Eating my words

Yesterday I posted a piece on my dislike for the new Food Access section of the Comp Plan Draft, currently under review by the City Council.  I decided later that the post was more of a rant than a discussion, so I removed it.  I apologize - I took my frustrations out for a spin and I ran into a tree.

There were several items in the Comp Plan Part 2 that I found disturbing, but the Food Access chapter (Pg. 49) seemed the easiest to target.  For many reasons, this one section epipomizes what this blog is all about - changing / transforming the suburbs / our town - into a new, theoretical, "type".   A type that we didn't ask for, and a plan that we now have to fight if we want to preserve the character of our town.  This doesn't mean standing still, only that a great city evolves over time and incorporates citizens into the process - if not directly, at least indirectly - because the layers and layers of government and activist NGOs are pushing so hard to make this transformation happen.

A sample of why this, and other Comp Plan ideas are bothersome to me:

1. New code.  Does anyone know how many pages are in our city's code?  I have heard it's about 1,000, where similar sized cities have less than half that many.  Even our planners are said to have difficulty navigating and interpreting the codes.  Adding anything more is going in the wrong direction.  We should be eliminating codes, not adding or constantly rewriting them.
2. Access to Local Fresh Food.  When did this become the responsibility of government?  Sure it's a good thing to have community gardens for all kinds of reasons, but other than a Parks and Rec program like Luscher Farm, what more should the city do?  It seems like LO has more specialty markets offering local, organic produce per capita than anywhere in the state, so access to local fresh food is not the issue.   
3. What is Local?  I don't care how anyone defines local or where they get their food - it is their choice what to eat and where they get their food.
4. What about the poor?  People who lived through the Great Depression and even the Great Recession would consider any food a blessing!  Have we become so self-obsessed that we must have a certain kind of food, fresh or otherwise, that doesn't come from a grocery store?  Food insecurity used to mean living far from a grocery store or not having enough nutritious food to eat.  Is not having access to local, fresh foods, even from a local grocery store, now considered a problem?  And is this "problem" one that the city government should solve?
5. Land use changes. Code Streamlining that is in draft form and expected to be completed some time next year will allow community gardens anywhere in the city.  Anywhere.  Downtown, Town Centers, in neighborhoods, industrial zones and employment centers... What will the pretty, spiffed up, European Village or Class A offices look like then?  What is the real reason  for the change from a parks program to a city-wide gardening club?  
6. New land uses in residential neighborhoods.  Most of the year, but less in the winter, people would be coming and going to garden plots in residential areas. We don't allow home businesses that generate traffic and parking issues, but gardens are OK?  Who is responsible for taking care of the smells (manure, compost), noise, hours, vandals and visual blight?   
7. Staffing.  If the program is in the Parks Dept., I assume fees cover the costs, and if not they should.  If more staffing is needed, will the fees include the additional cost of employee facilities, salary, benifits and PERS contributions?  Can the city even afford more staff ?
8. Rationale.  Each City Councilor should be able to clearly explain why the city should be involved in Access to Local Foods, and why (or why not) gardens should be located everywhere in the city.  Have the planners explained this to the public and/or the council?  
9. Resiliancy.  It takes about 1/2 acre to feed one person for a year.  For 37,000 people to cope with a major (or even minor) disaster, how many acres would each person need to have in production?  In an all-out calamity, we would need 29 sq. miles to feed everyone.  The city has about 10.5 sq. miles that include a lake, hilly terrain, houses, streets, buildings, natural resources, etc.  How would our city be able to adapt to emergencies or the effects of climate change with community garden plots?
10. Location.  Who asked my neighbors and all the residents if this is what they want for the city?   Who even knows about it?  It would be foolish not to expect some poorly tended spaces and impolite people.  What is the "vision" and is it realistic?
11. Core Services.  This goes for every idea for the city that sounds good or even great on paper - it may be terrible in reality.  Good ideas are likely to be wants than needs. And unintended consequences are the norm.  The bigger the change, the larger the consequences.  Many of our elected officials ran for office on the promise of concentrating resources and focus on core services.  This doesn't mean saying no to community gardens or similar programs, it just may not be implemented in the way people are asking for.  I expect our council to take a laser focus view of all expenditures and ask if each is necessary, and how can the cost be pared down.