Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on October 17, 2010 at 5:45am

Progress in Communications - On to Phase 2

Based on the discussions I have had and meeting I have attended I believe that the CDC is indeed reviewing the input being provided to it in the form of letters addressed to Sector 4 CDC and will seriously factor that into their decision process. It is important that everyone submit their letters to the CDC at: sector4cdc@yahoo.com as soon as possible and copy 19th Ward Community Association: 19thward@19wca.org . I would also encourage people to post their letters on Location19 so everyone can see the opinions of people in the community. The Sector 4 CDC vote on this issue is now scheduled for Wednesday October 20th. There will also be Coffee Shop Committee SW Common Council meeting Monday October 18th at the SWAN Community center from 6 to 7pm where their recommendation to the to the CDC will be decided upon.

Now for a quick recap of where we have been:

A week and a half ago rumors of a possible sale of the Boulder Coffee building at 955 Genesee Street were confirmed. It also became generally known that there was use restriction clause in the contract signed when the building was sold by the Sector 4 CDC to Boulder two years ago. That clause gave the CDC the right to restrict the use of the building to a coffee shop for ten years from the date of its sale to boulder by the current or any a new owner. There was also talk that the CDC had already decided not to invoke the restriction which started a furor. By Thursday October 7th a petition was circulating to urge the CDC to invoke the restriction and this Location19 discussion topic was started to discuss what was going on and to urge people to sign the petition.

By Friday October 8th a public informational meeting was scheduled by the CDC at the Staybridge Suites on Monday October 11th. The meeting gave people the opportunity to meet the Rabbi Yarras who wants to buy the building and Lyjha Wilton who currently owns the building. They presented their plans for the future of the 955 Genesee Street building and for a move of Boulder Coffee to a smaller space across the street. Lyjha also would like to help bring in a pizza shop into the empty space in the new building. The Rabbi Yarras reviewed his plans to turn the coffee shop into a Chabad for U of R students. At the meeting John Borek presented the petition with 51 names in favor of restricting the us of 955 Genesee to coffee house. A very lively question and opinion session followed. My impression was that about 3/4 of the people who spoke were in favor of enforcing the restriction. The many posts above review peoples impressions they took away from the meeting.

On Wednesday October 13th the Coffee Shop Committee SW Common Council met to continue the discussion of the future use of 955 Genesee. This was its third wekkly meeting on the issue and the first I attended. Dave Etzel said that the Genesee Business Alliance was in favor of the CDC invoking the restriction and trying to keep Boulder where it is. Most people present spoke in favor of imposing the restriction. Poor service at Boulder was mentioned by several people as challenge Boulder needs to work on to improve business. The diversity of the patrons of the coffee house was seen as representative of the diversity of the community. It was felt the loosing this neighborhood symbol would negatively impact the future vitality of the Brooks Landing area. The next meeting was moved to Monday so that the Common Council committee could draft a letter to the Sector 4 CDC in time for the CDC's Wednesday meeting.

On Thursday the Oct. 14th the Delegates' Council of 19th Ward Community Association had its monthly meeting. The meeting ran from 7 to 10 pm with the Boulder issue taking up the last 2 hours. Marian and I attended as non-delegates along with Dana Miller, Georgia NeSmith and Dan DeMarle. There officers and delegates present numbered about 13. The issues involved were very thoroughly discussed. The pro and con split of recommendation letters copied to the 19WCA office were discussed. J.B. indicated that so far the split was roughly 3/4 in favor of enforcing the restriction. Which way the posts were pointing on Location19 and the19thward@yahoogroups.com was also discussed. The opinion was that those also were roughly 3/4 in favor of the restriction. Dana was asked what the split was looking like at the CDC office. He thought it was looking closer to 50/50 but an accurate pro and con count and a reading of the letters had not been started yet. He stressed that he is urging people to get their letters in to the Sector 4 office as soon as possible so the board members get a chance to review them before Wednesday's meeting. If people send letters to individual members of the board they should be sure to also send them to the Sector 4 CDC office so everything gets counted. Again I urge copying the 19WCA office and posting here. I was very impressed with the energy the group put in to discussing the issues. I think from an emotional standpoint everyone favored seeing the coffee shop stay where it is. The dilemma centered on the uncertainty of the financial impact of one choice vs. the other. The possibility of requesting a one month delay, so the community had more time to digest the issues and make recommendations was discussed. That sounded good until one delegate asked who was going to organize those meeting. There was a collective sigh of exhaustion and we proceeded to vote on the motion to recommend the CDC impose the use restriction. The vote was 8 to 3 in favor of recommending the use restriction. I think there was one undecided and Jesse, our secretary, does not have a vote because of a residency requirement in the bylaws. I definitely came out of the meeting impressed with the effort the group put into this process and with the impression that Dana and the CDC had not yet made up their minds and would consider the input you provide.

Friday I met from 4 to 6:44pm with Eleanor Coleman to talk about various aspects of the boulder issue and get a better understanding of how the various community organizations interact. My head is still swimming. As we left Eleanor and I discussed how the lack of table service had reduced our purchases. We had gotten a couple cups of coffee when we arrived, and if there had been table service would have order at least a couple more plus very likely something to eat. Eleanor was on her way to a 7PM meeting and had not had supper.

Here is the list of the CDC Board members:
Hanif Abdul-Wahid.......Monroe County - Secretary
Ronald Allen ...........SWAN*
Eleanor Coleman.........SWAN, SWAN rep*
Barbara Jones...........JP Morgan Chase Bank (retired)
Germaine Knapp..........Sojourner House*
Kelvin Knight...........City of Rochester, PLEX rep*
Colleen McCarthy........University of Rochester
Dana K. Miller..........Rochester Area Comm Found - Chairperson*
Stewart Putnam..........Unity Health System*
Josanne Reaves..........Leadership Rochester - Vice Chairperson*
Lynette Robinson........Lynnada Consulting, Changing of the Scenes (COTS) rep*
William Sullivan........City of Rochester (retired), 19th Ward rep*
*=Lives or Works in Sector 4

Joan Roby-Davison at the Sector 4 CDC office says you can mail through conventional (snail) mail, or send it to the Sector 4 CDC e-mail address (sector4cdc@yahoo.com). She will ensure that messages are shared with the entire board.

The Snail mail CDC address is: 89 Genesee Street First Floor Rochester, New York 14611

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on October 17, 2010 at 8:40am

John,
Thank you very much for putting this timeline together and sharing all of this valuable information! Because i was out of town on vacation for 2 weeks i was unable to attend any meetings and could not keep up with all of the information.
It would be useful if Eleanor and/or someone who understands how all of these groups interact would share that with the community. From my observation we have great potential in the SW to create change but harnessing that power and moving in a common, united direction seems to be one of our biggest challenges.
Thanks again

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eleanor Coleman on October 18, 2010 at 10:54am

I'm starting off by saying that I am a member of the Sector 4 CDC Board, and while I am a 14-year employee of SWAN, I am a 31-year resident of the 19th Ward and my representation on the CDC Board is more a reflection of my role as Secretary of the SW Common Council and Chair of their Communications Committee, which has no official members. (I, along with other CDC Board members readily stood up when asked to be identified at the 10/11 meeting.)

I came to the CDC Board because of my participation at the Sector 4 CDC's Strategic Planning meeting held last November. This meeting was convened specifically because of the obvious gap that existed between the CDC and the SW Common Council (SWCC). The significance of this gap is that the CDC was created SOLELY as the economic arm of the SWCC. The CDC, to begin the process of closing that gap, held a meeting for all of the 5 neighborhood Presidents and the existing Board members to begin the healing process. Unfortunately, while the neighborhood representatives (except Neighborhood United) attended this meeting, the Co-Chairs of the SWCC did not attend.

I was at the forefront of anger (rage) when the coffee shop was sold to a private owner. At this meeting, I responded to a very lovely PowerPoint by Dana Miller showing all the many successes and projects of the CDC, by saying, "Hey, the community doesn't trust you guys. We think you came to us when you needed money and support and then when things started to go in a different direction, we weren't good enough or smart enough to come back to with a new decision that needed to be made." This led into, what I judge to be, a full disclosure of how events unfolded at that time. Dana and Josanne (CDC Chair and Co-Chairs) acknowledged that they were too frantic with the possibility that the coffee shop would fold because funders and potential funders were demanding an experienced operator to host meetings. Without an Executive Director, they became a "working board" of two and made what they felt at the time was the best decision, sell to Lyijah Wilton. The Board acknowledged that they were sorry they hadn't proceeded differently.

One of the outcomes of this meeting was to, again, bring neighborhood representatives from each of the 5 neighborhood groups that make up Sector 4 onto the CDC Board. This was initially the "cast of characters," but was changed when John Borek was Executive Director of the CDC.

On the Tuesday in August, before the Thursday SWCC meeting, John DeMott asked if I was aware that Lyijah was being offered money to sell the building. I had no idea and my first question was, "Did you tell Dana?" No, that hadn't happened. I called Josanne, who called Dana, who did not know this was happening.

What was at this point a rumor, was announced at the SWCC meeting to the community and presented as another indication of the CDC being less than transparent. Dana had not yet reached Lyijah for a meeting so there was no new information. A day or so after the
SWCC meeting, Dana had met with Lyijah who said, "Yes, I've been approached but there's a deed restriction and I let him know the building's not for sale." This was immediately reported back to the SWCC along with the minutes of the meeting which included the rumor. Representatives of all 5 neighborhoods plus about 90 others receive the minutes.

Then came the news that the Rabbi was persistent and now the offer was so high it made Lyijah take a step back and look at the bigger picture: (1) the current building is a bit too big for the amount of business he is doing (there is an unused room that can't be used unless another staircase is build; he can't sell anything upstairs that he doesn't offer downstairs or he has to put in an elevator, etc.), (2) despite the fact that the UR did put their Human Services offices in all of the upper floors and one of the corner spaces on the first floor, the storefronts across the street have been empty for over 2 years (both the hotel and Lyijah were wooed with promises of businesses across the street); and (3) Nappa Pizza is not in a position to match the $75,000 loan the City is offering to actually move in. Lyijah already leases to Nappa Pizza in the SouthWedge. It was his thought that, with the profits, he could build a new Boulder across the street and float the loan that Nappa needs to open up. Now the whole corner is filled.

Back to the SWCC. When Dana found out that the Rabbi was increasing the amount repeatedly and Lyijah was reconsidering, he made plans to attend the next SWCC meeting to report this (this is over the course of 2 days). At that SWCC meeting, he announced the new development and said he was going to have a meeting of the Presidents. He had a meeting at his house over the weekend - only J.B. was able to attend. So he held another meeting during the week. Neither of the SWCC Chairs attended. J.B. reported back the concerns that were made by 19th Ward residents.

Dana was informed by Lyijah that an offer had been made in writing (the amount was not made known) less than a week before the 10/11 meeting. A notice about the meeting went out 10/6 to all of my contacts: SW Community Roundtable (265+), SWCC (100), and 19 South (72). I put the notice in "red" because of the nature of it - I have NEVER highlighted an announcement before.

I attended a meeting at the NSC the Wednesday before the 10/11 meeting because I had been disappointed in the continual "spin" against the CDC when we have clearly been trying to build bridges and include all five neighborhoods. Because the SWCC invitations have been couched with "even though this meeting is being held on a holiday," I asked how many of the 20+ people could not attend Monday's meeting. Four people raised their hands. Two of them work for the City. And one of the people who raised her hand, WAS at the meeting.

While I agreed with John's point about having someone at Boulder coming upstairs to take orders, when I brought this point up to other coffee shop fanatics, they noted that Spot is set up the same way Boulder is and no one expects to have someone come around to refresh their drinks.

I am also VERY annoyed by those who are flaming the fires with a claim that this is a "done deal," which I've also heard from a City employee. My butt is sore from STILL sitting on this fence!!!! I have witnessed veiled remarks and half-truths that have distorted the facts and led to formed opinions without due process.

I am on the CDC Board, and I can truthfully tell you, I have not decided one way or the other.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on October 18, 2010 at 12:16pm

Thanks for sharing all of this Eleanor- it helps me to understand a bit re: the 'timelines' of events.
The question that jumps out to ME from what you wrote is this:
why didn't the SWCC Chairs attend the meeting that the CDC convened last November and more recently, this month re: Boulder? My question is more rhetorical than seeking an answer from you specifically, but I think it points to my ongoing concern about our neighborhood- i.e. we're not all working together, communication is strained at best and we continue to (or so it appears) have various entities that are working at CROSS purposes. Some of this feels like politics, some of it feels very personal and some of it resembles turf issues!
Dana has taken a lot of "heat" because he is a common person in some of these issues- one might view that he is part of the 'problem' - MY view is that he is one of the few people who has stayed involved in a PUBLIC manner and works to stay involved- that is a GOOD thing.
One more suggestion re: notices you send out - if possible, it would be very helpful to send those notices to both THIS site and to the 19th ward yahoo site. There are also various block group email lists that would appreciate getting any information you send out. I used to get the information you sent but must have been dropped from the list. The more information we can share with people, the better!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on October 18, 2010 at 1:40pm

Eleanor,

My sense that this was a "done deal" was an impression built on the discussion during the meeting on Oct. 11, specifically Wilton's insistence that this sale WAS going to happen, period, coupled with his accusation that opponents were being rigid and selfish.

He also stated that his understanding of the purpose of the meeting was to "clarify" information and rumors, not to listen to objections or arguments against the change.

Following the latter remarks, no one from the CDC, including Dana, who was running the meeting, stood up to firmly insist that the Board had made no decision regarding the deed restriction. The absence of such a remark spoke very loudly. Silence is consent, or at least it is reasonably interpreted as such.

Not one member of the Board - at least not one that I recall identifying themselves as such - made a strong public statement in response to those last remarks by Wilton.

If there is a sense that this was a "done deal," that is a reasonable interpretation of the proceedings. Whether that is the FACTUAL case or not.

That sense is also derived from the fact that very little was done prior to just a few days before Monday's meeting to truly reach out to the public. As I understand it, there were two meetings prior to that one, for which as far as I recall there was no publicity in the two major communications media for reaching 19th Ward residents, namely location19 and the 19th Ward yahoo group.

Additionally, the only broad publicity in either of those options did not come from Board members. Generally when there is little outreach it is reasonable to assume that the involved parties would prefer to not have a whole lot of people talking about it and potentially opposing it.

That follows upon the prior history of the sale of the building to Wilton being executed with no publicity (that I am aware of - and I am an information SEEKER, not a passive recipient) until after the fact.

I appreciate the additional information you have provided here. It would have been helpful to have that information earlier.

As for the difference with Spot - Spot is already very popular. It suits a varied crowd that comes from all over the GV region. It is also in the very popular East End. It is across the street from Channel 10, very close to the Eastman Music School, blocks from central business and government offices downtown, and it has residences above it and along side it.

Spot doesn't NEED to cater to such preferences. When you are at 955 Genesee St., you have very little (at present) surrounding you that provides a ready-made foot traffic.

BTW, I have been known to drive over to Spot instead of going to Boulder because there is nothing I can eat at Boulder. Even the salads and the salad dressings are out of the question for me because they are overloaded with salt.

Also there were more than a few times I planned to go to Boulder and I could not find a parking spot. Yes, it's hard for most people at Spot also, but I have parking in the Quaker Meeting spaces behind the Meeting House. While that privilege does not extend to most other people, if need be people can park in the parking garage. I can still see others driving past Boulder & giving up. If parking is allowed in the Staybridge Suites lot it would be a good idea to post that information.

There are MANY issues about service that need to be addressed, even IF Boulder moves across the street.

The fact of the matter is, any coffee house on that corner - on any ONE of those four corners - needs to cater to the population that is HERE, not to a population that is downtown or in the South Wedge.

Good business involves meeting the needs of your customers and potential customers. Not the customers downtown but the customers in this neighborhood.


It appears to me that Boulder is operating on a business model that PRESUMES existing foot traffic, rather than using aggressive marketing to draw them in. Even if it moves across the street, that business model is going to kill it on that corner. With a lease instead of a mortgage, and no legally enforceable contract to maintain a coffee house on that corner, Boulder can close in the blink of an eye.

If people TRULY fear losing Boulder, enabling the move across the street is the surest way to make that happen. Instead, the CDC and the five associations would be better served by assisting Mr. Wilton in developing a real marketing campaign that suits the existing population in the neighborhood.

I am particularly thankful for the information about how the offered price of the building kept going up. That puts a whole new perspective on the Rabbi's poverty plea. Like, oh really now. Unh hunh. Like my trust of the Rabbi just flew straight out the window.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Landy Atkinson on October 18, 2010 at 11:27pm

Below is the letter I sent to Dana Miller and the Sector 4 CDC Board. -Landy

=============================================================

October 12, 2010

Rochester, NY 14619

Dana Miller and Board of Directors
Sector 4 Community Development Corporation
89 Genesee Street
Rochester NY, 14611

Dear Board of Directors,

I attended last night’s meeting to discuss the Change of Use covenant in the deed to 955 Genesee Street, current home of Boulder Coffee. From the fact sheet distributed by the Sector 4 CDC, it appears that the Executive Committee and Board of Directors or Sector 4 CDC have veto power on a change in use for the property for a period of 10 years from the date of sale. The fact sheet did not say when the sale occurred, but discussion indicated that the covenant was in effect for about 8 more years.

I strongly oppose Sector 4 CDC agreeing to a Change of Use that would take this building away from the intended use as a coffee shop, restaurant, or other public retail use and turning it into a private religious group headquarters. This is certainly not in the spirit with which public funds and private donations to renovate the building were obtained or in my opinion in the best interest of the 19th Ward community. I see it as your fiduciary responsibility to the community to oppose such a change of use.

This change of use is significant and well within the “not reasonably withheld” clause of the deed. In fact, you are not being unreasonable at all if you oppose the change of use as proposed. There are at least 5 significant factors on which I base this statement.

1. Change from a Public to a Private use
2. Change from Retail to Religious Headquarters
3. Change from Tax Paying to Tax Exempt
4. Change from non-denominational to Orthodox Judaism
5. Change from Use by 19th Ward Community to Use by a Small Private Organization.

While it was clear from last night’s meeting that this would be an ideal location for the Chabad House and that the operator of Boulder Coffee thinks the space might be a little large for his purposes, this does not change the fact that they are requesting a significant change of use that is not at all in the best interest of the greater community. The change of use is significant and well within bound of “reasonably withheld” as stated in the deed.

All the arguments I heard last night in favor of allowing the change of use were self-serving and not in the interest of the greater community. There was a great deal of passion in the room opposing allowing the change of use and I believe that Sector 4 CDC has an obligation and fiduciary responsibility to oppose this change of use request.

Submitted as a 32 year resident of the City of Rochester and 22 year home owner in the 19th Ward.

Sincerely,

Leland G. “Landy” Atkinson, III

Cc: John Borek – Southwest Common Council
J.B. Afoh-Manin – 19th Ward Community Association
and others…

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marian Boutet on October 18, 2010 at 11:30pm

Here is the letter I wrote to Sector 4 CDC:

Back in 2004 or 2005, when Sector 4 CDC came to the community to ask for financial help with the Carr building at what is now 955 Genesee Street, my husband and I donated a substantial (to us) amount to ensure the building would be rescued AND turned into a community-operated coffee house. That is how we understood the appeal.

We have all heard that renovating an old building in an advanced state of decay is impractical. Almost always it’s cheaper to bulldoze and build new, and if not for that community effort the Carr building probably would have been razed by now, just as the former Jewish orphanage farther down Genesee Street is about to be. It simply makes economic sense. But, in this neighborhood where residents prize their older homes, rescuing a classic but long-neglected structure and having a place to meet friends and chat seemed like the best of all possible worlds and a unique contribution to the Brooks Landing renaissance.

Economic sense eventually trumped the goal of a community-operated non-profit. It proved to be financially unworkable and the building was sold to an entrepreneurial young man with a history of successfully managing this kind of business. There was a covenant attached to the deed that required the building be operated as a coffeehouse for at least 10 years. Although none of us who contributed money to the project were consulted before it was sold, we came to believe it was a practical way to move ahead. We swallowed our indignation and accepted that the end seemed to justify the means. The fact that Boulder Coffee opened for business just as the economy was entering into its worst downturn since the 1980’s, and is indeed already clearing a profit, indicates how much the neighborhood was looking forward to it and has supported it.

Now it seems the owner is not really a coffeehouse operator, but primarily a real estate manager who bought the building as an investment. He has received an offer we can only assume is a generous one and wants to sell the building to a religious group that would use it as a sort of “home-away-from-home” for students at the University of Rochester. Contrary to the 10-year restriction, It would no longer be generally available to the public for any purpose, the least of which is a coffeehouse.

Now Sector 4 CDC claims the early public and private contributions were made just to restore the building with no guarantee of its ultimate usage. And the covenant restricting its usage? Apparently that is largely a technicality that the CDC is able to waive at its discretion.

That is most assuredly NOT how my husband and I, as well as many other contributors, remember it.

The current owner of the coffeehouse pledges to move across the street and install another coffeehouse and a pizza restaurant in leased space there. Since the current owner is primarily a real estate investor, it begs the question, “Why would he want to install businesses in a building that he would not own?”

And what of the effect on Menezes Pizza, a neighborhood business that has chosen to be here for many years? Supportive neighbors and loyal business owners are treasures to be cultivated and cherished, not nuisances to be dismissed with a wave of the hand to suit the economic benefit of a few.

I am asking you to uphold the covenant and assure that 955 Genesee Street will remain a coffeehouse for at least 8 more years.


Marian Boutet
280 Melrose Street
328-4271

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Sweetland on October 19, 2010 at 1:45am

CDC,

I thank you for your efforts to keep the community informed on this issue.

My feelings are that if these moves take place, I would never go to the new Boulder, unless they became the best place to eat in the Ward. (They are pretty close, except for Unkl Moes and El Latino.) I can easily brew coffee at home, if it were something I drank more than once in the morning, and sometimes not even that. As for pizza, I have been patronizing Menezes since I moved here 27 years ago ... they have always had a neighborhood prescence, but best of all, the best pizza. And their subs are not bad. And Jill donates for every community cause.

Not the point. Point is the current owner may be just out to make money, not considering the thoughts of the community, and has taken advantage of us.

Yes, this is an emotional issue. One factor I do not think can be ignored. It is a business decision for Mr. Wilton, but not for this neighborhood. On the other hand, I do not want the building to be empty.

Make the best decision.

Thank you all for your attention to this issue, and let's all keep up the good work to make this a great place to live!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on October 20, 2010 at 1:03am

See this NPR story (link inside) about the difference a good coffee house can make - it can even help change the world!

http://location19.ning.com/forum/topics/how-a-really-good-coffee-house

The closing remarks in that story:

"If you look at the long view, the good ideas that underlie most of the great changes in our society — that have driven progress — more often than not actually have roots in the open kind of information commons of the university or the British coffeehouse. … In those environments, ideas are free to connect with each other and build on top of each other," he says. "That remixing is really where great ideas happen."

I can't help but think of the many hours I spent at the Great Midwestern Ice Cream Shoppe/restaurant in Iowa City during my graduate years, as well as at a few other locations. There were several places we would go after class to talk about ideas that mattered, all the while also having a good time and joking about.

My first day in Iowa City I entered the GMICS, sat down with a cup of coffee, and marveled at the conversations I was hearing - philosophy, social theory, creativity, aesthetics and art, feminist theory, historiography - all the stuff I'd only read about and never really had a serious conversation with anyone about, other than in a graduate course during class time. In California we were all spread out. There were NO central places to meet and have such conversations.

I felt like Yentl when she first entered the Yeshiva. “It all began the day I found that from my window I could only see a piece of sky. I stepped outside and looked around ... I never dreamed it was so wide or even half as high... ”

Here was a world where ideas MATTERED. Where I could hear lectures from the authors of books I had read, and some I wanted to read after listening. Where new ideas were developed and bounced off of receptive listeners.

Across the river people have such conversations - but they are hidden behind the closed doors of the classrooms, lecture halls, and professorial offices.

We live in a city that has SEVEN institutions of higher learning within a 30-mile radius of city center. And yet, the intellectual activities carried on in those institutions are not visible nor audible to anyone who is off campus.

That is something I have sorely missed, and one of the reasons I look forward to my move to Madison, Wisconsin, where similar conversations can be heard in various eateries and coffee houses...and independent bookstores.

A good coffee house is a place where ideas flow as freely as the coffee. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be a priority nor even an interest here in Rochester, least of all at 955 Genesee Street.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on October 19, 2010 at 2:39pm

The first of 8 parts of the 10/11 meeting video is availab le at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tPG39tqAhI
I'm listening to it as I type and it sounds great. I can hear Dana clearly and hopefully comments from the audience will be as clear.

I want to thank Jackie Woodword and Katrina Rex of NeighborWorks® Rochester who taped the meeting and have struggled for days to overcome technical problems to get it uploading to YouTube. Their latest attempt is to split it in 8 part and that is working! Thank you so much for persevering and getting this up in time for all to see before the CDC meeting on the question of enforcing or waving the Change of Use restriction in the contract.

I just checked YouTube after the first part finished and it looks like all parts of the Video will be accessible from: http://www.youtube.com/user/NWRochester

I hope you will all look at this taping.

I was also at the Coffee Shop Committee of the SouthWest Common Council meeting last night at the SWAN Community Center and that meeting was very informative also. Josanne Reaves taped that meeting also and I hope that video will be posted on YouTube as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on October 20, 2010 at 3:36am

Here is my letter to the Sector 4 CDC Board of Directors regarding the change of use restriction:
________________________________

October 19, 2010

Rochester, NY 14619

Dana Miller and Board of Directors
Sector 4 Community Development Corporation
89 Genesee Street
Rochester NY, 14611

Dear Board of Directors,

During the past two weeks I have had numerous discussions on the question of whether or not the CDC should maintain or waive the deed restriction requiring that the current Boulder Coffee building at 955 Genesee Street be maintained as a coffee shop through 2018. I have talked with many individuals familiar with the history of the coffee shop and the circumstances of its initial sale to Lyjha Wilton. I've attended four meetings and sent and received countless emails, phone calls, and blog posts exploring this topic. This past weekend eleven 19th Warders including J.B. Afoh-Manin and myself requested a meeting with Lyjha Wilton to discuss the issues involved but were turned down.

My initial reaction when I heard the news was by opposition of the sale and change of use. After a over a week of many new insights into the issues involved, I am even more convinced that waiving the change of use restriction for 955 Genesee Street would be a mistake for the CDC and the community.

1. Mr. Wilton insisted on being owner of the property before agreeing to manage the coffee house business to satisfy the city's "experienced manager" requirement before they would provide additional grants and loans. He did invest some of his own money to complete the building for use, but he agreed to a ten-year change of use restriction in the deed. He benefited significantly from the investment the community had put into the building before he came. It is reasonable to hold him to the agreement after only 2 years when he is in fact making a profit during the worst recession since the great depression.

2. I found out this Monday that Don Pryor and other residents had tried to advise Boulder Coffee of problems they saw in the level of customer service shortly after the shop opened. Lyjha Wilton's complaint that this coffee shop is not doing the $/square-foot business of his other shops rings hollow when he did not try to tailor his service to the needs of local residents who had worked to have this coffee shop in the 955 Genesee Street Building in the first place.

3. This coffee shop location serves many needs of our multicultural community of 35,000. The change of use would serve a monocultural application for a group of 200, whom we are told, does not want to walk an extra block or two through our community to available buildings that could serve their needs.

4. Removing the coffee shop from the west side of Genesee Street near Brooks eliminates much of the foot traffic on that side of the street. Many Boulder customers park on the west side of Genesee Street and walk past Jim Dalberth's and other stores. Most of the customer traffic going to the proposed new location for the coffee shop will park in the lot behind it since there is no parking on Genesee in front of that building.

5. The change of use for 955 Genesee Street to private use drastically reduces the retail space in the area and ultimately reduces business potential for that section of Genesee Street. As the economy recovers the currently empty storefronts will be filled and the interaction between those shops and a well-run coffee shop at 955 Genesee Street will benefit the whole community.

The 19th Ward Community Association and a majority of residents who have spoken up on this issue are opposed to the Sector 4 CDC caving on their responsibility to the community. We did not start this coffee shop endeavor as a real-estate speculation project. We saved a lovely building for our neighborhood coffee shop and to enhance the revitalization of Brooks Landing. I urge you to enforce the change of use restriction.

Submitted as a 42-year city resident and a 30-year resident of the 19th Ward.

Sincerely,

John C. Boutet

CC: J.B. Afoh-Manin - 19th Ward Community Association, John Borek - Southwest Common Council, and others

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LaShay Harris on October 20, 2010 at 6:23pm

After much struggle about the coffee shop I had to take a step back and try to look at things in a different way. I am so greatful for all in our community because we have connection and involvement when other communities are just not connecting. Please read the letter I sent to the CDC.

Blessings to you all.

To the Board of the Sector 4 CDC, the 19th Ward Community Association, and Other Interested Parties:

My name is LaShay Harris, an Aldine St resident since 1999. I am writing you all in regards to the Boulder Café proposal to change the deed restriction in order to sell, allowing the new owner to run a Jewish Chabad House.

My first thoughts and emotions were totally against the sell and redistricting of the coffee house. It took me some time to work through my emotions but I needed to think objectively. What I am most thankful for is a community of diversity and the opportunity to have my voice heard. I am also thankful for the countless hours dedicated by the Sector 4 CDC, 19th Ward Association, John Borek, Dana Miller, Adam Mcfadden and all of my community.

After considerable thought, I would like to remove my name from the petition to restrict the redistricting of the Boulder Café. I realized in order for us to move forward in our community we must make difficult changes and most of all think outside the box.

I learned this most from the devastating fire I had on Aldine St on April 11, 2010.
I did not like what happened to me nor did my neighbors but I needed to move forward. That movement was with the assistance from my community and I had to learn to let go of something I loved. Mourning the loss of my home was difficult but thinking outside the box led me to see I did not lose my home. I still have it but it will just be different. Right now, I am rebuilding and moving forward. Never in a million years would I have thought I would be doing that. I am thinking outside the box and I have to make many difficult decisions and I encourage my community to do the same. We must move forward and think outside the box.

From what I understand we will gain additional businesses across from the current coffee shop and all from the sale of the current Boulder Building. From a business sense, it’s a good idea. Selfishly, I want the coffee shop to stay where it is but we need to move forward meaning change of plans. We also need to be flexible so the community can grow.

I am disturbed that there is no uproar over all of the violence and arsons in our community. Being a victim of arson, one could say that I am biased. Yes, I am.
I am biased when the neighborhood I grew up in and loved is being plagued with violence and we are in dispute about the sale of a building when 13 year- old children are getting stabbed on Thurston, citizens are getting burglarized in their homes and women are being sexually assaulted in our neighborhoods. We need to keep our priorities straight and trust that the folks who are elected and appointed to do the right thing.
Those same people also live in our community and they too have the same goals.
We must not attack them personally. We all want to feel safe, property values to improve and most of all keeping a diverse community. If we are not safe in our community what good is having a coffee shop and those property values we can forget about that ever increasing.

I am sad to see the Boulder Café move but we must not lose focus on what is important in our community. Just like I have to constantly remind myself, I survived my house fire without death or injury and came out with both of my dogs who are credited to saving me. I could have chose to leave after the fire but I did not because I look forward to going back home. We need and want our community to be safe, prosperous, vibrant and diverse. With open communication, unity and respect; we will get there.

Please accept my letter with much respect to all involved.

“It takes a village to raise a child” I am that child. I say thank you to you all.

LaShay Harris

• ▶ Reply

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