No, No, No! The project was a community-owned building housing a farmer's market; NOT a community farmers' market.
A building that was obtained by using members of a depressed community to garner funding and when said funding was obtained, the community was systematically ousted by those who wanted control and take the project in another direction more in keeping with THEIR vision of how things should be, i.e. without the community members they used to get the building and funding for the project. Instead of letting a building lie fallow a community wanted a means to provide farm fresh produce for their members owned by the community. It's as plain as that. I would have felt better if those who wanted control had anted up and bought the building outright and done whatever they wished with it; or bought the church from the United Methodist Conference in the case of Calvary and done whatever they wanted. It's the backdoor, muscling in and mowing down of anyone who gets in our way without actually buying a property that I find unacceptable. Cap that off with the appearance of being community do-gooders and painting those opposed to those tactics as being against the well-being of the community is absolutely over the top. Getting away with it even more so. No one is asking for an apology from you. You already HAVE the main story from those who lived it. You have summarily chosen to accept the version of those who seek to whitewash their deeds and pretend nothing of the sort happened and those who say otherwise are ranting lunatics, hence the request for the "main story." I can accept that if YOU can admit that is how you feel because I have seen so many others do the same thing. At least that would be an honest assertion and perfectly acceptable even though I might not agree with it. On 2/13/09 6:47 PM, "Anthony West" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kimm, Wilma, Karen -- > > I'm insinuating nothing of the sort. I'm asking for information on a > process I wasn't involved in. I've never even lived in Cedar Park > (although I've gone to a lot of parties there). > > I've acknowledged your pain, that can arise from neighborhood politics, > and I'm glad you were all brave enough to do what you did regardless. > The community needs more volunteers like you! But I can't judge what > happened 6 blocks away and 20 years ago, much less apologize for it. > > The question you've interested me in is the main story of what happened > around the Firehouse. It's not "A tough election split a community group > along contentious lines"; it's "A difficult property pushed a community > group into a tough, contentious election". Does anyone have any > information on the main story? > > From this distance, the idea of a "community farmers' market" sounds > odd and must be explained. If we look around Philadelphia today, do we > see any business examples of an aged building that is maintained solely > by rents from farmers? Where did this business model come from in the > first place? > > Supermarkets maintain their buildings by selling 7 days a week, > sometimes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But most farmers can't sell > more than once or twice a week and they're not going to do it 16 hr/di. > Also, farmers run low on produce in winter and spring, while building > costs peak during those seasons. > > I'm no expert. But I spent 60 hr last year selling stuff at a farmers' > market, so I have some judgement. Back in 1988, did anybody in the > "farmers' market" faction have any experience in either food retail or > building management? If so, what was their plan? > > The community can't judge this story 20 years later until it can weigh > these rival business plans, because they lay underlie the social > conflicts that ensued. Social conflicts are important and deserve > respect. But they don't trump business questions when the main story is > a building. Buildings are, first and foremost, businesses. > > -- Tony West > >> Thanks, Kimm. >> >> Basically, what he's insinuating is: 1) that the "east of 49th >> Street" people created the Firehouse Farmers Market through their own >> imagination, foresight, and inventiveness, and did so despite having >> to drag along those "west of 49th Street" people, kicking and >> screaming the whole way; and 2) that were it left up to the "west of >> 49th" folks, the firehouse would have been put to some "ghetto" use >> such as a garage or a storefront church. >> >> Fact is that the "west of 49th Street" people were the ones who came >> up with the idea of a community farmers' market, were the ones who >> circulated petitions, and the ones who supported the idea >> wholeheartedly, only to have the whole thing hijacked by the private >> owner and his "Friends". >> >> >>> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:02:21 -0500 >>> Subject: Re: [UC] History of neighborhood groups >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> >>> Tony, >>> >>> It's not "a very interesting and informative summary." It's a painful, >>> gut-wrenching story. Please don't give Karen's story such short >> shrift. I >>> am considering honoring what Karen just did by telling the story of the >>> Friends of Calvary, which is remarkably similar. But it is hard and >>> painful. What Karen just did is amazing. But you haven't heard a >> word that >>> she said, and she obviously spent an enormous amount of time and >> emotional >>> energy saying it. You just moved on to "the practicality of the WPFHPI." >>> >>> Which is why this neighborhood can't get past this stuff - because >> the folks >>> who need to listen refuse to. And frankly, if that is your reaction, >> then, >>> aside from solidarity with Karen and Wilma, I see little reason to >> invest >>> the time and energy to educate you further. >>> >>> Kimm >>> >>> >>> On 2/12/09 6:55 PM, "Anthony West" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> A very interesting and informative summary, Karen. It certainly >> raises a >>>> new question for every one it answers. >>>> >>>> One is the practicality of the WPFHPI idea in the first place. I >> wasn't >>>> close to the Cedar Park business world in 1988, but what one saw of >>>> Baltimore Ave. then was, left to its own devices, the market would >> have >>>> turned the old firehouse into something like a garage or a storefront >>>> church, that probably would have catered more to the "west of 49th >>>> Street" community. So that move to set up a farmers' market instead -- >>>> was that popular both east and west? >>>> >>>> Does anybody else recall? >>>> >>>> -- Tony West >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> KAREN ALLEN wrote: >>>>> Wilma is correct. I was not on the Firehouse Board, but I was on the >>>>> CPN board in 1988-1990 when this all took place. I don't have as >>>>> intricate knowledge as Wilma does of the Firehouse Board (known >>>>> officially as the West Philadelphia Firehouse Project, Inc or >> WPFHPI), >>>>> but I know a lot of the CPN part of it. I distinctly remember that >>>>> the late Annie Canty, who was then President of CPN, got the City, >>>>> through Councilman Lucien Blackwell's office, to deed the abandoned >>>>> firehouse to CPN for one dollar after the engine company moved to a >>>>> new firehouse at 52nd and Willows. >>>>> >>>>> The plan was to make fresh fruits and vegs available to the >>>>> neighborhood becasue of the lack of grocery stores or markets in the >>>>> surrounding community. It was supposed to be a farmers market, hence >>>>> the name "Firehouse Farmers Market". The market got a grant from the >>>>> state because of the farmers market aspect of the project. There >> was a >>>>> requirement that the market structure be a public/private >> partnership, >>>>> with CPN being the steward of the public interest. But what ended up >>>>> happining was that the private partner was friends with a number of >>>>> people in the neighborhood, and those people became members of >> the CPN >>>>> and Firehouse boards and they tried to manipulate those boards into >>>>> giving the private partner free reign. >>>>> >>>>> Two factions emerged which broke down as those who wanted to preserve >>>>> the vision of the market as being for the community, and those who >>>>> wanted to give the private owner free reign. The "community" >>>>> faction for the most part lived "west of 49th Street" [racial >>>>> code] and was black, while the "private owner" faction lived "east of >>>>> 49th Street" [more racial code] and was pretty much white, so the >>>>> stage was set for a lot of hostility and tension. There were constant >>>>> accusations of undisclosed conflicts of interest and that the >>>>> Firehouse Board was not providing oversight, but was simply >>>>> rubberstamping whatever the owner wanted to do. The accusation was >>>>> also that the private partner's supporters used the black >> community to >>>>> get the building and create the market, but once created, did >>>>> something completely different and wanted to push that community out. >>>>> >>>>> The situation on the CPN Board came to a head with the election for >>>>> President for the 1989-90 Board term. One candidate was a black >>>>> female supported by the community faction and the other was a white >>>>> male supported by the private owner faction. There was an active >>>>> election campaign, unusual by community association election >>>>> standards: There were editorial letters, fliers, community newspapers >>>>> etc, covering the issue as one of who would control the destiny >> of the >>>>> Firehouse Market: would it benefit the community or private >> interests? >>>>> >>>>> The election came and something like 300 people showed up, a record >>>>> never seen before or since. The "private owner" candidate won, but >>>>> then came allegations of election fraud because someone among the >>>>> other Board candidates on the ballot helped count the votes with the >>>>> current Board President, who was a private owner supporter. >>>>> >>>>> While that contorversy raged, then came a bombshell. Just before the >>>>> election, I aked my then-next door neighbor, who was white, if >> she was >>>>> going to come vote in the CPN election, and she made an offhand >>>>> reference that she already knew because she had gotten "the flier" at >>>>> her door from someone in the neighborhood. I thought it was odd, >>>>> because I didn't know anything about a flier and because my neighbor >>>>> got a visit and a flier and I didn't. I asked if she still had >> it, but >>>>> by then she had thrown it out. Once the vote controversy emerged, I >>>>> started asking around, and finally someone I was allied with spoke to >>>>> a white neighbor of hers, who did not want to be involved, but did >>>>> direct her to look in the bags of trash set out on the curb. >>>>> >>>>> The flier supported the private owner candidate, and contained coded >>>>> racial language. All of the people who would admit to receiving one >>>>> were white. No one who was black knew anything about it. This led >> to a >>>>> big contentious meeting where everyone was in an uproar. The people >>>>> behind the fliers were identified, and our complaint was that the >>>>> flier was racist because of the language and because it was >> circulated >>>>> in secret to only white community members. >>>>> >>>>> One of the defenders of the flier pointed out that a black person who >>>>> published his own community newspaper was openly advocating for the >>>>> community candidate, and that the defender had the same First >>>>> Amendment right to distribute the flier. I responded to her that >> while >>>>> she had a right to distribute a flier, why would she have it >>>>> distrtibuted selectively? Why would my neighbor get one and not me? >>>>> Why did it seem like only white people got it? I pointed out that the >>>>> publisher made his views known to all who wished to read them, and >>>>> that he didn't excercise his First Amendment rights in secret to a >>>>> select audience. >>>>> >>>>> Tensions were so high that it was decided to throw out the election >>>>> results and after research done by two lawyers on the CPN Board, it >>>>> was decided that the two presidential candidates would serve as >>>>> "co-presidents". >>>>> >>>>> The Firehouse Market continued to be a bone of contention right up to >>>>> when CPN ended up selling its interest to the private owner in 1998. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >>>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see >>>> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see >>> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. >> > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
