JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2

[Steve Laferriere]

Hello ad-hoc committee,

Attached please find a draft statement for the June 2nd Whole Foods meeting.  If you would like to comment or make suggestions, please do so no later than 5 AM Friday morning.  Also, please remember that since it is a statement, it probably won’t be said exactly like this, so let’s not bother wordsmithing it so much as commenting on whether the tone and overall message is right or wrong, and whether people think some points are being left out or don’t need to be included.

Thanks,

Steve

[Jesse White]

Hi Steve and all,
 
I love this and I really appreciate the work that you and Dave B put into it. 
 
My only concern is that it is not as explicit as I think it needs to be about the fact that we all want to see a community benefits agreement emerge from the upcoming process we want them to engage in.  I think that needs to be stated more up front and in a more straightforward way.
 
I have attached a modification of the statement that I hope shows by examply what I mean...
 
Jesse
 

---

Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:26:19 -0400
Subject: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2
From: sla...@gmail.com
To: jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JPNC Ad Hoc Whole Foods Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jpnc-adhoc-whole...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jpnc-adhoc-wholefoods?hl=en.

[andh...@aol.com]

Hello all,
While I understand intent of this version I don't think it conveys the appropriate tone to successfully foster the fruitful partnership needed to produce positive results for the community.
A.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: Jesse White <jesse...@hotmail.com>

Sender: jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:43:26 -0400

To: <sla...@gmail.com>; <jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: RE: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2

[karoli...@yahoo.com]

The original statemen is good the only suggestions that I have is that a sentence or two be added about the fact that we were only given 30 min which is clearly not enough time for the residents of the neighborhood to express their concerns. Also in the part that reads why not to pick a Thursday, it should specify why is wrong and such an insult to the neighborhood.

Martha Rodriguez

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

---

From: andh...@aol.com

Sender: jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com

Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 03:44:49 +0000

To: Jesse White<jesse...@hotmail.com>; <jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com>; Steve Laferriere<sla...@gmail.com>

ReplyTo: andh...@aol.com

Subject: Re: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2

[David Baron]

I can’t identify exactly where the changes are, but if it’s just the addition of the sentence at the beginning of paragraph 3, that explicitly says “we want a community benefits agreement,” then personally I think the change is fine.  Were there any other changes – Jesse or Andrea – that affected the tone? 

Dave

[Jesse Zoldak]

FYI. The changes (according to my version of Word):

Deleted: " around"

Inserted: "Though there are a lot of differing opinions about a Whole Foods coming to Hyde Square, the one thing we all seem to agree on is that we need to work with you to create a community benefits agreement that maximizes the potential benefits of Whole Foods entrance to this community, and minimizes its potential negative impacts.  We want this benefits agreement to include items that address"

Deleted: "and how your company and this community, working together, could address the negative impacts and enhance the community benefits of a Whole Foods in Hyde Square"

-- JZ

[Ben Mauer]

Hey all,

I want to say that I am frustrated with the current language and tone of the statement. Frankly, we do not "all agree" that we need to work with Whole Foods on a community benefits agreement. This has been the prevailing idea because those who are opposed to Whole Foods on the committee have not felt able to voice disagreement without it being framed in terms of a CBA.

I appreciated the original purpose of the statement. The original draft of the statement I felt struck a balance between clearly seeking to engage Whole Foods (JPNC wouldn't be inviting them to a community process if the JPNC didn't want to engage in some way), and stating strongly that their behavior to date has not been acceptable to a community that cares about its ability to chart its own future.

The tone of the statement is now conciliatory and weak. It almost sounds like a back rub for Whole Foods rather than the clear, strong statement of the fact that it is indeed remarkable that Whole Foods has not had a public meeting in the months since it signed a lease, and that it is absolutely necessary that Whole Foods participate in a community process to mitigate its clearly understood negative impacts on our community (i.e. displacement). Nobody has refuted that property values will go up, and that condo conversions will continue to accelerate, thereby reducing the affordable rental stock in JP, thereby displacing low and moderate income residents. Section 8 is not a solution for moderate income residents, and besides, Section 8 is not accepting new applicants in Boston.

I look forward to continuing to work with the council as a member of the Ad Hoc committee. However, I would like to note for the record that do not support the language in the latest draft, and that I do support the language in the original draft.

Thanks,

Ben

On May 27, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Jesse Zoldak wrote:

> FYI. The changes (according to my version of Word):
>
> Deleted: " around"
> Inserted: "Though there are a lot of differing opinions about a Whole Foods coming to Hyde Square, the one thing we all seem to agree on is that we need to work with you to create a community benefits agreement that maximizes the potential benefits of Whole Foods entrance to this community, and minimizes its potential negative impacts. We want this benefits agreement to include items that address"
>
> Deleted: "and how your company and this community, working together, could address the negative impacts and enhance the community benefits of a Whole Foods in Hyde Square"
>
> -- JZ
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:09 AM, David Baron <dave_...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I can’t identify exactly where the changes are, but if it’s just the addition of the sentence at the beginning of paragraph 3, that explicitly says “we want a community benefits agreement,” then personally I think the change is fine. Were there any other changes – Jesse or Andrea – that affected the tone?
>
> Dave
>
>
> From: jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of andh...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:45 PM
> To: Jesse White; jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com; Steve Laferriere
> Subject: Re: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2
>
>
> Hello all,
> While I understand intent of this version I don't think it conveys the appropriate tone to successfully foster the fruitful partnership needed to produce positive results for the community.
> A.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>

> From: Jesse White <jesse...@hotmail.com>
>
> Sender: jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:43:26 -0400
>
> To: <sla...@gmail.com>; <jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Subject: RE: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2
>
>
> Hi Steve and all,
>
> I love this and I really appreciate the work that you and Dave B put into it.
>
> My only concern is that it is not as explicit as I think it needs to be about the fact that we all want to see a community benefits agreement emerge from the upcoming process we want them to engage in. I think that needs to be stated more up front and in a more straightforward way.
>
> I have attached a modification of the statement that I hope shows by examply what I mean...
>
> Jesse
>
>

[judit...@yahoo.com]

I, too, liked the original, and am a little confused about the current form - I have only seen snippits of editing. Could someone send out the statement as it currently stands?

Sent from my iPhone

[helen matthews]

Yes, I like to original version, too, and very much endorse it. I
think it will be much more effective. Thank you everyone,

Helen, JP

[Andrew Murray]

I also feel that the first version is the better version.  To echo what Ben has already said, I think it better framed what is going on and what we are trying to do.
Andrew Murray

> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:28:10 -0400

> Subject: Re: [jpnc-adhoc-wf] JPNC - WF Draft Statement for June 2

> From: helenma...@gmail.com
> To: judit...@yahoo.com; benm...@gmail.com; crumbl...@gmail.com; dave_...@mindspring.com; andh...@aol.com; jesse...@hotmail.com; jpnc-adhoc...@googlegroups.com; sla...@gmail.com