The stand-off over developing a prominent two-acre plot in the Sunset Triangle north of the commercial center needs to be broken so that the land is used for needed housing.

The trick is developing the site in a way that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood but also results in homes that people can afford.

As one resistant neighbor put it, "I'm not against development; I'm for reasonable development."

So what is reasonable?

First we need to know what we are talking about. Looking at a plat map gives little or no sense of what this potential building site offers.

First, two-acres is one very large piece of land, particularly if it is on a slope. Second, the slope, with banks of homes running along its contours would create tiered lots with inviting views. Third, the land is situated in a way that will provide neighbors pedestrian connections that don't currently exist to the east and south. Fourth, there's enough land for a "pocket park" that could serve neighbors beyond the boundaries of the proposed planned development.

The two acres are made up of two adjacent lots that developer Tim Roth would build on if he could only find a way to break the deadlock caused by a legal conflict between what the city code will allow and what 74-year-old deed subdivision covenants require. The city allows high density, as many as 34 residential units, while the covenants say no more than 10.

Roth began with a proposal for 21 homes but now is willing to consider 15 if they can be priced to attract buyers.

I've suggested to one of the lot owners, Lance Johnson, that he and his neighboring seller, Jim Porter, hold a series of "Open Houses" on their properties, inviting neighbors to tramp around and get a feel for the place. First, I suggested,  it would be good to tidy up the place. Hire a tractor-mower to cut down the blackberry bushes and under growth. After that's done, stake out where a new street (an extension of Dewitt Street) and its sidewalk would go. Show open space possibilities and lot lines for 15 houses. Roth might provide large, realistic perspective drawings.

In short, start to make a compromise proposal seem real - and reasonable. Roth might even test interest and price points among potential buyers invited to the open house.

Make this a "let's-reason-together" event with a lot of walking around, looking, visioning and talking.

I agree with those who object to a project that will substantially increase traffic on narrow SW 18th St., but I walk along the street fairly often and while it serves as a cut-through for some drivers, there are ways to discourage them. Speed "tables" come to mind. "Chicanes" are another solution often used in Europe.

Moreover, because the building site abuts the commercial center and is very near our three public schools, resident families are more likely to walk to their destinations. Eight bus lines are just a block away.

I'd like to think that reasonable neighbors, after visiting the site and seeing how it might look with moderate density, can find a workable, acceptable solution.

The alternative is testing the covenants in courts. The problem there is that while one side will "win," neighborliness is certain to lose.

John Brown, who sells Street Roots in front of Food Front, is always a joy to talk with.

He is also homeless. Or was.

In the Fall he was sleeping on a loading ramp when the temperature dropped. But just before Christmas, when I asked him how he was doing, he said he was just fine, thank you very much, as he has a room in motel on Interstate Avenue...for the time being.

"I can thank the good folks in Hillsdale for that,"  he said. It seems enough of us give John a little extra for the paper to put a roof over his head...at least for now, and for Christmas.

Rick Seifert
Editor

Editor:

Thank you for your recent coverage of Food Front (FF). We need and appreciate the input of our co-op's owners as we work together to ensure FF will thrive in the years ahead.

The board understands that our owners are concerned given the recent NW Examiner and Hillsdale News coverage. While we believe the coverage was poorly informed by sources with very strong personal perspectives, we understand that in a competitive environment, reasonable minds may differ. We need to hear from the full diversity of perspectives amongst our owners, so that together we can identify a viable market niche for FF that serves our neighborhoods' needs.

We recognize the serious nature of the claims recently highlighted in this coverage and continue to work with third-party consultants to clarify and interpret the information they've provided to us to refine our plans to address the substance of these claims.

The "Invisible Owners" section of your "Views of the News" gives the false impression that owners have not been invited to participate at FF in meaningful ways and aren't made aware of serious problems. Caring for the co-op's financial condition is our fiduciary obligation. We receive and analyze monthly and quarterly monitoring reports and hire an independent third-party CPA for an annual audit. We report to owners at our Annual Meeting, provide printed reports in both stores and post electronic copies on www.foodfront.coop. In 2014 the board held numerous events, and plans more in 2015 to better inform and engage FF owners in the challenges and opportunities we face together.

We encourage any interested owner to please consider volunteering for the board Resource Council or to submit an application to serve on our board of directors.

As the decision-making body for the governance of FF, the board is committed to serving owners with transparency and thoroughness. We take owner concerns seriously and are eager to improve our communication with owners.

Historically, the board has worked well as a team by avoiding individual self-interests and is very proud of our work to bring FF to Hillsdale and to prepare the NW store to be more competitive. We are confident that by working together we will succeed in providing the finest quality wholesome foods for our communities and in making Food Front central to our neighborhoods.

Thank you,

The Food Front Board of Directors

Editor:

We've been Food Front Co-op members for just a few months and this is our perspective.

The allegations about the poor working environment are very concerning to us. Our top priority is to shop where it's a great place to work. For us it's a fundamental requirement to meet before tackling local sourcing or organic practices.

We've observed several "red flags" that lend some weight to the complaints: Management's responses have been silent on this issue; the very word "workplace" - as well as the idea - don't appear in the Ends statement or Policy Register; the board of directors seems to be very small for an organization of this size.

Several factual assertions have been made which could be easily refuted or verified. E.g., the existence of an extremely high turnover rate. As member-owners, we'd like to see a staff turnover report.

And so, we respectfully disagree with the management that no more needs to be done on this issue. We also disagree with the Higgins ("Advice for Food Front," Issue #138) that the workplace allegations are "not really for us" to look into. As member-owners, we should have an organization that's an excellent place to work and not settle for anything less.

Robb Shecter
Lisa Hackenberger

Return to top of commentary