I have a conflict tonight and will not be able to attend the Carrot Initiative
meeting at 5:30 so thought I'd put out a few thoughts and maybe some of those
attending can take them up at the meeting.
The Carrot Initiative has adopted a strategy in which the first step is to
"Identify and Organize Stakeholders." Many contributors to this thread --
including myself -- seem to favor the idea of utilizing and enhancing the
existing grocery stores and other resources already in place before bringing in
large-scale development from the outside. Step Six of the stretegy actually
calls for this. ("Consider the Alternatives" with subheadings "Help existing
grocery stores to improve their service to local consumers" and "Improve access
to existing stores".) My question is, have these business owners been engaged
in the conversation? Has the Carrot Initiative reached out to them yet?
Certainly they are "stakeholders" and stand to lose some or all of their
livelihood, or even improve it, depending on the direction and outcomes of the
Initiative. I would guess that these business owners would be much more
motivated to work with the community to
offer more healthy alternatives if they really understood what was at stake.
I have started to compile a list of existing stores in the West Powderhorn
Community. It is not exhaustive I'm sure, but already I have over fifteen
stores on the list. I propose that, if they haven't yet been engaged, we begin
reaching out to these businesses, explain the issues and the goals of the
initiative, and give them an opportunity to be involved and respond to the
community's needs. I live near Sams (off Bloomington on 35th) and I plan to
talk to the owners there. If other folks like this idea, we could develop some
kind of flyer that clearly summarizes the existing lack of easy access to
healthy food in the community, as well as the possibilities for their
involvement in meeting that need. Then folks living near these businesses
could stop by, talk to the owners and leave a flyer. At the very least, they
should be invited to the meetings and given the opportunity to hear and
respond. If they know what is at stake for them, they
may be very motivated to stock healthier foods, improve accessibility to their
stores (including actively discouraging loiterers who intimidate customers and
have no legitimate business on the premises), and in general making efforts to
improve services and respond to the needs of local consumers. I realize that
fresh foods are tricky, by why couldn't a group of neighbors "covenant" with a
local grocer to buy their fresh produce (local/organic when feasible) on a
consistent basis if they agree to stock it. This is not so different from the
agreement between CSA farmers and their members.
Lastly, I like Micah's idea of involving the Youth Farms. When I ran the
Seward Youth Peace Garden and Market Project, we held two markets a week. The
young participants not only learned about organic gardening, food issues, and
environmental issues. They learned how to run a sort of co-operative business,
and everything involved in the process of growing food and getting it to
consumers. The markets were an opportunity for the youth to educate the
community in turn, handing out recipes they'd collected, talking to customers
about food issues, a healthy planet, etc. Perhaps a few of the local stores
would be willing to allow Youth Farm participants to hold markets at their
stores during the growing season. If these markets were well-advertised, it
could bring customers to stores they wouldn't normally shop at, and perhaps
begin a shift in the priorities of store-owners.
Anyhoooooo . . . there seems to be a wealth of creative possibilites, and
plenty of alternatives to the big box and outside investors. Hope the
meeting's productive. A good week-end to all!
Ruth Harris
Powderhorn Park