The Soul of the Community
Posted: May 25, 2012 Filed under: Development Proposals, General Planning, How to Get Involved, Proactive Future Planning, Research | Tags: community, Detroit, Gallup, happiness research, Knight Foundation, land use and planning, Miami, soul of the community, soul of the community study Leave a comment »‘Community attachment’ refers to the loyalty and passion people feel for where they live – an emotional connection that goes beyond residents’ satisfaction with the community.
Seeking ways to further connect residents to their community, Knight Foundation commissioned the Soul of the Community study from Gallup. The goal of the study was to answer two main questions: What things about a community generate community attachment? and What things about a community drive loyalty and passion for place?
Knight Foundation fosters initiatives that develop in people “a strong sense of belonging and caring, timely access to relevant information, the ability to understand that information, and the motivation, opportunity and skills to take sustainable action on a range of issues throughout their lives.” The majority of Knight’s support is focused on 26 communities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers, as well as 18 donor-advised programs and 8 program director-led programs in ”resident Knight communities” (Akron, Ohio, Charlotte, N.C., Detroit, Mich., Macon, Ga., Miami, Fla., and Philadelphia, Pa.).
For the Soul of the Community study, Gallup interviewed a random, representative sample of 400 adults (age 18+) in most communities and 1,000 adults in Akron, Macon, Miami, Philadelphia, San Jose, St. Paul, Charlotte and Detroit; nearly 15,000 people were surveyed in total across the 26 communities from May. 27, through Aug. 31, 2010.
The Soul of the Community study identified 11 domains with varying levels of impact in driving community attachment:
- Social offerings: Entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other and how much residents care about each other.
- Openness: How welcoming the community is to different types of people.
- Aesthetics: An area’s physical beauty and green spaces.
- Education: Quality of K-12 schooling and local colleges and universities.
- Basic services: Infrastructure supports, including highways, housing and health care.
- Leadership: Rating of leadership and whether elected officials represent residents’ interests.
- Economy: Local economic and employment conditions.
- Emotional wellness: The mixture of mental and physical well-being.
- Safety: Local crime and safety conditions.
- Social capital: The personal connections residents have to each other.
11. Civic involvement: Voting, volunteering, attending meetings, and working for change.
The study shows that – in today’s world, where communities are often transient or virtual – a sense of place still has deep meaning. Social offerings, openness, social offerings and aesthetics consistently proved to be the key drivers of community attachment across the Knight communities in both all three years of the study.
The research has not determined whether community attachment causes a higher growth rate – or vice versa, but previous Gallup research has found that companies with more passionate employees were more productive overall. This is particularly important in today’s globalized economy, where cities are competing to attract talented workers and companies. Building a community where people want to put down roots and build a life is an essential part to that equation.
Already, city leaders are putting these findings to the test. The Miami Foundation is going to use the results to build a public policy agenda. For example, if social offerings are so important to Miamians, the foundation might find it’s time for advocating investing in more public access to the waterfront. In Detroit, the survey found the highest ratings of emotional connections for young college grads. That’s the demographic that cities are clamoring for – and it’s something Detroit can exploit as it plots its comeback.
As the website for the study concludes, “of course the findings aren’t the magic pill that will pull the country out of the recession. However, the Soul of the Community survey does provide guidance – based on strong data – that leaders can use as they plot long term, public investments. Most importantly, these findings didn’t drop down from on high. They were derived from the voices of residents across the country. And they want to be heard.”
Technical Difficulties / Disregard ‘agenda’ / delete, delete, delete
Posted: April 30, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »To those of you who are subscribed to this blog (my followers, minions, fans, and frenemies), if you just received a message called “AGENDA” with a very scatterbrained list of water rights notes and some gibberish about a meeting tomorrow, please do me the favor of deleting it from your inbox and disavow all knowledge of having received it. I appreciate the respect, and will reward compliance with a better and more informative post later this evening.
By way of backstory, I am preparing some information to assist a colleague in preparing for a meeting tomorrow, and I was using a new feature of WordPress. Big Mistake: I hit the wrong button.
Long story short, I messed up, did a little bit of yelling at my computer, walked around the block with a beer in my hand, and returned to the same stupid email in my inbox. For the love of…..
In the interest of protecting the innocent, having pity on the technologically deficient, and earning yourself some good karma, please delete the prior email called “agenda” / please do not share it beyond your trash can, and please….never bring this up to me in person unless you’re handing me a shot and sharing a story about one time when you did the exact same thing.
Here’s to the internet, sticky wickets and all.
~JTB
Last Minute Opportunity for Public Participation in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP)
Posted: April 26, 2012 Filed under: Development Proposals, Dollar General, General Planning, General Plans, How to Get Involved, Joshua Tree, Proactive Future Planning, Renewable Energy | Tags: air quality violations, AQMD, BP, concrete plant, crushing operation, Dollar General, DRECP, exceedances, Joshua Tree Solar Farm, proposed development, San Bernardino County, SCAQMD, solar energy, vioations, visible dust plume Leave a comment »When the cat’s away….
I’ve been on leave, attending to personal matters. I returned to the desert to discover that British Petroleum (BP) has made inroads into constructing a utility-scale solar project in a residential neighborhood; the County of San Bernardino continues to evade responsibility for and fail to respond to questions about the Dollar General project; and toxic, noxious dust has been emanating from a temporary crushing operation at the local concrete plant, which is also reportedly violating the night skies ordinance.
Let’s catch up, shall we?
Z107.7 FM reports that British Petroleum (BP) is developing a 20-MW solar photovoltaic power project in Joshua Tree. The proposed project site is bordered by Two Mile Road on the north, Hollinger on the west, Sunfair Road on the east, and Pipeline Road on the south. When completed, the 160-acre solar farm [would] have 100,000 to 150,000 solar panels and be surrounded by chain-link fencing eight to 10 feet high.
BP representatives met with William Bertoldi and Jane Schondel and Z107.7 on Thursday, April 5, to discuss the 20-MW solar farm project. Bertoldi and Schondel own 20 acres adjacent to the proposed project. A few weeks ago, they contacted me via the comments section of this blog and asked for my assistance in confronting BP.
Though I was traveling when they first reached out, I did finally respond to their request – first with a comment posted herein, as I found no other obvious, non-stalkerish means of contacting them directly. I let several days pass with no follow-up response before I googled the couple. It took me longer to muster the courage to dial the possible telephone number than it did to find the number. It made for an awkward phone call. ”Hello? Is this William J. Bertoldi? I’m looking for Jane Schondel. This is JT Barnstormer. You or your wife left a message for me a few weeks ago on my blog? About BP?” To which Schondel replied “Oh. We met with BP last week.”
Translation: you’re too late.
According to Schondel, the BP reps claimed there weren’t grounds for a fight against the project and that their decision to secure an option agreement on the adjacent property further eliminated any recourse. In short, said BP, there was nothing that Bertoldi and Schondel could do. I suppose the couple were supposed to believe that it was out of sheer generosity and goodwill that BP offered to buy the their land and home. 107.7 reports that ”the retired couple adamantly refused to consider the offer, saying they planned to live out the rest of their years in their custom-built home.”
There are multiple angles from which to fight BP, but there isn’t a lot you can do at the County level until BP hits the County’s radar by applying for a permit and a County planner will be assigned. At that point, letters for or against the project can be sent to the County, to the attention of that planner. Should you be in a letter writing mood, you could request to be added to the project distribution list and to be notified of all project developments – including the outcome of internal decisions affecting project processing and outcome, and demanding that the County require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared so that project impacts are uncovered, evaluated, and minimized. There are protections afforded the environment via the EIR process that aren’t invoked by the “Initial Study” process that the County typically prepares, and we really needs those statutes to be invoked, as they require a higher level of stewardship on the part of BP, especially since the project will likely require a change in zoning, which would require a General Plan amendment. Both require County approval.
Recently, someone asked me how BP would connect to the grid if they build this project. While I don’t know the exact connection point(s) or alignment(s) being considered, Z017.7 reports that BP chose this location partly because of its proximity to the Southern California Edison power grid. Though they haven’t yet initiated the permitting process, BP has initiated biological surveys and other due diligence proceedings as part of their decision to option the property. The solar farm is projected to start delivering power to SCE by November 2013.
There’s something about being lied to… By the time I contacted them, about a week after their meeting with BP, Bertoldi and Schondel sounded wary, at best, and reluctant to talk to me. Whatever the reason, I remained upbeat and optimistic. I told Schondel that BP lied when they said there was no recourse; explained the various arguments against the project that could be made in conjunction with either the permitting or CEQA process, and assured Schondel that I’m here to help if they choose to fight. At the end of our conversation, the Schondel suggested, haltingly, that perhaps they didn’t need (or want) my help any longer, and while I didn’t convey this to her, I will fight BP with or without Bertoldi and Schondel (and at this point, it will probably be without). Or, more accurately, I will research the hell out of BP and their proposed Joshua Tree Solar Farm and – if the project size and type is as out of proportion to the surrounding area as I think it might be – I’ll be a ready, willing, and able volunteer in the fight against.
***
I have nothing to report on the local Dollar General. Sad but true: the County planner went AWOL after hiring a consultant to do the heavy lifting on the CEQA documentation. One can only call so many times before one wants to make some noise about the fact that a public employee is seriously evading his or her duties by not responding to sincere inquiries – as is his or her duty. It’s what that person is paid to do. I’ll admit that I’m difficult and demanding – that, in turn, is part of my job as a concerned citizen and steward of the environment.
***
The concrete plant in Joshua Tree attracted scrutiny from its neighbors last week for possible air quality violations, after visible plumes of dust were observed coming from the general vicinity of the plant. Neighbors documented the plumes and asked their Facebook social circle for help addressing the probable code violation. Based on the concerns and complaints, Code enforcement visited the plant, but it was too late: the temporary state issued permit had ended and that the crushing operation had been dismantled. After conducting a site inspection, the Code Enforcement Division reported that the dust was under control, but encouraged residents to call them again if dust was seen leaving the facility as result of industrial activity.
At the same time that air quality concerns were being raised, a representative of the Morongo Basin Dark Skies Alliance was contacting the plant on behalf of the organization to discuss the effects of their night lighting on the community. (MBDSA is updating the night sky ordinance for the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County.) Reporting back to the community, the MBDSA was successful in bringing the lighting issue to the attention of decision makers at the plant, and the plant staff agreed to work with the MBDSA to identify better lighting solutions.
***
If you want to be part of the solution to some of the issues facing our desert communities, consider attending the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Stakeholder Committee Meeting today, from 8:30 am to 4 pm, at the Ontario Convention Center in Ontario, CA. Click here for the meeting announcement. Directions for attending the meeting via WebEx, the Energy Commission’s online meeting service, are included in the meeting announcement (see the last page).
The referenced meeting materials can be found here.
Members of the Stakeholder Committee and the public who wish to provide written comments on any of the meeting topics are asked to submit comments by May 9, 2012. Please include the docket number 09-RENEW EO-01 and indicate Renewable Energy Executive Order in the subject line or first paragraph of your comments. Those submitting comments electronically should provide them in either Microsoft Word format or as a Portable Document Format (PDF) to [docket@energy.ca.gov]. Please include your name or organization’s name in the file name. Those preparing non-electronic written comments should mail or hand deliver them to:
California Energy Commission Dockets Office, MS-4 Docket No. 09-RENEW EO-01 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
Selfish Decision Making in the New Third World: Part 1, the High Cost of Ignorance
Posted: March 14, 2012 Filed under: Development Proposals, Dollar General, General Planning, General Plans, How to Get Involved, Joshua Tree, Proactive Future Planning, Yucca Valley | Tags: 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians, Casino, community activism, Community Plan, David Fick, Dean Gray, discount store, Dollar General, dollar store, Gary Daigneault, General Plan, Joshua Tree, Joshua Tree Casino, JT MAC, local economy, MBCA, No Dollar General, Ron Brault, San Bernardino County, small business, Z107.7 FM 1 Comment »Friday, October 21, 2011, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Daigneault: And something else I’d like to throw out to the community of Joshua Tree. I attended a meeting Saturday, where the, ah, representatives of the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians came up to give a presentation on their plans to put a casino into Joshua Tree. The meeting was extremely anti-casino, I would say literally, 90 to 95 percent of that meeting were against it, ah, there were people who had were signs outside, signs inside, stickers saying “no casino, no casino,” all that before they even gave them a chance, to tell their story, and, frankly, I thought the people in the room, were a little rude. But, now today, in today’s news, we announce that Dollar General wants to build a 9100-square-foot retail store at the corner of Sunburst and the Highway, so here’s my question I ask residents of Joshua Tree:
Joshua Tree has made it very clear that they don’t want large chain stores, they want to stay with their traditional mom and pop small retail, and there’s nothing wrong with that, if that’s what they decide they want to do, the problem is the decisions about what to do in Joshua Tree is not being made at the local level, the Dollar General, that decision is being made by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission and it’s already moved quite a ways forward, the decision on the Joshua Tree Casino will be made on the federal level. Is it time for Joshua Tree to incorporate? Not necessarily to make things more complicated, but to protect the community. If Joshua Tree was incorporated, then the people of Joshua Tree could determine what their requirements were for square footage for a new store, what the development code would be, what their master plan would be, how they want Joshua Tree to grow, because right now people who are in Joshua Tree, who have business there, who live there, have very strong opinions about what they want and what they don’t want, but it is entirely out of their hands. Now there is a Joshua Tree MAC, but the Joshua Tree MAC is an advisory committee, they advise the County Supervisor on matters that have to do with Joshua Tree, but the control is in the County of San Bernardino. Do you think it is time to incorporate Joshua Tree to protect Joshua Tree?
First caller.
Rebecca: “Hi Gary, I just have a couple points here. With the economy being in such a, a tragedy, you know, right now, I really believe that any opportunity for employment, um, especially, um, within these two towns, vicinity would be optimal for this area, I mean, we are in such a dire need, ah, to build jobs for the people and stimulate the economy…
Daigneault: Rebecca, let me bring something up to you, by the way, and I don’t disagree with you. This came up during the casino meeting, where they would have 125 employees, so that’s 125 people with jobs, ok? And the people who are against the casino all said it’s not worth it. The damage to the community is not worth the jobs. That’s how they answered that question.
Rebecca: Oh wow.
Daigneault: And yet, and and and I don’t think anybody would disagree that the number one thing we need is..jobs…people need to be working to support their families, to support the local business community, so there we are. Is it worth the jobs. That is the question…
Rebecca: You know, I would have to say yeah it is, you know why, Gary, because ah, any person, any, any, consumer, any human being, has regards and responsibilities they’re going to do and they’re gonna be who they are. And the community will prosper, I believe, you know, yeah there’s going to be changes made, you know, troubles, whatever, might come in and that, but I really believe, that it’s not going to change that much, I mean, it, uh, are, um, I saw on the, uh, uh, one of the quotes, uh, or something was mentioned, that to keep Joshua Tree small, you know that’s all good and ok, but you know something? Joshua Tree is not going to stay small, because, you know, we’re growing,
Daigneault: right
Rebecca: you know and if people don’t understand and see that, it’s happening, it’s happening, we need to keep up, we need to continue to build, they’re are going to be changes with people, people are gonna, you know, gonna have to fall back on{unintelligible} but we cannot let that stop us from bringing jobs growth in this area,
Daigneault: So So Rebecca you would be in favor of having the casino here then.
Rebecca: Well not the casino, I didn’t like the idea of the casino being up near Palm Vista, that seemed ludicrious, I’m talking about….
Daigneault: Dollar General….
Rebecca: Yes, Dollar General, you know, the casino, I’m not pro for that, but that’s just me, everybody has their pros and cons, but I believe, we want to keep it small……
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each Friday, from 10 to 11 am, KCDZ (Z107.7) FM local schlock jock (and former professional dancer) Gary Daigneault hosts the “Up Close” show, a call-in radio show that solicits opinion from its listeners on a range of local issues and topics of local concern. Daigneault is the station’s News Director and his wife, Cindy, its General Manager; the duo has owned and operated KCDZ FM since 1989. Z107.7 FM broadcasts its “award-winning” news straight from Gary’s throne room Joshua Tree. (The Daigneaults reside on the outskirts of 29 Palms, where Gary serves as President of Theatre 29.)
Other local journalists and critics (in many cases one and the same) have called Daigneault’s reporting biased, one-sided, ignorant, and punishing. As for the radio station Z107.7, Cactus Thorns blogger Margo Sturges writes, “The small radio station has – as it has done on several occasions in the past – confused the public by intentionally misrepresenting facts or simply lazy and irresponsible reporting.”
Leaving the question of whether Daigneault is truly an aggressively outspoken, excessively litigious, short-tempered, and unprofessional bully to the experts, I’ve spent the last few days and nights listening to and transcribing “Up Close” podcasts to get a feel for the pace, tenor, and content of the show and the point of view of its host and participants. Much of the “Up Close” show content and commentary is caller-driven, and the show has a quirky cast of regulars. There’s Jeff, who rants about a different politician each week; Frank, the 93-year-old Ronald Reagan fan who rambles on somewhat coherently about feeding bread to the birds and deciding not to put a catfish in his fish pond after all; and David, the “environmentalist” from Joshua Tree with whom Daigneault regularly, but “civilly, disagrees.” And then there is Daigneault.
“Gary Daigneault falsely reported on Z107.7, that I filed with the Attorney General regarding HDWD Frank Luckino’s conflict of interest. My name was cleared by a front page story of the Hi-Desert Star with the true facts. Even then, Daigneault never apologized and continues to “bully” citizens with his radio broadcasts… while claiming to ‘serve the community.’” ~ Margo Sturges
“During the recall we requested to go on his “Up Close” program and we were denied. Gary then told his listeners that we were too cowardly to come on the program and face him “eyeball to eyeball.” ~Ron Brault
“Daigneault attacked the Desert Star Weekly, telling his readers not to read our newspaper.” ~Dean Gray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, October 21, 2011, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Lisa: Yeah, Hi thanks, I’ve got a few things about Joshua Tree, I moved here about five years ago, because there wasn’t anything here, because it was peaceful, and secluded, and quiet, and if you put all those things there, it’s gonna be just like everywhere else, it will will lose everything special about it, ah, also I, I drove the distance from the dinosaurs to my house and it’s within two miles, and I defintely don’t want all of that activity within two miles of my house.
Daigneault: So you’d be, you’d be against the, um, casino, but what about the Dollar General store.
Lisa: I, I don’t think that we want big business out there in Joshua Tree, it should stay small and peaceful and quiet. You can get all the goods and services you need within 30 miles here in the Morongo Basin. We’ll go down the hill if what you’re looking for specifically isn’t there, but I don’t think they should put anything like that in there at all.
Daigneault: *suddenly brusque* All right Lisa, appreciate your comment, have a great day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daigneault first mentions the proposed Joshua Tree Dollar General store in his October 21, 2011, ”Up Close” broadcast. Dollar General hasn’t yet released details about the design of the store or revealed whether the store would comply with the Joshua Tree Design Guidelines, the number of parking spaces would be sufficient for the expected volume, the degree to which traffic at the corner of Sunburst and the Highway would be affected, including traffic en route to and from the elementary school located north of the intersection, on Sunburst, or if the store would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Joshua Tree Community Plan. Nevertheless, Daigneault voices his support for the project and for Dollar General. It is Day 1 of Daigneault’s coverage of the Dollar General invasion, and Daigneault’s support seems predicated on the availability of 99 cent socks and underwear. His enthusiasm for the store is unwavering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, March 2, 2012, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Quinn: I’m glad it’s coming in, I really am.
Daigneault: I agree with you, Quinn, they need the retail in Joshua Tree, I’m glad it’s coming in also. The problem in Joshua Tree is that if you want to buy anything – you know, socks or underwear – you’ve got to drive into 29 Palms or Yucca Valley – so we’re also wasting all that gas, especially with gas at almost $5 a gallon, so if you want to buy yourself a 99 cent tube of socks, now it’s costing you $5 in gas to go get ‘em. And not only that, I think the Dollar General store is a good idea because it brings some jobs to Joshua Tree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time passes (almost five months, to be exact). Each week, Daigneault encouraged his ”Up Close” listeners to call in and share their opinions about the store. However, Daigneault seems to have a small audience (the same callers call in week after week) and the same people keep saying the same things about Dollar General, including Daigneault. Many of them ask questions or express uncertainty about the proposal. Five months have passed, and Daigneault’s callers have the same questions and perspectives that they had on October 21. Daigneault doesn’t appear to have conducted any research or attempted to gather any information to support his viewpoint, and he hasn’t provided listeners with any information to help answer their questions or alleviate their fears (when expressed). He’s done nothing to inform or alter his listeners’ points of view. Each Friday, Daigneault calls out the topic of the day and takes calls from the same people who rehash the same statements and complaints, over and over, week after week, while Daigneault listens to his own point of view, again and again, as if summoned from different voices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, October 21, 2011, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Lynn: This is Lynn, in Joshua Tree, I am all for anything that would bring jobs and put the money here, in Joshua Tree. We don’t need to be taking our monies down to Palm Desert or Cat City, we need to keep all the families here, together, get people off of welfare. And the homeless people off. You know, we need to concentrate on helping this community, not other communities.
Daigneault: So you would be in favor of the casino?
Lynn: Yes I would.
Daigneault: And in favor of the Dollar General store.
Lynn: Yes I would, and the I-HOP, and the I-Hop.
Daigneault: I, ah, I hadn’t heard about an I-Hop coming in…
Lynn: No, I know but an I-, a Ralph’s, ah, ah, anything that would create, ah, jobs here where we can keep the monies here. you know the old locals, that is in the past, now, we have to, we have to, we have to learn to live today.
{long pause}
Daigneault: So what would you say to the people who want to keep Joshua Tree small and say we don’t want any of those outside business in?
Lynn: Well, let them people go up in the mountains and hibernate, because there are families here, there are families here, there are schools here, ok, we need, we need to have jobs to, to, keep people working, to, ah, get, get rid of welfare, there are too many people on welfare that actually can work, so, I am all for anything that will help the community to prosper and that is what life is all about.
Daigneault: All right Lynn, I appreciate your comment, thanks for calling, you have a great day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daigneault has made up his mind that the Dollar General store is a fantastic idea, that Joshua Tree needs the retail. Without offering any supporting data or proof that supports this claim (other than a vague reference to time wasted, driving to Yucca, and the price of gasoline), Daigneault tells his audience that Dollar General’s proposed Joshua Tree store is “good for the environment” and then opens the phone lines to his allies, who dutifully talk themselves crazy. Which is his prerogative, I might add. It is, after all, a free country.
However, Daigneault seems to take pleasure in taking an adversarial position on any matter near and dear to the community of Joshua Tree. In fact, when callers mention or ask what the community of Joshua Tree wants (or when Daigneault himself refers to the community’s wishes), he does so disparagingly and with a level of ridicule that verges on imperialism. But why? When a community exerts control over the allowable land uses within their own boundaries by drafting policies and ordinances that specify what can and can’t be built in certain areas, and why – in this case via the County’s General Plan and Development Code and Joshua Tree’s Community Plan and Design Guidelines – after which the community denies or opposes those development proposals that violate the plans, policies, and guidelines that were enacted to guide community development, it is their right to do so. Perhaps Daigneault is unfamiliar with the Joshua Tree Community Plan, not being a resident himself, but the Plan is readily available online – as is a host of information comparing the economic contributions to local economies from chain stores versus locally-owned, independent stores that sell the same types of goods (i.e., “mom and pop” shops). These studies show that locally-owned retail offers real economic benefits to communities, while chain retail attracts dollars that would have been spent elsewhere in the Basin, siphons off the profits and distributes them to shareholders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, October 21, 2011, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Daigneault: Our question today: Joshua Tree, to grow or not to grow, that is the question. Gloria, you are on the radio, good morning.
Gloria: Good morning Gary, well I live in Yucca Valley, not Joshua Tree. However, I went to visit a, a monastery, a small little monastery in Santa Isabella. And, this beautiful country road, and my GPS told me it was going to take me an hour, right, or, well, an hour and a half, and I was bumper to bumper traffic, stop and go, couldn’t figure out what in the world was goin on, until I came upon the Indian casinos that were there, and I could not believe it, and then on the way home, coming the opposite direction, ’cause I went way past the Indian casinos, the same thing: it was bumper to bumper traffic, stop and go, and it was miserable. And I could not believe that on this beautiful country road, which I thought I was gonna really enjoy the drive, I was so frustrated, and so irritated, and couldn’t believe this much traffic was going to gamble. And it’s a, there was farms, and, and orchards, and all kind of things, and then, all of a sudden out of nowhere,
Daigneault: (softly) Boom.
Gloria: Two indian casinos,
Daigneault: Ah-
Gloria: and if, I, I, you know, I am against it, cause all, the only thing I could see, was the amount of traffic that was going to be going down our highway. And unfortunately, there is no, cause I’m landlocked where I live, I can’t go any other way but down the main highway.
Daigneault: So you, you’d be against a casino in Joshua Tree because of the traffic it would create.
Gloria: Yes I would.
Daigneault: What about the Dollar General store?
Gloria: Ah, I don’t know anything about the Dollar General store. I don’t know how big it’s going to be…
Daigneault: It’s a 9100 sq…. It’s a 9100 square foot store which will be on the corner of Sunburst and the Highway. They do have an application in front of the County.
Gloria: And I don’t think it would create, ah, ah, a traffic jam, but ah, I’m still not, in my head, picturing how huge that is.
Daigneault: Yeah, 9100 square feet, so, it’s a pretty good size building, not huge, not massive, but pretty good size building.
Gloria; Uh,huh, I I think I would leave that war up to the people that live there in Joshua Tree.
Daigneault: All right Gloria, that’s fair. Appreciate your call.
Gloria: Mm, hmm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interestingly, podcast analysis suggests the radio host prefers the likeminded to the contrarians. Listen closely, and observe how Daigneault expresses his preference for like-minded callers by allowing those callers – people who agree with him – to talk for longer periods of time than callers who disagree with Daigneault. Even when callers who talk the longest reveal themselves to be insane in the membrane, if they are on Daigneault’s side, he lets them fly their freak flags, high and wide. On the other hand, when a caller disagrees with him, Daigneault’s voice and demeanor changes completely, almost as if he’s stopped smiling and started clenching his jaw, and his voice becomes wooden and terse. Pay attention to what happens to callers when Daigneault starts responding in monosyllables or with short, humorless phrases.
Let’s say that, normally, Daigneault will lead a caller by asking questions, gently guiding them back on topic when they stray (he is particularly patient with Frank, the 93-year-old bird feeder): if a caller disagrees with him, Daigneault stops asking gently leading questions and starts challenging the caller, laughing at him or her, and/or mocking them. Should a caller contradict Daigneault or insinuate that perhaps Daigneault hasn’t finished his homework, he becomes particularly terse, challenging, and impatient. When Daigneault transforms from entertainer into robot, who is on the other end of the phone? Who steals the joy from Daigneault’s voice?
That’s right, kids, it’s David the environmentalist!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, March 9, 2012, “Up Close” with Gary Daigneault
Fick: Anyway…….speaking of things, I heard that you were commenting about the Dollar General, last Up Close show…
Daigneault: That is correct, I think it’s a good idea.
Fick: You do.
Daigneault: Yes, I do.
Fick: Well, there’s about a thousand people in Joshua Tree who think it isn’t a good idea.
Daigneault: Ok, well….that’s..well..then we…..
Fick: That’s about where the signature count is.
Daigneault: ….difference of opinions. Here’s my reasons, David,
Fick: Yes.
Daigneault: Here’s my primary reason. Joshua Tree really has no retail - so if you want to buy basic supplies for your home, and you live in Joshua Tree, you have to drive to Yucca Valley. How much gas are we using, how much oil are we wasting, how much vehicular time are we spending, just going to buy basics, where if there were a retail store, and Dollar General is a nice, clean well-run store, if there were a retail store in Joshua Tree, on commercially-zoned property, not in the downtown core, that brings jobs, I think for all those reasons, the Dollar General store is a good idea for the community of Joshua Tree.
Fick: Yes, possibly, But here’s part of the problem. Is, um, in, research about it, Dollar General, once they get a store established in the community, they do not care for any public input as far as how the store should be maintained. It’s pretty much, it’s, they don’t give a damn, about what happens. And this is…um-
Daigneault: I don’t understand what you’re saying. Once they’re open, they don’t let the public tell them how to run their business?
Fick: No, they don’t care about how degrading the store gets, how/what kind of condition it gets in, and they don’t-
Daigneault: I, I think you’re really grasping at straws, David.
Fick: Nope, nope, nope, ok, ah, what you want to do, is look up this website called JT Barnstormer-
Daigneault: (incredulously) Uh-huh….
Fick: Google it up, JT BARN-STORMER-
Daigneault: (interrupting) And I can also google up websites that’ll talk about how great Dollar General is, so, you go on a website you’re going to get really strong opinions on both sides, but, David, you know that.
Fick: I know that also, but the thing is it diffuses the community identity, and that’s….
Daigneault: Ah! (laughs) So now it’s the community identity?!
Fick: Yeah.
Daigneault: I still think you’re grasping at straws. Seriously, the Dollar General store is an environmentally a good idea, and you’re an environmentalist.
Fick: Well, I’m also…I’m not just an environmentalist….
Daigneault: However, how much gas are we wasting to driving to Yucca Valley for basics every day, if you live in Joshua Tree? I need to get some toothpaste? You wanna get some socks? You know what, just basic stuff you need in your house?
Fick: Well..
Daigneault: You have to drive to Yucca Valley to get it. Why not have it available in Joshua Tree?
Fick: That is a good argument, but there’s also arguments against it, too, so, I guess we civilly disagree.
Daigneault: We civilly disagree. And there’s nothing wrong with that, David.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps when Daigneault’s mind is made up, it’s made up. Perhaps the man has no use for reason. But when Daigneault is intolerant and disrespectful of other people’s points of view, he not only promotes ignorance and intolerance (of which the world already has more than its share), he also abuses his position and misuses his authority. On subjective matters, where’s the pride in acting as if someone else is wrong? Regardless of why, when Daigneault fails to keep an open mind on any subjective matter, or worse – when he fails to analyze with some degree of rigor, assess objectively what he’s told or reads in a press release, he fails his audience of loyal listeners, many of whom look to him for information, some modicum of analysis that will help them parse the data they receive, and cues on how to act or react to differing viewpoints. He also fails himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In January 2009, the Morongo Basin Conservation Association prepared a three-part position paper on issues facing area residents. Part II , Urban Growth in the Morongo Basin, defines the issue admirably: many of the people who moved to the Basin did so with the expectation that the area was far enough removed from mainstream trade and commerce to escape the pressures of urban and suburban expansion. Any number of different personal reasons motivated relocations to the Basin, but new residents had one thing in common: the desire to live in a community that isn’t overrun by profiteering corporations or sprawl. They sought a life and lifestyle that would be uncrowded and a place where they wouldn’t be pushed around by aggressive and competitive urban tendencies. They chose the relative peace and quiet of these remote and rural communities and, for those who really did their homework upon moving here, were pleased to find governing General / Community Plans that defended the rural identity and character. Yet, the paper attests, changing policies and market practices over the last three decades have wrought changes in the Basin. New residents have arrived with expectations for an urban transformation that is squarely contrary to the desires of those who settled here for rural character (and contrary to the policies and goals established in the General/Community Plans). Which group should prevail?
“Since 2000, over 200 big-box development projects have been halted by groups of ordinary citizens, and scores of towns and cities have adopted laws that favor small-scale, local business development which limit the proliferation of chains. Rather than undermining the local economy, many communities have made sustaining humanly scaled, unique homegrown businesses a primary focus of planning and economic development decision and adopting a variety of land use rules that deter chain stores and foster local ownership. Many have restricted the physical size of new stores. Others allow new retail development only if it meets specific criteria defined by the community. Some have banned uniformity, by prohibiting “formula” businesses. Others have barred new retail development outside of the town’s central business district.”
Accordingly, the 2007 San Bernardino County General Plan “recognizes the unique assets of individual communities in the County to guide County decision-making by building on those assets, as well as protecting and enhancing the quality of life and the rights of residents to choose a more “rural” lifestyle, often with a small-town atmosphere, room to breathe, and opportunities for self-reliance and independence.” Joshua Tree’s Community Plan (2007) seeks to enhance the availability of goods and services oriented to both local needs and that of visitors, ensure that future development is unobtrusive and complements the character of the community, protect the National Park and other natural resources, and implement an economic plan that supports a small, pedestrian-friendly central business district with community gathering spaces and other recreational opportunities. Of the policies and goals that were established to bring these goals about, the most relevant and notable among them is Economic Development Goal JT/ED 4: Commercial uses and commercial zoning districts within the community shall be of small scale as needed to provide goods and services to residents and travelers, and shall not be of a regional scale. Relevant policies include JT/ED 1.2 Encourage small commercial footprints that maintain open space areas on site, and JT/ED 1.3 Encourage and support small independent businesses.
“Developers often present new chain store developments as major additions to the local economy. They note the growth in retail sales and shopping options. They tally up the number of new jobs and the added tax revenue that the development will bring. What is often overlooked is the other side of the balance sheet. New retail stores simply shift consumer spending from one area of town to another. A new big box store can only be successful at the expense of existing businesses. A study in Iowa, for example, found that new Wal-Mart stores derive on average of 84 percent of their sales from existing businesses within the community.6 Similar conclusions have been reached in studies of big box development in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New York, California, and Virginia. What all of the studies find is that very little of the sales generated by a new retail store represent new retail spending. Instead these developments simply shift economic activity from one part of town to another. The end result is not economic development, but rather economic displacement.”
Studies show that corporate chain stores result in weakened local economies, eroded community character, and impoverished civic and cultural life. Consolidation of business enterprise under the chain-store model puts small mom and pop shops out of business, reducing competition locally and regionally, which tends to harm consumers over the long-term. A study in Greenfield, Massachusetts concluded that a proposed Wal-Mart store would cost existing businesses $35 million in sales. The 177 jobs expected to be gained by the Wal-Mart would be offset by the loss of 148 jobs at other businesses.7 A similar study in Saint Albans, Vermont found that a new Wal-Mart would derive 76 percent of its sales from local businesses. Many of these stores would be forced to close, leading to a significant net decline in total retail employment and property tax revenue.8
Critics of the two largest dollar store chains, Family Dollar and Dollar General, contend that the companies extract super-profits from the uncompensated labor of overworked store “managers” and other employees. The approximately 750 cases pending in various U.S. courts make overtime lawsuits filed by managers of retail outlets “one of the fastest-growing areas of litigation,” said Gould, an attorney for Beasley-Allen, the Alabama-based law firm that since 2004 has handled thousands of employee complaints against Dollar General. Not only do family budgets suffer from the wage theft, but so do local economies and tax bases. If it is not curbed, massive wage theft has negative implications for reversing the long economic slump, Ruckleshaus added. “The more our society permits these jobs to be low and underpaying, the less our economy picks up.”
Chain stores contribute far less to the local economy than independent businesses. National chains have limited ties and no long-term commitment to the rural communities in which they operate, so their profits don’t stay local. Family Dollar earned nearly $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010, returning “excess cash” to its shareholders according to a company statement. (For the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010, Family Dollar paid out approximately $58 million in dividends. Meanwhile, their store managers continued making $550 a week.) Local stores keep profits circulating within the local economy by supporting a variety of other local businesses, creating opportunities for service providers like accountants and printers, doing business with the community bank, advertising through local radio stations and other media outlets, and purchasing goods from local or regional distributors. In this way, a dollar spent at a locally owned businesses sends a ripple of economic benefits through the community. By contrast, chain stores typically centralize these functions at their head offices, minimize local investment and spending, bank with big national banks, and bypass local media in favor of national advertising. In this way, much of a dollar spent at a chain store leaves the community immediately.
Locally owned businesses build strong communities and create economic diversity and stability. There are several reasons for this. The first is that independent stores tend to be located in humanly-scaled, pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, as opposed to the sprawling, isolated experience of a chain store parking lot. The second reason is that local stores create a sense of place and community identity. They reflect the local culture. They give neighborhoods their distinct flavor. They are often a source of community pride and an attraction to visitors. Chain stores, by contrast, are sapping communities of their character and individuality. Even the most famous American cities are losing their unique appeal. Kmart, Costco, and Home Depot are building in Manhattan. Fifth Avenue is home to Starbucks and The Gap. These same stores can be found on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Market Street in San Francisco, and thousands of other locations worldwide. The third way that independent businesses strengthen community is through their contributions to civic and cultural life. Local merchants are more than providers of goods and services. They often take a leadership role in community affairs. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses give more time and money to charitable organizations than do their large competitors.9 Because they live in the places where they do business, local merchants tend to be far more committed to the community’s well-being and long-term stability than distant corporations. They are unlikely to move and will do their best to weather economic hard times. Finally, the shift from local to absentee-owned stores means that business decisions are no longer made locally by members of the community. Who decides whether to close a store in a distressed neighborhood, stock a controversial book, sell produce from local farms, pay a living wage, or contribute to a local charity? In the case of chain stores, these decisions occur in distant boardrooms, where the values of the local community carry little or no weight.
Chain stores are highly mobile and will abandon a location if profit margins do not meet their expectations. The worst case scenario is when a big box store builds on the edge of town, destroys the central business district, and, then a few years later, decides that it too will close its doors. The town is left with a dead Main Street and nothing to show for it. A community that loses its local businesses to national chains also risks losing other economic development opportunities. New technologies have enabled many companies to operate virtually anywhere. When these companies consider location options, towns with a vibrant commercial core and a unique character are often at the top of the list.
In 1952, Senator Hubert Humphrey asked, “Do we want an America where the economic market place is filled with a few Frankensteins and giants? Or do we want an America where there are thousands upon thousands of small entrepreneurs, independent businessmen, and landholders who can stand on their own feet and talk back to their Government or to anyone else?10
Sources:
Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses (Beacon Press, 2006), by Stacy Mitchell and the Institute for Self-Reliance http://www.bigboxswindle.com/
Dollar Stores: Top Link in the Sweatshop Chain, by Kent Paterson, Special to CorpWatch October 6th, 2010 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15629
Does Local Firm Ownership Matter? by David A. Fleming and Stephan J. Goetz Economic Development Quarterly August 2011 vol. 25 no. 3 277-281 http://edq.sagepub.com/content/25/3/277.abstract
The Impact of Chain Stores on Community, by Stacy Mitchell 1 April 2000 A speech by ILSR’s Stacy Mitchell delivered at the annual conference of the American Planning Association, April 2000 http://www.newrules.org/retail/article/impact-chain-stores-community
6. Thomas Muller and Elizabeth Humstone, “What Happened When Wal-Mart Came to Town? A Report on Three Iowa Communities with a Statistical Analysis of Seven Iowa Counties,” Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1996.
7. Land Use, Inc. and RKG Associates, “Greenfield, Massachusetts: Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Wal-Mart Development,” 1993.
8. Better Models for Chain Stores, Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2000; Suzi Parker, “On Main Street America, it’s charm versus chains,” The Christian Science Monitor, July 19, 1999.
9. Patricia A. Frishkoff and Alicja M. Kostecka, “Business Contributions to Community Service,” U.S. Small Business Administration, 1991.
10. Quoted in Michael Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996, p. 243.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Selfish Decision Making in the New Third World: Prelude to a Kiss-off
Posted: March 12, 2012 Filed under: Development Proposals, Dollar General, General Planning, General Plans, Joshua Tree, Proactive Future Planning 3 Comments »WhoIs JT Barnstormer
For the four years I’ve lived in Joshua Tree, I’ve been more-or-less a silent but fascinated observer of local dynamics, from politics and business dealings to community outreach and activism (misguided and otherwise), all the while keeping an eye on how – and by whom – local decisions are made.
It was a quiet, but frustrating, four-year period.
Late last year, however, Joshua Tree was dealt an atypical planning hand – a devilish double whammy. Suddenly, the community faced its own worst nightmare: giant mega-discount-retailer Dollar General (the largest discount retailer in the nation) eyed a long-vacant commercially zoned parcel at the edge of the commercial corridor along Hwy 62, while long-time local 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians focused on making a shady land deal to the east of downtown Joshua Tree – but very much within the community boundaries – to bring their ill-fated 29 Palms casino project 15 miles west, bringing with it the hell that is other people gambling. Suddenly, a community of activists was floundering around in the unfamiliar sea of environmental and planning law, with every other boat shipwrecked on an outcropping of acronym. By most accounts, things looked dire, at best.
In mid-November, after sharing my thoughts on local politics and planning with an acquaintance I didn’t know very well (but admired very much – it’s that kind of community), I mentioned the idea for this website, a local resource for activism and land use planning, a place for directing the self-directed and for organizing the self-organized, which had lay dormant in my head for years but that now seemed timely. A blog that would be a solution, not an escape route. A place for inquiring minds to inquire – a place for worshipping fierce facts, not for fictionalizing false fantasies. I wanted to explain to my neighbors what was happening, and why, and what they could do about it locally and regionally, in order to help direct their best intentions towards possible fruition. Long ago I’d learned how to circumnavigate the laws, regs, and policies and in the process untangle the legalese, leaving the developer’s disciples quagmired in the land of the applicant like something out of Indiana Jones and the last crusade.
Months went by in which I did nothing and felt guilty, high school guilty, betrayal guilty. By the end of December 2011, I just couldn’t take the self-induced pressure any longer and lo, in January 2012, JT Barnstormer was born: not just because I realized that I’d rather be the person who tried filling to fill the chasm in local reporting that the person who says a lot of things but does very little. (Not that local reporting was lacking, mind you, but it did tend to be inaccurate, misleading, or worse.) I could no longer sit and watch the tourists drift by: I had to act, now and fast.
JT Barnstormer was envisioned as a go-to place for:
- firsthand accounts culled from other local communities that fought or are fighting big business and what transpired after the dust settled.
- tales from other small tourist-dependent communities deemed “special” for their intangible, qualitative characteristics. These are characteristics like “quality of life, happiness, beauty, creativity” which are hard to measure (but that attract tourists from all over the world, the dollars of which in turn attract large corporations seeking to co-opt those tourist dollars. By doing so, these parasitic entities erode the very qualities that attract the outside visitors in the first place.
- stories of how small communities defend / uphold their own core values, make and implement their own rules, and adhere to their own agendas with or without incorporating (a topic that seems to galvanize such communities, destroying the perceived unity that is truly necessary to continue fighting big business and corporate intrusion into local matters).
- Joshua Tree’s ongoing saga to preserve the character of their own community and what we (as citizens) can do to speak out, comment, and exact the kinds of changes we want and need at the County level.
- reasonable, fact-based discourse by locals, for locals: a place to discuss and debate pressing local issues, including whether to incorporate Joshua Tree or establish a Community Services District in order to protect the purpose and intent of the Joshua Tree Community Plan, whether to approve or oppose the Dollar General and Casino projects, and more.
- generally, FACTS, not feelings; citations, not hearsay; and details, not generalities.
- Most of all, readers who THINK for themselves, CHALLENGE what they read, hear, and see; and DIG BENEATH THE SURFACE in search of the truth behind and beyond the corporate press release.
My qualifications, should you require documentation of my right to speak freely, include passion, stamina, and twelve years in a high-profile land use, environmental law, and compliance/permitting firm with ties to nearly every major decisionmaker in southern California; clients including local, regional, state, and federal agencies, water districts and purveyors of water, mining companies and retail developers, tycoons and speculators, solar, wind, and natural gas companies, wetland mitigation banks, conservation groups, developers,utility purveyors, waste handlers and landfill operators, transportation and public works projects, school districts, forest management agencies, the USDA, Department of Interior, and Department of Defense, and more. I could go on, but I won’t.
Sometimes it takes seeing things from both sides to really know where you stand in life, and I’m glad to know that I stand among my Joshua Tree friends and neighbors. It really is “the good fight” and we really do have the law on our side.
I should know. In many cases, I helped write it.
Neighbors Say Stay Out! (But Is Anyone Listening?)
Posted: February 16, 2012 Filed under: Development Proposals, Dollar General, Joshua Tree, Yucca Valley | Tags: activism, blight, California, California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, community, Dollar General, Dollar stores, Family Dollar, getting involved, Joshua Tree, local activism Leave a comment »If more than 50 percent of new businesses fail within the first five years, and if the backlash against the proliferation of dollar stores continues to increase nationwide, then how many of the 50 stores Dollar General plans to open in California this year will still be open in 2017? The answer is fewer than you might think, and here’s why.
Lack of community responsibility has been a complaint in other cities where Dollar General owns real estate. Last May, New Orleans City Council members criticized both Family Dollar and Dollar General for their lack of community sensitivity. “Family Dollar and Dollar General have got to become more sensitive to the needs of the communities they are going into,” said New Orleans City Councilman Jon Johnson. ”They have got to become better corporate citizens.” Councilwoman Stacy Head said developers seeking to build a Dollar General in her district made a lot of promises beforehand about upgrading its appearance but then refused to follow through on them. She said the store is “an absolute nightmare, a disgrace,” with “filthy” parking lots and overturned carts. Johnson said the one in his district is even worse than that. Calling the proliferation of dollar stores a public scourge demanding immediate action, Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge Morrell, “the community is adamant that they do not want another Dollar General or Family Dollar within a five-block radius.”
Other concerns, including health risks, economic factors, environmental impacts, aesthetics and community character, land use and planning conflicts, public safety, noise and traffic have driven other communities to oppose the construction of new dollar stores. Huffington Post reporter, Alice Hines, pointed out that opposition groups to dollar stores had formed in Joshua Tree, CA; Mt. Healthy, OH; Quailwood, AZ; Waterbury, VT; Germantown, PA; and Taos, NM. Unfortunately for the residents opposing the Family Dollar in Mt. Healthy, Quailwood, and Moretown (Waterbury), and the Dollar Tree in Germantown, those stores were approved despite opposition from residents, community organizations, and local businesses. The Germantown Dollar Tree store will be the 13th dollar store in Germantown, despite the fact that ”a zoning law was passed as early as 2008 prohibiting new dollar store openings in a historic district already overrun by the retailers.”
With that kind of track record, thank goodness for Taos! After locals voiced outrage over the location chosen for a Family Dollar: a particularly picturesque view looking across Taos Pueblo land towards Taos Mountain, the development company in charge of the project withdrew its application to reportedly take a “time out” to “investigate other sites around Taos.” “When we met with the representative, we sent him home with a box containing the signatures of close to 2,700 local people who oppose the location,” said members of opposition group Taos Friends United. In subsequent interviews, the project manager for the development group was careful to point out that while the decision to pull the application means the project is on hold, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the community has abandoned the project entirely. ”Hopefully we will either start on a new site or restart this site in the near future,” he said.
Unlike the handful of communities mentioned in the recent Huffington Post article, local opposition movements are becoming increasingly successful. Last March, at the end of a contentious, four-hour-long, standing-room-only meeting, Gulfport’s City Council denied a change in zoning for three parcels, effectively rejecting Dollar General’s application. After listening to the second round of arguments against Dollar General’s proposal and “reading that one line about the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city of Gulfport,” Council member Sam Henderson called for a vote, declaring “I think the experts of the neighborhood are the people who live there… You have the dedication of those who are most affected by it.” ”You cannot tell me that bringing a box store of any kind into a residential neighborhood on this side of 22nd Street in our art district is in any way going to improve our neighborhood” said local resident Faun Weaver as she presented City Council with a petition signed last year by 220 residents. Ultimately, City Council agreed.
So, too, would residents of Chester, Vermont, a historic town in which Dollar General is proposing to construct a new store. In January, the Chester Telegraph reported that after an “emotional and contentious” hearing on Dollar General’s conditional use permit application, even members of Chester’s Development Review Board expressed doubt about the project. Chester residents’ primary concerns are twofold: the loss of community character in a town dependent upon tourism, and the loss of tourism dollars to an out-of-state corporate entity that remains unaccountable to residents. Residents like Kathy, a second homeowner who is “seriously considering selling her Chester home in the event that a DG (or any dollar store) is permitted to be built in town,” which could create a domino effect. “If second homes are sold and turned into primary residences,” she writes, “there will be more children in the schools (which might very well result in an increase in your school taxes), more competition for local jobs, and fewer caretaker jobs for those who created service jobs geared toward second homes. Should DG be built, you’ve opened the door for an onslaught of national stores — McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Hooters — to name a few. But hey, someone saved a dollar on a foreign import that will make its way into the landfill a short time later.” The Chester Telegraph reports that the next public hearing is scheduled for March 12th.
In Marlborough, NH, the Keene Sentinel reports that the planning board unanimously denied a special exception that would have allowed demolition of a 150-year-old farmhouse to make way for a new Dollar General store. Residents blasted the plan and board members agreed that the store would be inconsistent with the “essential character” of the neighborhood.
In Lancaster, NH, Family Dollar’s proposal to demolish two historic homes drew mixed reactions from residents, particularly since there was already a Family Dollar shop at another location on Main Street, looking to expand. Residents circulated a petition against the new store. ”Most of the ladies and gentleman [who signed the petition] had five or six generations here, and they know what Main Street had looked like and what’s happened to it slowly over the years,” said Marita Meacham. ”We take pride in the fact that our town has maintained an historic feel to it, and it’s what brings in tourism,” said Rep. Evalyn Merrick, D-Lancaster. “This is one little town, and I’d like to see at least one little town have some sort of self-determination,” said Lucy Wyman. “
In Winchester, NH, the zoning board approved a special exception to zoning regulations allowing Dollar General to tear down a 200-year-old home and build a 9100-square-foot store. The Historic Commission had denied permission to demolish the historic residence. However, four residents and the local market filed suit against the town, which must file a plea by March 8.
Shiloh, MO trustees have criticized the architectural appearance of the proposed Dollar General store that commercial real estate developer Bob Elkan of Westmore Group Inc., presented to the board in mid-January, expressing concern that the building won’t fit into the existing neighborhood and lacks appropriate architectural features. “This location is the doorstep to old Shiloh,” said Trustee John Vassen, who noted that the board’s decision, which is still pending, will set the tone for future development in the area. “I think this needs to be a nice building.” Elkan said “I’m going to relay the information to Dollar General and get their thoughts first,” and if Dollar General wishes, he will bring a revised set of architectural drawings before the board. Prior to the meeting, Elkan said that his firm hasn’t committed to the village of Shiloh. “We are in the exploratory stage,” he said. “If they (village officials) don’t want it, it’s their decision.”
Lake Ranch, TN residents formed a grassroots opposition to a proposed Dollar General store in west Hall County that would have required rezoning residential parcels to commercial use and raised traffic safety concerns. Despite safety concerns from residents, the property was given approval by county staff, as well as the Hall County Planning Commission, which conditionally approved the zoning request in November. Residents met with the five county commissioners, conducted an email writing campaign, and staged a protest near the site of the proposed store. ”I’ve personally never picketed in my life. We just want to make a splash,” Brady said. “My mother said she would come out and sit on her walker.” The grassroots movement claimed victory when the Hall County Board of Commissioners voted 3-1, rejecting Dollar General’s proposal.
Most of the Lake Ranch residents who attended the Hall Commission meeting wore yellow, diamond-shaped badges — like traffic signs — on their shirts that read “Keep Lake Ranch Safe.” So many residents showed up that staff had to open up an additional section of the ballroom and add more chairs. The attendance made some impression on the commissioners, though none acknowledged it changed their vote. ”It helps,” Commissioner Scott Gibbs said. “We’re here to listen.” Before making a motion to deny the request, Commissioner Billy Powell, who represents the property in question, told residents, “I really appreciate and admire people that get involved with their government.” A letter citing “constitutional objections” to opposition of the proposal was sent to the county by the applicant, who stated that “a denial of this application would constitute an arbitrary and capricious act by the Hall County Board of Commissioners without any rational basis” and would be violation of the U.S. and state constitutions — a signal legal implications could follow the commissioners’ vote.
In Sugar Grove, NY, borough council member, David Slater, testified that as an elected official he was concerned that development of a Dollar General store in an area closely abutting a residential district would disturb “the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.” He cited his primary concerns were the indirect light that would be created by the store, along with an increase in traffic. ”Sugar Grove is a small town and it’s not going to do any of the local business owners any favors (by allowing the Dollar General to be built),” Slater said. ”It will bring (Town and Country) to its knees, if not worse, and I imagine it will hurt Wilcox Brothers. I am not against businesses; I’m against predatory businesses and money leaving the community.” Judith Mader presented the Zoning Board with a petition containing 451 signatures that oppose constructing a Dollar General on the property in Sugar Grove. Another resident, Chris Evans, told the board that he consulted with several realtors and appraisers, who informed him his property values would drop anywhere from 5 to 40 percent if a Dollar General was built on the proposed site. ”I don’t appreciate the potential of losing 40 percent of an investment,” Evans said. Warren County’s Zoning Board unanimously denied Dollar General an exemption to build a 9,000-square-foot store on a property zoned “business transitional” because the zoning category was meant for small-scale retail enterprises of less than 3,000 square feet and the proposed Dollar General store did not fall under that stipulation.
These are only a handful of locations in which proposed dollar stores have proved contentious and residents have adopted increasingly compelling rationales for “Not In My Backyard” aka “NIMBY” arguments against the construction of such stores in their communities. If 50 percent of the stores opened in 2007 close this year, while simultaneously the industry leaders Dollar General and Family Dollar enter the competitive markets of rural California, how will the retailers fare in 2012?
Only time will tell.
Cadiz Project Update: Review Period Extended
Posted: February 10, 2012 Filed under: Cadiz Project, Development Proposals, How to Get Involved | Tags: activism, Cadiz, Cadiz Inc., Cadiz Project, CEQA, letters, local involvement, public involvement, public review period, SMWD Leave a comment »“In response to requests and in recognition of the importance of providing ample review of the Project,” Santa Margarita Water District has granted a 30-day extension of the public review period for the Cadiz Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The public review period will now close on March 14, 2012 (the complete announcement is posted below).
This fantastic news demonstrates the power of a well-written comment letter. CHEERS to those of you whose letters, emails, and phone calls helped bring this to fruition.
Thievery Corporation (The Great Mojave Water Swindle)
Posted: February 9, 2012 Filed under: Cadiz Project, Development Proposals, How to Get Involved, Proactive Future Planning | Tags: activism, Cadiz Inc., Cadiz Project, CEQA, EIR, ESA, getting involved, Groundwater, local activism, local involvement, Mojave desert, SMWD Leave a comment »Ed. note: This post was published on February 9, 2012. On February 10, SMWD granted a 30-day extension of the public review / comment period, which now ends on March 14, 2012.
Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) is the CEQA lead agency for the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (Project), which proposes to “mine” groundwater from a large and deep, but nonrenewable, aquifer located east of Twentynine Palms beneath the remote Fenner Valley, eastern Mojave Desert, in San Bernardino County. According to SMWD’s website,
“The proposed Project would manage the aquifer and conserve water from nearby watersheds otherwise being lost to evaporation in local dry lakes. Conserved water would be collected and delivered to SMWD and other water agencies. There would also be an option for carry-over water storage in the Cadiz Aquifer.
SMWD is also exploring possibilities for a storage project that in wet years, would store water from the Colorado River Aqueduct into the Cadiz aquifer. This water could be used when needed in dry years.
If implemented, the Cadiz Project would diversify SMWD’s water portfolio and help drought-proof the District to ensure its water demands are met regardless of the state’s supply.
SMWD is the Lead Agency for the Project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. Under this environmental review, the lead agency evaluates its project and any potential environmental impacts. If alternatives are identified and mitigation measures are necessary, then they must be considered and incorporated prior to approval of the project.”
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project was released on December 5, 2011, and the formal public review period is scheduled to end February 13, 2012. A copy of the DEIR can be downloaded here and a copy is available for viewing at the District’s main office located at 26111 Antonio Parkway, Rancho Santa Margarita. According to the Notice of Availability, hard copies of the EIR and appendices are also available at the following locations:
- Twentynine Palms Library: 6078 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
- Rancho Santa Margarita Public Library: 30902 La Promesa Drive, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
- Joshua Tree Library: 6465 Park Blvd, Joshua Tree, CA 92252
- San Bernardino County Library: 104 W. 4th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
SMWD held two public meetings to receive comments regarding the scope, content, and analysis provided in the DEIR: Tuesday, January 24 at 6:00 p.m. at SMWD and Wednesday, February 1 at 6:00 p.m. at the Joshua Tree Community Center. JT Barnstormer attended the meeting in Joshua Tree, which was packed, but divided. Based on my very rough estimates, about 60 to 75 percent of attendees spoke out against the proposal, and about 25 to 40 percent of attendees spoke in favor of the proposal.
The groundwater issues associated with this project are complex, not completely understood – not even by the “experts” – and controversial, as are all water rights-related issues. The problem, however, is the ticking clock, which steadily erases the minutes, hours, and days before February 13, 2012.
If you are writing, or planned on writing, or will write a comment letter, please consider requesting a 90-day extension of the public review period. The document is very long, and there are four volumes in total, including appendices. It will take a significant amount of time to review the technical information, and considering the fact that the document was released over the holidays, right between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Eve, the allotted review period simply isn’t enough. If a speed-reading scientist who specializes in environmental compliance is having trouble getting through the document within the allotted time frame, I imagine that the people who’ve been tracking this project for months, years or even decades are feeling substantially overwhelmed by the fast-track full-court press. What we need is quite simple. What we need is more time.
If you will be submitting a comment letter about the Cadiz Project, please consider requesting a 90-day extension of the public review period. This will allow you, and others, to be thorough in our evaluation of the proposed project, the environmental impact analyses, and the conclusions; will provide an opportunity for concerned citizens, conservation groups, and/or watchdog agencies to consult with hydro-geologists, dry lake specialists, biologists, engineers, and other technical experts as necessary; and will give agencies like the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) an opportunity to examine the modeling data that they requested months ago but as of the date of the public scoping meetings still had not been given – data that is critical to backing up the project’s claims of no significant impact. If all goes “well,” a project of this magnitude could yield billions of dollars for its tycoon-owner, Keith Brackpool, and bring in millions to the company shareholders. If all goes poorly, the project could have devastating effects on the Mojave Desert. Elsewhere in the western US, the overdraft of groundwater reserves has altered surface hydrology, drying up springs, seeps, and streams, killing riparian and other water-dependent vegetation, and laying waste to hundreds of miles of once-fertile lands, creating dust-hazard issues akin to those at Owens Lake. Removing water sources has a ripple effect on biota, as plants disappear so, too, do water-dependent wildlife, as ancient springs and seeps are an essential water source for these thirsty desert creatures, among them numerous endangered species. Land subsidence often follows in the wake of groundwater removal, which has ripple effects on roadways, pipelines, and other infrastructure, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. In short, considering the devastating effects that a project like this one could have on the environment, it seems prudent to allow the public additional review time, for the following reasons:
4. Similarly, public scoping meetings should have been scheduled for local / rural locations in close proximity to the project site in addition to the locations that were selected: SMWD – 223 miles west of the project site and Joshua Tree – 82 miles west of the project site. During the public scoping meetings for the project, which were held in March 2011, numerous complaints were received about the location of the meetings and meeting attendees stressed that future meetings should be held in locations closer to the project site. Forcing desert residents to travel hundreds of miles to provide comment about a project taking place less than fifteen miles from their home places undue hardship on those whom the project would most affect. Extending the public review period and conducting additional outreach in these remote areas would help prevent the disenfranchisement of rural desert residents from participating in the CEQA process. Failure to conduct outreach in remote, rural areas simply because it isn’t convenient for the LA-based consulting firm is not a good excuse for having overlooked these previous comments and requests.
If you support transparent, sound economic and environmental decision making and want to protect the Mojave from long-term potentially devastating effects from outsiders whose chief goal is to profit at the expense of people, please send your comment letters to:
Attn: Tom Barnes, ESA
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Email:cadizproject@esassoc.com
Telephone: 213-599-4300
Fax: 213-599-4301
Helping Form the Future: Yucca Valley
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: General Planning, How to Get Involved, Proactive Future Planning, Yucca Valley | Tags: community involvement, General Plan, General Plan Update, local, Morongo Basin, planning, visioning, Yucca Valley Leave a comment »Today, the Town of Yucca Valley launched “Open Town Hall”, an on-line forum for civic engagement. The Open Town Hall forum gives the opportunity for the community to offer valuable input on the update to the Town’s General Plan.
Currently, the forum is seeking input for the General Plan Visioning Statement. Readers will be able to see what other residents are saying about the General Plan Vision Statement and post their own individual view on the topic.
The Town of Yucca Valley will use the Open Town Hall forum throughout the General Plan Update process to stimulate a broad base of views and comments. The Town encourages sharing the forum with family, friends and coworkers to participate in sharing ideas, gems of the community, and areas needing improvement. To participate, go to the Town of Yucca Valley’s web site at www.yucca-valley.org, and click on the Open Town Hall icon; or you can go to the following link.
http://www.yucca-valley.org/departments/gpu_forum.html
What’s the Deal on Dollar General?
Posted: February 7, 2012 | Author: the strategist | Filed under: Development Proposals, Dollar General, How to Get Involved, Joshua Tree | Tags: activism, blight, California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, comment letters, community, Dollar General, Environment, General Plan, get involved, Initial Study, Joshua Tree, land use, local, local activism, MND, Notice of Intent, planning, Planning Commission, Public Hearing, San Bernardino County, saturation | Leave a comment »A BRIEF HISTORY
Last fall, JT Barnstormer was approached by several Joshua Tree residents and business owners who were concerned about Dynamic Development LLC’s (DD LLC’s) application to develop a Dollar General store on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0603-204-04, located at the northwest corner of Sunburst Drive along Twentynine Palms Highway / State Route 62 (SR-62). Because it was a busy time of year and public comments were due within days, JT Barnstormer performed a cursory review of stakeholders’ emails and relevant San Bernardino County (County) policies and guidelines, then prepared and distributed a general brief / letter, anonymously, to a short list of concerned citizens. The letter summarized key sections of San Bernardino County’s (the County’s) 2007 Development Code, which requires controversial projects to be processed under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (a more rigorous, complex approval process) rather than a Minor Use Permit.[1] (The letter also noted that, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Lead Agencies must consider the level of public controversy when determining whether an Initial Study / (Mitigated) Negative Declaration will be sufficient under CEQA or whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will need to be prepared. As Trustee Agency California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) explains, “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be prepared when there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of a project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064).)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
The application might not have been controversial at first glance, but it certainly was by the time fractured excerpts from the original letter met the inboxes of people inhabiting the sixth degrees of separation. Unsurprisingly, after receiving preliminary project feedback from dozens if not hundreds of concerned citizens, the County Planning Division elevated DD LLC’s application from a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), marking the first, albeit minor, victory for local residents, landowners, and business owners. As mentioned above, compared to MUPs, CUP applications require a more thorough review and a higher level of internal scrutiny; too, the County changing gears meant that concerned citizens won some time, allowing them to research Dollar General Corp., more thoroughly evaluate DD LLC’s proposal; ask more questions of the County Planner; garner additional petition signatures; retain counsel and/or consulting services; and the like.
The CUP process requires the County to evaluate project consistency with the County General Plan and the Joshua Tree Community Plan, compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, availability of public services, and the potential for the project to result in environmental impacts considered significant under CEQA. As shown above, when a CUP warrants detailed review, the County Planner forwards the application to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for a review and recommendation of technical design features to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, including adequate traffic and pedestrian circulation; proper grading; and proper erosion control; and an evaluation of public facilities and services and potential fire-hazard problems. Because of the controversy surrounding the proposed Dollar General store, the County has elevated the project to the County Planning Commission for final. Prior to deciding whether to approve or reject DD LLC’s CUP application, a public hearing will be held before the Commission. Chapter 85.06 of the Development Code describes the required findings that must be made before a CUP application can be approved.[2] Applications can be denied if the CUP findings cannot be made or if the proposal would result in environmental effects considered significant and unavoidable under CEQA. Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE in JOSHUA TREE
In January 2012, when I contacted the County to inquire about the status of DD LLC’s CUP application, I learned that:
REMAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING
Based on conversations with the County, my understanding of CEQA, and a review of the Development Code / CUP processing, there remain several very important opportunities for public involvement. First and foremost, my advice to concerned citizens is don’t wait until the Public Hearing to voice your concerns and/or raise important questions, unless of course you don’t mind if Dollar General builds a store in Joshua Tree. In my experience, “waiting” for the public hearing to make important comments simply means that important comments are going to get short shrift. Here’s why:
Imagine yourself…..in the position of a sitting member of the Planning Commission. You arrived at the table this evening to join your fellow Commission members to make several decisions on projects that have been processed for the last 6 months to several years by the Planning Division. Ten days prior to this meeting, you were handed (or emailed) a detailed brief documenting 6 months of project planning and decision making by the County Planner in charge of DD LLC’s Dollar General Project, with a summary memo on top in case you don’t have time to read all 20 pages. The County Planner and Planning Director have also issued their recommendation to approve or deny the project. That’s just one of six projects on tonight’s agenda, all of which have 20-page attachment briefs that you have read (or not). That night, two hours in to what seems to be an extraordinarily long meeting, it is Dollar General’s turn to be considered. The floor is opened to members of the public, and in addition to the 8 to 10 people whose names you recognize for their contributions throughout the process, there are 18 people waiting to speak tonight who have never provided any form of public feedback on the project. “All of a sudden, you care?” you find yourself thinking. “Keep an open mind,” you remind yourself, but it’s difficult: you have only a few days before you must make a final decision on the matter. You’ve getting pressure from Dollar General, as well as from political “higher-ups” who Dollar General may or may not have taken out to dinner – via private jet – to choose “for” the project. It’s hard keeping track of how the information provided by these 18 strangers factors into the 20-page brief you were handed by the County Planner ten days ago. How are you supposed to weigh this emotional stuff against the project record – facts, information, technical studies….and CEQA doesn’t have a category for “most significantly heart-wrenching story.….”. What would YOU do?
****
Following is a short list of the ways in which the public can still participate in and/or influence the decision making related to Dollar General in Joshua Tree:
[1] Specifically, page 87.02 of the Development Code states:
For the purpose of this Section, “noncontroversial” shall mean:
(A) That no member of the Development Review Committee objects to the project or any portion of the project;
(B) No specific written request has been received requesting public hearing review of the project from a person notified; and
(C) In the opinion of the Director, there has been no substantial objection to the proposed project from members of the public.
[2] 85.06.040 Findings Required
(a) General findings for all Use Permits (Conditional and Minor). The review authority shall first find and justify that all of the following are true before approving a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit application.
(1) The site for the proposed use is adequate in terms of shape and size to accommodate the proposed use and all landscaping, loading areas, open spaces, parking areas, setbacks, walls and fences, yards, and other required features pertaining to the application.
(2) The site for the proposed use has adequate access, which means that the site design incorporates appropriate street and highway characteristics to serve the proposed use.
(3) The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the allowed use of the abutting property, which means that the use will not generate excessive noise, traffic, vibration, or other disturbance. In addition, the use will not substantially interfere with the present or future ability to use solar energy systems.
(4) The proposed use and manner of development are consistent with the goals, maps, policies, and standards of the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plan.
(5) There is supporting infrastructure, existing or available, consistent with the intensity of development, to accommodate the proposed development without significantly lowering service levels.
(6) The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
(7) The design of the site has considered the potential for the use of solar energy systems and passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
Adopted Ordinance 4011 (2007)
[3] Mail your comment letters to:
[4] Negative Declarations. A lead agency must provide notice of the intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located (CEQA Guidelines §15072). The county clerk must post the notice within 24 hours of receipt. The notice of intent shall provide a review period of not less than 20 days. When submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the review period must not be less than 30 days, unless a shorter review period, of not less than 20 days, is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code §21091). The lead agency must mail the notice of intent to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notice and shall also provide notice in at least one of the following ways to allow time for public review consistent with the previously stated time limits:
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas;
(b) Posting of notice on and off-site in the area where the project is to be located; or
(c) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.