Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Sweetland on November 9, 2010 at 12:33am

I'm not sure. Who is the CDC? Why do they decide? Are they associated with the city government? I believe this may have been discussed, but I am still not clear. I still believe most residents are not in agreement, but it does not matter. At this point, we have to go ahead and support local business.

If the CDC does not listen to local sentiment, maybe we could get rid of them. How does one go about doing that? Funding for local businesses can go through another source. The whole city structure has got to improve.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judi Baker on November 23, 2010 at 7:14am

Dan I couldn't have expressed it better. Yes the SW has/had a fast Ferry project! I wonder how much money and who it was distributed to was exchanged in the 'back room'? The 'good ole boys club' is running rampant here in the SW!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eleanor Coleman on November 28, 2010 at 10:57am

I have been a member of the Sector 4 CDC Board for one year.

The Sector 4 CDC was established to be the "economic arm" of the SW Common Council. At the time of its inception, it included neighborhood representatives from each of the five neighborhoods that made up Sector 4 and community stakeholders (Unity, Sojourner, Chase Bank, UR). The relationship broke down at the time that the proposed "community-owned" coffee shop was sold to a private investor. In October of 2009, the CDC held a Strategic Planning session for SW Common Council leaders at which, among other reports and updates, the issue of betrayal and distrust were brought to the table and discussed.

Two key pieces of information we learned at that meeting were that (1) investors were not going to fund the coffee shop unless it was run by an operator with experience and (2) in the absence of paid staff (no Executive Director) to ensure that the project didn't tank, two Board members became a "working Board" and did what they felt was best for the community as a whole. From there, it was agreed that the CDC should go back to the old model of having representatives from each neighborhood group on the Board. To date, we have all but one neighborhood represented (Neighborhood United). I was asked to be part of the Board because of my role with communications throughout the SW (Secretary of the SW Common Council).

While John Boutet and I are on opposing sides of the Boulder issue, we agreed that lack of communication was clearly an issue; thus, the push to provide transparency on Location19/SW. As someone who elicits information from across the SW, I can tell you that there was a lot of sentiment that did not get captured on Location19 or at the Delegates meeting that did see the value in finally "filling that corner" and/or that was frustrated with the intense focus on one issue (Boulder) and the lack of the same intensity around issues that are affecting so much of the 19th Ward (crime, poverty). This information came in the form of letters/emails that were sent to the CDC for review before the decision was made. Two issues that I took into consideration in regards to the Delegates meeting are that (1) the Delegate meeting that was billed as needing more room for all the Boulder opposition, wasn't highly attended and (2) so many of the Delegate districts are not represented - or, not heard from.

Persons who have been unable to work through the resentment of the circumstances around the initial sale have promoted a picture that does not include the CDC reaching out to the neighborhoods (all neighborhoods, not just the 19th Ward) for partnership. As a member of the Board, I feel I can legitimately say that, although there are clearly "back rooms," the CDC is not one of them. I watched the current issue with Boulder unfold and was in the front line of seeing how information was actually kept from the CDC while circulating elsewhere. As someone who was quite loud in my public stance against the CDC at the time of the sale of 955 Genesee to a private owner, I feel I need to be just as loud now when I have a more clear and accurate picture. I am hoping that this picture will be made more clear via Location19/SW.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on November 29, 2010 at 10:34am

A lot of healing needs to be done on this whole matter, Eleanor. It will take time to restore confidence and respect on both sides. I'm glad you're at the forefront of that effort.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on December 2, 2010 at 6:42am

Thanks Eleanor for giving us another review of some of the history of the coffee house issue. Indeed we disagree on Boulder nearly as much as we agree on the need for much more transparency in what is going on in the area. A couple of months ago most of the groups involved in the Urban Brew/Boulder affair were just alphabet soup to me and who the players were in those groups was equally unclear. I'm sure I had a lot of company. An informed electorate is what a democracy depends on so hopefully working to improve the visibility of what is going on and how social groups function in our area will help.

That does not change the point that Dan is making however. The CDC had leverage that could have been used a lot more effectively than it was in the "Conditions" set forth for the seller and the buyer. If the definition of "2 spaces" indeed means 2 of the 7 spaces still available on the ground floor of the new building, then what the seller has promised to do is what he wanted to do, shrink his coffee house space and make a profit from the sale. Yes he agrees to stay for seven years, but he had agreed to that where he is now. We did not even have him agree in writing to bring in the pizza shop. As for the buyer, we said tell us how often we will have access to the building and make sure your funding is good. With conditions like that, might as well have asked them to smile for the camera and taken their picture. I'm sure they have a lot to smile about. I don't think in the long run we do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MacClurg Vivian on December 3, 2010 at 7:55am

Eleanor, thank you for this lengthy explanation. And I am glad to hear what you set forth. I hope it defuses the "back door deals" thinking re Boulder at Brooks building....as a relative newcome to Ward (2yrs) I have been in the middle on this, I can easily see how neighbors feel betrayed; yet I can see the space is too large for Lijah to run financially, whether we like it or not. Could he have done some marketing/surveys to ask the community why? yes! I stopped using the biz months ago, for several reasons. But now we have Chabad coming in, and they are good people, who will be financially responsible and the rabbi is dedicated to having some community interaction. I would like to suggest their be a small committee of 19th reps to think with him periodically about what those events might be....ie, structured, ongoing, community input. Hopefully resentments will not inadvertently spill over onto the new group.

It would be good if we could crystalize what we (or at least the CDC) have learned from this deal/interaction so as not to repeat it in the future. If you guys do that exercise, can you post the results for us. Say, how about the CDC getting a page on Loc 19 (if there isn't one already?) to communicate regularly with us?

With much appreciation, MacClurg

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eleanor Coleman on December 3, 2010 at 11:34am

As part of the "lessons learned" path, the CDC did start a "group" a while back when it was agreed that there was a lot of missing information and mis-communication. Joan Roby-Davison, the CDC's Executive Director, set up the group. If you join it, you can stay on top of the CDC goings on.

Best,
Eleanor

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MacClurg Vivian on December 3, 2010 at 5:11pm

Thank you Eleanor.

• ▶ Reply