In Praise of the Facts

As mentioned earlier (see posts from Nov. 16th), last Wednesday’s stakeholder meeting was a dismaying one, on many levels. The primary reason was Todd Paradis’ bombshell that they would not consider a rebuild of less than 50,000 sq. ft.

However, that did not come until the end of that meeting. By that point, the group had sat through a presentation of six slides of landscaping and public plaza options that were not connected to any design. No mention was made of either the community’s input or the proposed program (see post Oct. 1) offered from the prior two meetings. It was an insult to the group’s time, efforts, and intelligence, and portrayed the stakeholder process as a manipulative tactic on Safeway’s part. But rather than being honest with those who have given very careful thought and input to this project, and acknowledging the group’s frustrations, Paradis chose to be evasive and rude.

The following are excerpts from an email thread that began on Thursday, Nov. 13, voicing disappointment in the turn the meeting took, and in the realization that this process may have been no more than a sham. As always, Safeway PR continues to claim sensitivity toward the neighbor’s concerns, but as noted below, denigrates such concerns as “complaints” and “attacks” whenever they are raised.

Adele Crady of Claremont Ave wrote first:

It was very sad and unfortunate that Todd found it necessary to communicate his anger so inappropriately by insulting one of our chosen representatives at last night's meeting. While I understand why tempers are beginning to fray, it also seems obvious to me that much of this could have been prevented and the process accelerated if Todd had been willing to communicate (as he was so frequently asked to) the MINIMUM square footage that Safeway would find acceptable.

… If Todd had been forthcoming, if the process had been more transparent, we could all have started talking - a year and ten meetings ago - about the parameters that a 50,000 square foot store would entail.

We could have been discussing and designing a potential store that met Safeway's needs and could conceivably be made aesthetically and environmentally acceptable to the majority of the neighborhood. Failing at that, we could have arrived at an earlier agreement to suggest to Safeway that they simply repaint and clean up the existing store.

… The lack of transparency, the apparent lack of honesty on Todd's part, the pretense that our concerns were being weighed and our chosen representatives were being considered as spokespersons for hundreds of other individuals, the failure on Safeway's part to honestly engage in a dialogue with full disclosure of Safeway's imperative and non-negotiable agenda - these factors have engendered distrust and ill will.

Elisabeth Jewel, whose comments often seem to create larger barriers to progress with their tone and obfuscation, replied by saying:

Todd and I share your sadness that last night’s meeting was marred by unacceptable personal attacks and negativity. Last night, after months of listening to those who choose to speak at the meetings, we presented some design concepts hoping to receive helpful feedback about how you felt about the look and feel of these concepts. We realize now that many of you could not react without knowing the size of the store.

…We had hoped that during the meeting we could get helpful comments that reflected what you did and did not like about the drawings. We were frustrated by some in attendance who chose to complain rather than offer useful comments that could help us move forward. We were gratified that some people took the time to share their thoughts in the spirit of working together toward a common goal of improving the current situation at the site.  

…We are buoyed today by the numerous emails we received from people who attended the meeting asking us to press on and build a new, larger store. We will continue to move forward to come up with a plan that does the best job of addressing Safeway’s needs, city requirements, immediate neighbor sensitivities, traffic impacts, and neighborhood aesthetics.

Todd Paradis followed up with excerpts from five emails supporting the project (see Nov. 16 post). Joe Pasquariello of Hillegass Ave replied:

I know that you have a job to do and it's convenient for you to believe you're struggling against a vocal minority, but it's just not the case. Your consultant has done an admirable job of designing a process that lets you treat the community as if it consists of 7 or 8 people. I understand the value to Safeway of minimizing the input of the neighborhood residents, but you need to accept that there are hundreds of actual people standing behind these representatives. I'm not surprised there are 5 people with other viewpoints, but don't do yourself the disservice of thinking that these people represent a silent majority who are too busy to attend meetings.

Ricardo Hofer of 63rd Street also observed:

First Elisabeth says: "We are buoyed today by the numerous emails we received from people who attended the meeting asking us to press on and build a new, larger store." Her "numerous" turns out to be a grand total of FIVE, as quoted by Todd, not very impressive when compared to the hundreds of signatures that Concerned Neighbors has gathered and the dozens that have spoken up at meetings.  

Cheri Hickman of Alcatraz Ave added the following:

We don't say you don't have any support for a large-scale store. We say that -- as ever -- you seem to actually hear and privilege the few voices in "agreement" with your vague goals and unstated objectives … There is no evidence for wide neighborhood support for your project, most especially because you've yet to come clean with any vision for the store -- its scope, scale, or size. What is it exactly these five people are fully behind in their e-mails?

… You continue to look for some generalized, non-specific expansion agreement, and it has been this way from the beginning. If you find our exasperation, frustration, and suspicion surprising, I can only wonder at your innocence.

That said, I'm sure every neighborhood association and a good many residents who actually live in these neighborhoods will gladly make themselves available to once again express the contents and limits of their support for the transformation of the current site.

…If you wanted meaningful dialogue and actual support around your own goals, it would have been appropriate to state your real goals and work with this community to find ways to make those goals palatable and livable.

…At our last meeting, when you delivered the 50,000 square foot minimum, you also said this would mean rooftop parking, all operations-related functions against the property lines, as well as entrances and exits on Claremont. What room for the community is there in those statements? … Why have you not been developing various visual models for such a store and working with the community, including its architects, to establish viability, common ground, and good will for your goal?

For me, personally, Safeway has yet again demonstrated its inability to be a good neighbor, to understand what that even means to this community, and has hidden its motives and objectives behind a facade of process (& more meetings), undermining -- once again -- our efforts to engage with them toward some mutually beneficial goal. I only hope you have some idea of just how counter-productive and destructive your methods have been.

And finally, Ken Alex followed up by saying:

Cheri's e-mail is nicely stated, and I add my voice to hers. Safeway's proposal violates the zoning for the area, the sense of the community, the flow of the neighborhood, and the needs of the public. The mediation process has been designed by Safeway from the beginning to result in a 50,000 square foot complex, regardless of the input of local architects, merchants, neighbors, and shoppers. The process has been a cynical manipulation. It is unfortunate because Safeway had some amount of goodwill here, with the neighborhood supporting a viable and appropriate remodel on something like the existing footprint. Safeway has squandered that and has signaled that it seeks a fight. That's too bad. I urge Safeway to reconsider.