at hand. I still personally favor retaining the deed restriction, but I think we can take this opportunity to explore many other options for both Boulder and Chabad House.

Other people can add details.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Adams on October 15, 2010 at 8:39am

Dear Listmates,
Below please find a letter that we submitted 2 days ago to Sector 4 CDC regarding our
personal views on the sale of 955 Genesee Street, the current home of Boulder
Coffee in the 19th Ward. Please note that the opinions expressed in this letter
are ours and are not meant to represent those of the 19th Ward Association,
other neighborhood groups, or other individual residents of the neighborhood. Also, as
employees of the University of Rochester which is a neighbor of the 19th Ward
and a voting member of Sector 4 CDC, we felt it was important to share our
thoughts with President Seligman. Therefore, we have cc'd this letter to his
office.




October 14, 2010

Dear Sector 4 CDC Board Members,

As residents and homeowners of the 19th Ward for over a decade, we write this letter to urge the Sector 4 CDC to enforce the deed restriction on the Boulder Coffee house building at 955 Genesee Street, or provide or facilitate restitution to the community members and associations that contributed to the effort to rehabilitate this building for use as a neighborhood coffee shop. The proposed plan to sell 955 Genesee Street to a non-profit will be detrimental to the community. In addition, refusal to enforce the deed restriction will undermine the community’s trust in Sector 4 CDC, reducing its effectiveness as a force for economic development.

As stated above, we believe the sale of this building will be detrimental to the community. First, the sale of this building to a non-profit will take it off the tax rolls, and at the public meeting on October 11th, 2010, the leader of this non-profit (Chabad House) implied that he would not commit to paying taxes. Rabbi Asher Yaras was also unwilling to commit Chabad to make a significant donation to the neighborhood associations that had initially made considerable financial contributions toward saving this historic building. In addition, despite claiming that Chabad House would be an open community center, it was revealed only after intensive questioning that the space would not be available for independent community use during the academic year. We moved to the 19th Ward because its residents embrace diversity. However, the actions and statements of the Rabbi demonstrate that Chabad is unconcerned with how its activities affect the community in which it hopes to establish a presence. This is exemplified by the fact that Rabbi Yaras claims that none of the other many buildings that were suggested to him were within walking distance for University of Rochester students. Yet he stated that the group’s second choice is to acquire a building on Mt. Hope Avenue, which is even further away from the University than the various properties Chabad was shown in our neighborhood.

The loss of a retail location in a landmark building, situated at the intersection of two major routes into our city, is troubling. We are concerned that the failure to maintain a private business at this location will directly discourage other businesses from investing in the neighborhood. Moreover, this could weaken Sector 4 CDC’s ability to secure funding for economic development in the neighborhood as well.

While we agree that the community needs to focus on the future, we ask you to recognize that the process of past decisions surrounding the establishment of Boulder Coffee affects current events. It is therefore of the utmost importance that Sector 4 CDC consider how its actions will influence trust between the neighborhoods and Sector 4 CDC. Secure relationships among neighborhood groups, residents, and Sector 4 CDC are essential in order to optimize your ability to foster business development in the Southwest Sector of Rochester. Having the support of neighborhood residents will improve the likelihood of obtaining funding from within the community, thereby also enhancing your ability obtain funding from larger, outside foundations. Improved trust can only enhance the willingness
of community members to support businesses that Sector 4 CDC brings to the community.

We recognize that Sector 4 CDC has more experience with economic development than we have as individual residents. We understand that Lyjah Wilton, the current owner of 955 Genesee Street, has indicated he will invest the profits from his sale of the building, to move his business to a more economical location, and also develop additional businesses in the neighborhood. Consequently, we can appreciate the possibility that allowing Mr. Wilton to do so is a preferred strategy for further developing Brooks Landing. However, if that is the case, it is essential that Sector 4 CDC help build trust by ensuring that the community associations and individual contributors are provided restitution if they so desire. Although we know this is not technically required, it will serve as a good faith gesture that Sector 4 CDC recognizes and respects the investments made by these groups and individuals. In addition, it would be important to obtain a written commitment of Mr. Wilton’s intent to maintain a retail location of Boulder Coffee and invest in additional businesses in the 19th Ward. Recognizing this may not be an enforceable document, it nonetheless demonstrates Sector 4 CDC’s advocacy on behalf of the neighborhoods it serves.

As a final gesture to enhance trust, we ask that the Sector 4 CDC strive for transparency in all matters related to the sale of 955 Genesee Street. All potential conflicts of interest by Sector 4 CDC Board Members should be acknowledged publicly and addressed appropriately. We also ask that a full, roll call record of all future Board level votes relating to this property be made public in a timely manner.

We thank you for your willingness to hold an open forum regarding the pending sale of Boulder Coffeehouse in the 19th Ward, and for soliciting public comment about enforcement of the deed restriction on this property.

Sincerely,

M. Jacob Adams
Resident and Homeowner of the 19th Ward
Delegate, 19th Ward Association (Sector 10)

Heather Adams
Resident and Homeowner of the 19th Ward


cc:
19th Ward Community Association
University of Rochester President Joel Seligman
19th Ward: Yahoo group (online)
Location 19 group (online)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on October 15, 2010 at 4:19pm

October 14, 2010

Dear Sector 4 CDC Board members

I am writing to express my support for upholding the deed restriction on the building at 955 Genesee Street, currently Boulder Coffee.

The Board has been asked to lift that restriction in order to enable Chabad House to purchase the building for use as a center for Jewish students to attend classes, partake in religious ritual meals, and to study. The profit from the sale of the building by Lyjha Wilton will purportedly be used to move both Boulder Coffee and a pizza shop into the building across the street. Presumably this will draw more students across the bridge who will then patronize other businesses.

This change has been presented as a sound business decision and therefore beneficial to the community and in particular to the Brooks Landing business corridor.

I challenge that notion.

Boulder has been in its current location only two years – hardly long enough to determine whether the current location can be sufficiently profitable. Furthermore, it has been operated on a business model that suits other locations – where there is already a draw from other businesses.

There are 35,000 residents in the Southwest corridor of this city. Boulder has the ONLY coffee shop in this neighborhood. If it isn’t garnering sufficient business from the EXISTING population, one must ask: why? What is it about the business that is unattractive to current residents?

Has there been a marketing survey to determine how to best serve that population in a sufficiently profitable way?

Has there been sufficient aggressive marketing directed at the EXISTING population?

For example, in this neighborhood, WDKX is the most popular radio station. Has there been any effort to draw the residents who listen to WDKX?

The building is unique – as unique as the Chevy dealership downtown, which is now operated as Spot Coffee. Spot draws people not only from the neighborhood and all over the city, but also from the suburbs. Has there been any aggressive marketing to draw a similar crowd?

Or has the focus been on trying to draw students from the U of R? If so, why? Why shouldn’t the focus be on serving people who already live here?

Given the work that was put into bringing the coffee house to fruition by people in the neighborhood, shouldn’t the focus be on serving those people first? If they aren’t coming in in sufficient numbers, what is hindering them? Could it be the service? Could it be the choices of food and beverage? Could it be that a large portion of the population doesn’t even know about it? At my end of the Ward, there are a lot of people who didn’t know it existed until I told them.

Has anyone done a marketing survey to determine what people want? If the current location doesn’t draw enough business, why would going across the street improve that? Yes, it will be smaller and therefore the overhead will be lower. But considerable amount of money is going to have to go into developing the interior of the building across the street. Shouldn’t that be factored into the cost per square foot of the new place?

Mr. Wilton has indicated his intent to bring a pizza shop in across the street. That is supposed to draw more students. But there are numerous locations where students can order pizza from – including the very popular Meneze’s Pizza, which is across the street from me. Meneze’s is intending to add an eat-in facility upstairs. Yes, Meneze’s isn’t close to Brooks Landing. But it USED TO BE on Genesee, and it was located there with intent to serve the students. It still does significant business with deliveries to students.

How much student business will Meneze’s lose with another competitor? Does that matter to the CDC?

The Chabad House is supposedly going to bring more students across the bridge. How many will that be? Will they actually patronize Genesee street businesses?

Has anyone done a marketing survey of the Chabad House population to determine what sorts of businesses they might patronize? Certainly not food establishments.

Pizza? Not likely.

What’s a rough guestimate of the daily student presence at Chabad House? 50? 100? 200? I sincerely doubt it would be 200 on a daily basis, and 100 is really pushing it.

I could be wrong, but all we have from others is a hunch, not reliable figures.

There are two main barriers to business development at Brooks Landing. Those are the perception of danger and the economic recession. The latter is beyond our hands. The former is recalcitrant but not irremovable. The change in use of 955 to a religious, non-taxpaying organization will not counter that perception in any significant way.

Certainly not in a way that makes good business sense.

Sincerely,

Georgia NeSmith
Blueroses Photography

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page