Land Assistance Fund
Epes, Alabama

Contact: Gus Townes, Director; Rural Training and Research Center; P.O. Box 95; Epes, AL 35460; Tel: (205) 652-9676

Scope: Statewide. 

Inception Date: 1971 

Participants: Cooperatives, individuals, farmers 

Project Type: Environmental justice/equity, sustainable agriculture, community economic development

Methods Used: Training, cooperative development

Lessons Learned: It is difficult for organizations to conduct long term planning when the funding available to them may change considerably from year to year. Family farmers can make a living if they have access to the right skills and resources.

Since 1967, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund has organized a multi-racial, community-based cooperative economic movement among 25,000 low income families in over 100 communities throughout the rural South. Through its efforts, the Federation and its 125 member cooperatives and credit unions have worked to generate new income, jobs, services, training, awareness and a spirit of self-help and change for people in some of the most persistently poverty-stricken rural counties in the United States. 

The cooperative movement

The Federation itself is a cooperative that is composed of both organizational and individual members. Nearly all of the member cooperatives were originally founded by the Federation and then spun off as separate organizations. Cooperative members in Alabama include the Freedom Quilting Bee, the Tuskegee Panola Land Buying Association, the Prichard Claiborne Catfish Cooperative, and the York Marengo County Farmers Association.

The mission of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives is two-fold: One, to help poor people help themselves. Two, to adapt the classic cooperative principles—membership, one person-one vote, benefits returned according to use and participation, limited returns on investment, constant education and constant expansion—to solving the problems of poor black farmers and rural communities.

Helping black farmers stay on the land

The Federation is the leading group in the nation actively involved with the problems of land loss and displacement of family farmers of color. Black farmers are still losing land at an alarming rate in the South, although in the counties where the Federation is active they have significantly reduced the rate of loss.

According to the Federation, land retention is the key to rural economic development, especially for African-Americans. There are few other viable options for residents, especially young people, in the rural south. Furthermore, when land is lost by farmers and developed for other uses the results often include negative environmental impacts.

In 1993-94, the Federation provided direct land retention assistance to over two hundred landowners who owned a combined total of over 24,000 acres of land. Of that amount, they were able to save nearly 17,500 acres that have a conservative value of $8.75 million. The Federation also held over 400 community meetings and workshops across the rural South for more than 5,000 small family farmers who collectively own over 300,000 acres.

Strengthening and connecting rural and urban communities

The Rural/Urban Market Program helps black farmers retain their land by providing them with a source of consistent income. The program connects rural farmers lacking access to markets with residents in inner cities where quality, fresh, nutritious produce is not always available for a reasonable price.

In 1994, approximately 800 family farmers from throughout the South and 200 farmers in Alabama participated in the Rural to Urban Direct Marketing Project. Participating farmers sold over $300,000 in produce through Rural/Urban markets throughout the south. In addition, many of the markets provided part-time jobs for youths and other community residents.

The Federation also organizes farmers to participate in selling to commercial markets. In 1994, over $1.4 million in produce was sold to commercial markets. Many of the farmers that the Federation works with have been organic farmers for years but did not know that they could make more money by marketing their crops as organic. The Federation is showing farmers how to shift from chemical-based to sustainable farming and how to market organic agricultural products.

Community owned and controlled banking

The Federation's five credit unions in Alabama have combined assets of over $700,000, over 2,200 members and have made nearly $6 million in loans. During 1994, a new community development credit union, the Stillman Community Federal Credit Union in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama was chartered by the National Credit Union Administration. During its first week of operation, $60,000 was deposited by new members. The Federation is currently applying for charters for five more credit unions in Alabama.

Unlike conventional banks, credit unions are controlled by their members. Depositors elect the members of the board and the different committees that govern the credit unions. The Federation's credit unions make loans to people in the community who often cannot get loans from other sources. According to Gus Townes, Director of the Federation's Rural Training and Research Center, "The credit unions are not only financial institutions but also are vehicles to pull people together and force them to plan about community issues and organize around other issues."

Cooperative training and leadership development

In 1971, the Federation established the Rural Training Center on almost 1,000 acres near Epes in Sumter County, Alabama. The Center provides training to individual and cooperative members in the following areas:

• • • Cooperative Economic Development,

• • • Operation and Management of Credit Unions,

• • • Specific skill areas for Agricultural, Handicraft and Consumer Cooperatives,

• • • Housing production, development, rehabilitation and weatherization,

• • • Youth development and leadership,

• • • Business development and loan packaging,

• • • Community organizing and development,

• • • Agricultural marketing.

Approximately 30 people each month and 350 to 400 people each year will be trained at the Center when renovations are completed in late 1995.

Rural Enterprise Community (EC)

Greene and Sumter Counties in Alabama were among 30 rural areas designated as federal Enterprise Communities based on a proposal submitted earlier in the year by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives on behalf of the county governments and community groups.

The Federation will serve as the lead agency in administering approximately three million dollars in EC funds. Three flexible funds will be established with $2.6 million:_a Revolving Loan and Equity Investment Fund ($1.5 million), an Infrastructure Investment Fund ($500,000) and an Education, Training and Supportive Services Fund ($600,000) to facilitate moving the EC area forward in a positive direction.

The primary purpose of the Enterprise Community is to provide business opportunities and create 1,000 jobs over 10 years in Sumter and Greene Counties, as well as to provide infrastructure funds to rural towns in the two county area.

Consistent funding a problem

According to Gus Townes, the biggest barrier to the Federation's success is consistent funding. "Getting people to understand exactly what our mission is and getting funding on a consistent basis, those are our challenges. We never have been able to get a substantial amount of funding for five or ten years. If we knew we would have funding for the next five or ten years, we wouldn't have to cut corners and we could hire sufficient staff." The Federation is attempting to overcome this problem by moving toward greater reliance on self-generated resources from its membership and from the communities it serves.

Showing farmers how to be successful

The Federation has a history of showing small family farmers how they can make a living and stay on their land. 

"The challenge is how to take a farmer and move him from point a to point b," says Gus Townes. "We've been doing the same thing for almost thirty years. What we have done demonstrates the need for this kind of thing and that if a person really wants to do something they can— with the right resources. If a farmer really wants to farm and make money and hold onto his land, there's a way to do that."

Alaska Citizen Initiatives

Sitka and Wrangell, Alaska

Contacts: Sitka- Larry Edwards; P.O. Box 6000; Sitka, Alaska 99835; Tel.: (907) 747-8996

Wrangell- Bob Gorman, District Agent; Alaska Cooperative Extension Service; 1297 Seward Avenue; Sitka, Alaska 99835; Tel.: (907) 747-6065

Scope: Town/rural; 

Inception Date: Sitka -1993 Wrangell - 1991; 

Participants: Townspeople, fishermen, loggers, Native Americans; 

Project Type: Citizen-led initiatives, natural resource conservation, local business development; 

Methods Used: Public education, local organizing and planning, collaboration with other jurisdictions; 

Lessons Learned: Public processes need to be inclusive. Anticipatory planning works best. Participatory processes help citizens develop new perspectives. 

Sitka

The town of Sitka, located in southeast Alaska on the coast of Baranof Island, was the first capital of Alaska. This deep water port of 8500 residents is set against a backdrop of mountains to the east and Sitka Sound to the west. Many on this island and neighboring islands rely on the bay and the forests for their subsistence. Other residents depended on employment at a local pulp mill. For years, it was the town's largest single employer of 400 people. 

Two years ago, the Alaska Pulp plant was closed down. Local officials and residents alike feared the worst, anticipating economic collapse and high unemployment. The city administration took a traditional route in devising an economic recovery plan. It formed a task force and held meetings to decide what the future of the community might be and to develop a set of recommendations, which included attracting another large employer.

In contrast, the reaction of many citizens proved to be quite different. Initially they too were concerned about the loss of the mill on their jobs and Sitka's economic future. As time went on, they became more interested in developing an economy that was more diverse as well as environmentally sound. They wanted more small businesses employing a few employees rather than large single businesses that might have an adverse affect on the environment. 

Recent economic trends

Despite the initial gloomy predictions from local officials after the mill closed, the town has continued to prosper — tax revenues are $85,000 higher than expected, housing starts are up, business revenues and startups have increased, land values are higher, and job creation is strong as evidenced by the public health hospital planned expansion with new jobs for 160 people. Although the timber industry is declining, other economic areas are expanding. Tourism is now a billion dollar per year industry in Alaska and an important part of Sitka's economy. Small businesses, health care and especially construction are growing. Since the plant was closed, air and water quality have improved substantially.

Citizen initiatives

In early 1994 a citizens comprehensive plan was developed to help citizens envision their future and make recommendations to the City Council. It has informally prompted a series of citizen action steps.

Many citizens are seeking a diversified economy that produces jobs while protecting the environment. They emphasize the need for:

are looking at examples of businesses that are, according to Kathie Wasserman, the director of a new marketing alliance for value-added products, "forest-related, not timber-dependent." It would correspond to the work of WoodNet, located in Washington state, which supports a collaborative effort among artists, artisans and timber interests. Other examples of value-added enterprises would include a company in Vancouver that produces wooden outdoor furniture and has created 20 jobs using as little as 500,000 board feet per year. 

One of the grassroots organizations, Friends of Southeast's Future, is taking steps to insure that sustainable logging practices are employed. They have drafted, circulated and presented the town's first citizens' initiative, scheduled for inclusion on the ballot this fall, which will call for a change in timber extraction practices. Specifically, it calls for an end to clearcutting and to all comparable logging methods in the "Sitka Local Use Area" in order to prevent habitat destruction.

Maintaining ecosystems and protecting habitat is especially important for natives and non-natives alike who subsist on game and fish. The livelihood of commercial fishermen is at stake as well. They catch as much as 800,000 pounds of salmon each year and are equally dependent on maintaining a clean environment. Any major impact, such as deforestation, affects their survival.

This wholly grassroots effort has taken this initiative directly to the people of Sitka and has been effective in publicizing it in the local paper, on radio and television spots, and through word of mouth. They are persuaded that this effort is critical to assuring a sustainable future for their community. 

Citizens from all walks of life have gathered signatures from their neighbors, in stores, at schools and even from fellow fishermen on the water, in numbers far more numerous than required by law. If the initiative receives a majority of votes, it will have legal authority. 

This initiative and the process citizens are employing is proving to be an inspiration for other small communities in Southeast Alaska such as Craig, Elfin Cove, Gustavus, Hoonah, Kiawock, Kupreanof, Pelican, Tenakee Springs, Yakutat, and the Haida Tribe/Hydaburg Cooperative Association. They are also developing resolutions, with similar emphasis, for adoption in their jurisdictions. 

Wrangell 2001 

The potential loss of a saw mill, which in fact closed in 1994, also prompted this fishing and timbering town of 2,300 located at the middle of the Panhandle in Southeast Alaska to reexamine its future. Local townspeople came together to address their needs and to develop a plan that was different from their traditional reliance on logging. 

Beginning in 1991, a series of strategic planning meetings were held involving a broad cross-section of the townspeople from business, government, fishing, health care facilities, schools, the former mill, and from native tribes. This effort was coordinated by Bob Gorman, district agent for the Alaskan Cooperative Extension Service and Keene Kohrt, Wrangell district Ranger for the US Forest Service.

The goal of these meetings was to encourage the expression of the vision and ideas of the stakeholders. They attracted a large number of residents with diverse points of view. After the first year of meetings, in order to gather a wider input of opinions, the organizers solicited views through a community survey on economic, infrastructure, and socio-economic issues. 

Some of the issues the respondents considered as priorities were ways to enhance the fishing industry, maintain timber interests, provide education for all, expand the visitors' center, and improve the infrastructure. The discussion ground rules were clearly presented to insure respect and full consideration of all views. The main recommendations include:

• • • opportunities for small businesses engaged in value-added specialty products;

• • • a unified approach to dealing with naturalresource issues;

• • • support services for the fishing industry to encourage fishermen and fish processors to stay in Wrangell.

Apart from developing the action plan of economic diversification focusing on timber, fishing, tourism, and a strengthened infrastructure for fisheries, they convinced the City Council to hire an economic development planner to help implement the plan. Another benefit for the community was a generation trained in leadership and facilitating skills. They learned the importance of working together, developing consensus, and thinking long-term. Bob Gorman stated the most important aspect of this effort, and that of Sitka, has been the process.

Challenges

The residents of both Sitka and Wrangell have chosen to take an active part in rebuilding their economy in ways that look at the long-term health of their communities. These are new concepts and ones that require the participation of all the stakeholders. Perhaps the greatest challenge in Sitka is finding consensus on its economic future. Wrangell faces a similar situation but rebuilding a solid economic base may take more time. As a result of both these planning processes the future will reflect the vision of many rather than a few.

Civano-tucson solar village

Tucson, arizona

Contact: John Laswick, Project Manager; City of Tucson; Tel.: (520) 791-5093; Fax: (520) 791-5413; Office of Economic Development; P.O. Box 27210; Tucson, AZ 85726-7210

Scope: Local, urban 

Inception Date: 1989

Participants: Local, county, state and federal government agencies, key utilities, citizens groups and individuals, and a university

Project Type: Community design, energy efficiency, green building

Methods Used: Multi-stakeholder process with extensive involvement of public and private agencies and organizations in an innovative planning process; preparation of master development plan and zoning ordinance revisions, preparation of performance targets, selection of master developer, provision for community monitoring of performance. 

Lessons Learned: The lack of a full-time advocate for the project has slowed down its progress.

Summary of Project

The Civano Tucson Solar Village (Civano) is a major real estate development that will be built using the principles of sustainable development and traditional neighborhood design. Planned for 820 acres (owned by the Arizona State Land Department within the southeastern city limits of Tucson, Arizona), Civano is intended to be an exemplary demonstration of cost-effective, resource-efficient development practices, where energy use and waste will be reduced while economic efficiency is increased. The overarching goal of the Civano project is to demonstrate the marketability of sustainable community design, on a large scale at affordable prices. Specific objectives are to:

• • • build a model sustainable community for an arid climate;

• • • use sun energy, conserve water, use land efficiently, reduce waste products and conserve time;

• • • promote a sense of community and place; and

• • • demonstrate that conservation can be both economic-ally viable and socially relevant.

The village is planned around a compact core with a full mix of employment opportunities, shops, services and recreational activities. Both homes and multi-family dwellings will be built and will accommodate persons with a wide range of incomes.

Broad Public / Private Partnership Creates Civano

Civano was originally a joint project of the Tucson-Pima County Metropolitan Energy Commission and the State of Arizona Energy Office. The project is currently being managed by the City of Tucson Office of Economic Development. Active planning for the project began in 1989 and involved the creation of a Master Development Plan presented in February 1992. It is expected that the state land will be sold during the Fall of 1995 to a private master developer, who will agree to the designated performance standards. Zoning is approved for the project. Civano was planned in a highly cooperative framework of public, private, and community interests at the local, state and national levels. Organizations involved in the process, past and present, include: City of Tucson (key agencies), Civano Advisory Committee (composed of 16 community advocates and business people), citizens groups and representatives of Metropolitan Tucson, the U.S. Department of Energy's Urban Consortium Task Force, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Solar Energy Advisory Council, Environmental Research Lab, Greater Tucson Economic Council, National Research Center, National Association of Home Builders, Pima County, P&D Technologies, Community Design Associates, The Planning Center, Public Technologies Inc., Sandia National Labs, Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, Tucson Local Development Corporation, Tucson Electric Power, University of Arizona, Greater Tucson Economic Council, County Wastewater Management, Sun Tran, Pima Association of Government, and Southwest Gas.

Performance Targets

Key to the Civano Village concept are the performance targets developed for the village. The original targets, as expressed in the 1992 Master Plan, are to: 

• • • reduce energy consumption by 75%;

• • • reduce the consumption of water by 65%; 

• • • reduce the production of solid waste by 90%; 

• • • reduce air pollution by 40%;

• • • provide one job for every two residential units built; 

• • • limit auto access by developing an internal transporta-tion circulation pattern that encourages pedestrian and bicycle, or (with permit) electric golf cart; and

• • • provide affordable housing within the village.

In 1994, updated performance targets and the requirements/guidelines for meeting them were developed for the city by a team of leading U.S. environmental specialists, Criterion Planners/ Engineers and McKeever/Morris, Inc. of Portland, Ore., and their subcontractor, the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems of Austin, Texas. The teams approach is referred to as the IMPACT system (Integrated Method of Performance and Contribution Tracking), which is a means of organizing resource efficiency goals and stakeholder cooperation for sustainable community development, and for measuring progress toward those goals over time. The general goals for the targets are presented, for the most part, in terms of "reducing (energy, water, etc.) demands beneath Metropolitan Tucson baseline levels." Specific detail is presented for each. In the case of energy, targets are broken down according to building type. The goals and targets will be updated every two years.

Each goal is accompanied by building requirements designed to help achieve the performance target. A sampling of requirements (as worded) in the plan, includes: 

• • • Street and lots are to be designed so that all structures can be oriented to optimize solar exposure;

• • • Landscape and hardscape coloration and vegetation is to be used to reduce microclimate temperatures adjacent to buildings. The average reflectivity of all major exterior surfaces must be 0.5 or greater on the albedo scale;

• • • Consideration will be given to district heating and cooling of the Villages high-density core areas; and

• • • All landscape irrigation will be accomplished with non-potable water and / or rain harvesting.

In summary, the guidelines also require the: 

• • • use of solar technologies in building construction, including the use of shading, daylighting, and high performance windows.

• • • layout of the village and the design of individual buildings that anticipates the future economic use of photovoltaic energy generation; a land set-aside for a photovoltaic field and using building designs that can accommodate solar equipment in the future.

• • • use of city xeriscaping standards in the village to save water; the use of high-efficiency irrigation systems, normally located below grade, and the use of water conservation standards for fixtures and appliances.

• • • developers to contribute to the reduction of solid waste by providing land that is set-aside for a Recycling Center and community composting facility; builders to provide recycling separation areas and hazardous material storage in private homes; and the use of recycled building materials and recycled materials in roadway and pathway construction wherever possible.

• • • limited use of automobiles to reduce air pollution by: using through streets rather than cul-de-sacs; requiring all streets to have either sidewalks or parallel bike or multi-purpose paths; locating retail services and employment areas near residences; creating residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-friendly, with tree canopies, benches, and signage; the use of bicycles and electric carts; siting recharging stations for electric vehicles within the village; and, providing a shuttle service from the village to the nearest transit stop or park and ride lot.

• • • emphasis on local employment, with the requirement that a percentage of commercial space be constructed for every residential unit (the goal is that the local business district employ a minimum of 1200 people). Builders are encouraged to provide home office spaces in residential units with appropriate space, daylighting, and electrical connections. 

• • • wide mix of housing types, including multi-family housing, in the core area closest to the central commercial area, with the overall requirement is that 20% of the units be priced for low-income households.

Compliance

The methods that have been developed to achieve the environmental performance goals are the most innovative aspect of this ambitious program. The Civano Community Association (CCA), to be composed of future village residents, and its CCA Development Review Committee, will share the responsibility with the City of Tucson for monitoring and approving builder performance in meeting the standards. The "Performance Target Compliance Workbook," based upon the "Measurement and Implementation Plan," is intended to help land developers and builders achieve the goals and targets of Civano. It will also be used by the City of Tucson and the Civano Community Association to check compliance and determine whether land development and building permits should be granted. The city is working with educational institutions, utility companies and industry associations to develop an educational program that will be used as part of a process to certify builders and designers for work on Civano and to meet its performance standards. The city also plans to make this program available to other construction projects anywhere in the Tucson area, on a voluntary basis, as soon as possible.

Making Vision a Reality

The development of this visionary project has spanned six years, and is going into its seventh. The plan called for the sale of the land to a master developer a year ago, which did not materialize: The states goal to get top dollar for the land may be a barrier to finding a buyer. The project, which hit a lull as a result, is moving forward once again. The city's Office of Economic Development has ordered a new marketing study, is developing a high quality advertising brochure to meet the needs of potential master developers, builders, and consumers, and is completing the review and approval of the performance standards, with the goal of finding a buyer/master developer in the Fall of 1995. 

Meadowcreek local food project 

Fox, Arkansas

Contact: Gary Valen, Executive Director; Meadowcreek, Inc.; 1 Meadowcreek Lane; P.O. Box 100; Fox, AK 72051; Tel.: (501) 363-4500; Fax: (501) 363-4578

Scope: Local/county, urban/rural 

Inception Date: 1986

Participants: Farmers, gardeners, livestock producers, food service oerators, local consumers, transportation operators, canning kitchen and restaurant workers, local governments, service clubs, non-profits and Chambers of Commerce

Project Type: Economic development, food production, value added business, local marketing 

Methods Used: Demonstration projects, education, training

Lessons Learned: The need for cooperation among producers and consumers to overcome institutional barriers; inflexible bidding requirements keep state school from participating.

Summary of Project 

The Meadowcreek Local Food Project links institutional food services (such as cafeterias or restaurants) to local sources of food. It utilizes a holistic and comprehensive approach, based on sustainable community development principles. The overarching objectives of the program are rural community revival and the reestablishment of food production as a meaningful, profitable, and desirable occupation. Goals of the program are to:

• • • provide occupations for rural people

• • • connect consumers with persons who grow food in the local community;

• • • promote agricultural methods that are healthy to the consumer, environmentally-sensitive, and humane to farm animals and wildlife;

• • • empower institutions with food service operations to support community development through the purchase of food items from local sources; and

• • • feature local food items in area supermarkets, food outlets, and eating establishments.

The benefits derived from Local Food Projects include: 

• • • fresher, healthier sources of food for food-service patrons; 

• • • new markets for farmers, which help sustain the small- farm way of life; 

• • • new partnerships among groups within the community; and 

• • • an infusion of money into the local economy, money that can be reinvested in the community many times over. 

Project Sponsor

The project sponsor, Meadowcreek, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) organization. Its outreach programs focus on sustainable community development, environmental concepts and practices, and alternative energy strategies and implementation. Headquartered in the Ozark Mountains, its facilities serve as an education and conference center. On its 1500 acres, Meadowcreek also demonstrates local food production, environmentally sensitive lifestyles, alternative energy methods, and rural community development. Meadowcreek, Inc., derives most of its income from the use of its facilities for conferences, retreats, and youth programs. The use of its own food products provides an income from the garden as well as from the food operation. It received major financial support (which is currently winding down) for three years from the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Oklahoma. A portion of the Local Food Project is sustained by the everyday activities at Meadowcreek. The projects described below—Hendrix College and the Leslie community project—received, or are receiving initial sponsorship from private foundations, the Rural Economic and Community Development Services of USDA, and private donations. The Hendrix project is self-sustaining. The Leslie project is designed to be so within three years.

College Supports Local Economic Development

In 1986, Meadowcreek, in cooperation with Hendrix College in Conway, Ark., began a collaboration that led the college to establish the Hendrix Local Food Project. Students, as part of a campus wellness program, focused on student nutrition and conducted a study that gathered information on the sources of the food served at Hendrix. They discovered that wholesalers filled campus food orders with products obtained from across the United States and Mexico, with only seven percent of the cafeterias meal items coming from Arkansas. Meat, vegetables, and dairy products came from long distances, even though such commodities were produced within a few miles of the campus. Hendrix, a private, four-year liberal arts college, is "committed to encouraging not only the intellectual development of the state's young people, but also the economic development of its home community and the state as a whole." 

So the administration took the position that commodities produced locally were preferred to those produced outside the state and, in June 1987, directed the food service to buy its food supplies as close to home as possible. 

Challenges Met With a Variety of Strategies

Following through on this good intention presented some immediate challenges, including a kitchen that was organized and equipped to use mainly processed foods, and farmers that weren't prepared to supply products in the form and amounts needed by an institutional food service. Local foods were actually more expensive, especially if they carried the "organic" label. Students raised on fast foods (common meal choices in the modern era of working families, shopping malls, and large institutional foods operations) had to readjust their tastes. These barriers required strategies to educate the producers, consumers, and meal preparers. New systems and procedures had to be developed to facilitate the use of local commodities. The Hendrix Local Food Project was successfully created to meet those needs. The project was directed by a coordinator and a small advisory group so that problems could be addressed and new ideas incorporated. Strategies implemented included:

• • • preparing menu plans that utilized food from local producers;

• • • preparing a list of menu items at the beginning of the season so the farmers could adjust their production to a known market;

• • • designating one farmer as the delivery person so that the local produce arrived on one day each week at the food service; and

• • • labeling menu items so the students would know what came from local sources, as well as nutritional information.

The college, with the advice and help of Meadowcreek, was able to bring its utilization of local food from seven percent to thirty percent in three years. As a result, over $200,000 in food-generated revenues were spent in the local community each year. The yield would have been higher if permanent distribution systems and more farmers could have been added. The Hendrix Local Food Project, while it is still in effect, is challenged by the lack of a community-based supply system and the failure, as of yet, to gain support from other institutions in the same area. A state school in the same community is unable to utilize local produce due to a complicated bid structure mandated by state government. Although the Hendrix Local Food Project experienced success, projects at several other colleges have remained less successful at overcoming the barriers of food service personnel resistance, distribution problems, and the lack of producers who can supply commodities at the times and in the ways that are useful to institutional dining operations. College administrators tend to view their dining halls as auxiliary services that have little relationship with educational missions. Most institutions hire outside vendors who have special relationships with large food distribution companies. Local farmers seldom gain access to these nationally organized markets. To be successful, local food projects require an interdisciplinary/cross-sectoral team approach. In the case of Hendrix, the team included the college's administration, the food-service's administration, kitchen staff, patrons (students, faculty, staff), funding agencies, rural development leaders, agricultural extension service agents and farmers and farmer groups. Students were integral to the success of the Hendrix project. The project provided a vehicle for hands-on experience in research, market analysis, agricultural production techniques, reporting, institutional food systems, and community development.

Next Steps

The Meadowcreek Local Food Project is now entering its next stage of development through a community-based project that will link producers and consumers in a three county area of the Ozark Mountain region of Arkansas. The area, the location of Meadowcreek, qualifies as an economically distressed region by almost every criteria. The new project will begin with a restaurant and organic canning kitchen combination in the small tourist town of Leslie. The restaurant will feature menu items that utilize locally raised or grown organic foods. Patrons will be area residents and tourists who frequent the Ozark region. During the late evening or slow times the kitchen of the restaurant will be used to can organic food items for marketing and distribution to other outlets such as schools, grocery stores, hospitals, and industrial plants. Additional food operations will be located in other areas of the three county region. Several school districts plan to operate gardens on the school grounds as a learning device for students and a source of menu items for their cafeterias. Already, the increased production of local foods has stimulated new farmers markets and the potential of a community supported agricultural (CSA) project. Meanwhile, Meadowcreek has joined forces with another non-profit organization to work on the Leslie component of the Local Food Project. Six VISTA Volunteers are working on the project to promote the concept in the region and to implement the various stages of development for the restaurant and canning kitchen. The VISTA Volunteers have found high levels of support for the local food concept among leaders and other residents of the region. The list of farmers interested in supplying food products to the initiative continues to grow. Meadowcreek will be able to ease the Leslie process with the lessons learned from its experience with the Hendrix College Local Food Project and its own kitchen/food operation. The Leslie project will in turn serve as a model for other communities. The Meadowcreek Local Food Projects manual—Local Food Production for Local Needs: a Manual for the Analysis of a College or University Food Service—will be available early Fall 1995. Other materials specifically on the Hendrix experience are also available through Meadowcreek.

Santa Monica sustainable city program

Santa Monica, California

Contact: Craig Perkins, Director; Tel.: (310) 458-8221; Fax: (310) 576-3598; City of Santa Monica; Environmental Programs Division; 200 Santa Monica Pier; Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dean Kubani, Administrative Analyst; Tel.: (310) 458-8972; Fax: (310) 393-1279

Scope: Local, urban

Inception Date: August 1991

Participants: Volunteer Citizen Task Force, City Departments, City Council, Santa Monica citizens

Project Type: Sustainable indicators, natural resource conservation, public education 

Methods Used: Task Force with diverse fields of expertise, public survey, neighborhood presentations on program and community participation in revisions/recommendations, draft report for public comment, defining benchmarks and indicators of sustainability

Lessons Learned: Through a multi-stakeholder process and strong local government leadership and example, much can be done without changing laws.

Summary of Project 

In August 1991, the City Council of Santa Monica established the Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment as a working group comprised of seven volunteer citizens. They were nominated by city staff and City Council members based upon their specific expertise in environmental issues. Working with staff from the city's Department of Environmental and Public Works Management, Environmental Programs Division, the Task Force identified sustainability as a fundamental vision to guide the city's environmental policies and programs. The Task Force then worked to create the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program, with the purpose of providing the city with a coordinated, proactive approach to implementing the city's existing and planned environmental programs.

Developing Community Consensus

Over a year and a half, the Task Force sponsored an extensive period of public review, community outreach, and consensus-building related to the Sustainable City Program. The draft of the proposed program was initially distributed to City Council, city departments, Housing and Planning Commissioners, Chamber of Commerce Environment Committee members, and interested citizens. A formal survey process, designed to identify areas of consensus, was conducted through a mailed questionnaire. A larger community-based public participation process was conducted with the assistance of the Neighborhood Support Center. A community-wide meeting held on June 2, 1994 generated participation from over 100 Santa Monica citizens. Task Force members also made presentations at annual and/or board meetings of most of the city's neighborhood associations. The revised program document was made available for public comment. Final revisions to the document incorporated and addressed the several hundred responses received. On September 20, 1994, the City Council officially adopted the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program founded on eight guiding principles:

• • • The concept of sustainability guides city policy;

• • • Protection, preservation and restoration of the natural environment is a high priority of the city;

• • • Environmental quality and economic health are mutually dependent;

• • • All decisions have environmental implications;

• • • Community awareness, responsibility, involvement and education are key elements of successful programs/ policies;

• • • Santa Monica recognizes its linkage with the regional, national, and global community;

• • • Those environmental issues most important to the community, should be addressed first, and the most cost- effective programs and policies should be selected; and

• • • The city is committed to procurement decisions that minimize negative environmental and social impacts.

The Sustainable City Program is carried out in four major policy areas, representing the focus of both current and future city programs that adhere to the guiding principles and strive to attain specific targets established for each area. The policy areas include: 

• • • Community and Economic Development;

• • • Transportation;

• • • Pollution Prevention and Public Health Protection; and,

• • • Resource Conservation.

Program Development

One of the first successes of the Sustainable City Program was establishing the Household Hazardous Waste Consumer Awareness Ordinance, also called the "Labeling Ordinance." To discourage dumping of hazardous waste, the Sustainable City Program brought retailers, city officials, and community members together to develop the Labeling Ordinance. It requires retailers to display labels that educate consumers on hazardous waste and encourages the use of non-hazardous substitutes. The Sustainable City Program will conduct public surveys to determine the success of the labeling. Other programs that are in progress include a comprehensive energy retrofitting of all city facilities and a sustainable schools project. A working group of the Sustainable City Program is defining sustainable construction guidelines for the civic center redevelopment project. These regulations will then be applied to all future city construction. Other projects include an environmental awards program for businesses and an environmental audit (including water, energy, recycling and waste evaluations) of businesses that is provided by the city for free. 

Indicators of Effectiveness

To assess the programs effectiveness, benchmarks and quantifiable targets for measuring progress were established. Sixteen specific targets, or sustainability indicators, were selected. Each indicator has a base year value in 1990, a 1993 value and an assigned target for the year 2000. For example in 1990, water use was 14.3 million gallons per day (gpd), in 1993 it was 12 million gpd and the year 2000 target is 11.4 million gpd. As work continues on the Sustainable City Program, it is envisioned that new indicators will be added and existing indicators will need to be revised or replaced.

The Task Force on the Environment and the city staff will prepare an Annual Sustainable City Report for the City Council that will assess progress made during the past year, evaluate overall program effectiveness, and recommend any program modifications that might be necessary. The Sustainable City Program is presently collecting data and developing measures of achievement for the first Annual Report to be submitted September 20, 1995. 

City to Set Example

The Task Force on the Environment and many others in the community believe that city operations themselves should be the first to take the practical steps toward sustainability. The city will serve as a model for other institutions and organizations in the community as well as for other cities in the region and nation. In its first year of implementation, the Sustainable City Programs Procurement Working Group has developed a checklist to be utilized by all city departments to ensure that broad environmental implications of decisions are considered, and that decision-making occurs in conjunction with its goals. The checklist targets three areas that encompass sustainability issues in the city decision-making process: purchasing, construction and development, and programs and services. 

Within each area, a decision tree categorizes the type of decisions and subcategories with a list of specific considerations important to the process. For purchasing durable and consumable goods, for example, the list of considerations includes cost, effectiveness, durability, recyclability, material source (virgin or recycled), resources used during manufacturing, local economic benefits and existing city purchasing guidelines. Once complete, the checklist will be supported by two databases. The first will provide city departments with information on environmentally acceptable products, suppliers, consultants, sustainable policy options, best available technologies and best management practices. The second database will include existing and proposed city regulations, and policies as well as environmental and sustainability considerations. 

A Volunteer Effort

Up to this point, the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program has operated without a formal budget. Task Force members work as volunteers and administrative overhead has been absorbed by the Environmental Programs Division of the City of Santa Monica. Because the program designs new policies for existing city programs, the costs of implementation are being covered by each individual department. The projects implemented under the program, such as water usage reduction and waste reduction have already resulted in an overall savings for the city. 

Funding for non-city projects is being secured from foundations and other forms of grant support. For instance, the Santa Moncia Bay Restoration Project will fund an educational project on urban runoff and bay contamination. 

The lack of a formal budget has restricted the number of personnel who can work directly on the program. To alleviate this problem, the program has developed a working group with individuals from all city departments who will assist with data collection and evaluation of progress for the annual report. 

Key to the continued success of this project has been the support and active involvement of all key players in the program. Including the City Council, city departments, businesses, and citizens in the decision-making process has allowed the Sustainable City Program to move as quickly as it has.

Next Steps

The first year of the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program has been primarily organizational—defining the priorities of the program and how those will be implemented. With a number of programs underway, such as the Procurement Working Group and the Labeling Ordinance, the Sustainable City Program envisions that this next year will focus on programming. The Sustainable City Program already serves as an umbrella organization for existing city departments and is working to strengthen its relationships with community groups and businesses. 

A 21 minute video, "Sustainable City: A city meeting its current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same" that features citizen activism in sustainability, is available from the city for a nominal charge. 

Boulder county healthy communities initiative

Boulder, Colorado

Contact: Susan Q. Foster, Project Administrator; c/o The Walter Orr Roberts Institute; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research; P.O. Box 3000; Boulder, CO 80307; Tel: (303) 497-2108; Fax: (303) 497-2100

Scope: Countywide

Inception Date: 1995

Participants: Coalition of county residents from public and private organizations representing business, government, the media, education, environment, arts, health and human services, and religious institutions

Project Type: Community-wide visioning, sustainable indicators, comprehensive community development 

Methods Used: Community-wide collaborative problem-solving process: public meetings; information sharing; research

Lessons Learned: Importance of strong leadership from the beginning. Difficulties of keeping the focus on issues of sustainability and of increasing participant diversity.

"To develop and implement an inclusive action plan that, by integrating common evolving values, honoring diversity and creating a shared vision of a healthy and vital community, sustains such a regional community for generations to come."

—Initiative Mission Statement

Background

Boulder County, Colorado is located along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains 30 miles northwest of Denver. Its spectacular scenery, encompassing peaks on the Continental Divide to rolling eastern plains, and high standard of living has lured an increasing number of new residents. Between 1980 and 1990 the county's population grew by 36,000 people. Between 1990 and 1995 another 16,000 people were added along with 13,810 new jobs. 

In the late 1950's the city of Boulder foresaw the pressures uncontrolled growth might bring on its natural environment and quality of life, the very resources that brought people there in the first place. In 1959 it enacted a "blue line" - an elevation line across the foothills above which development could not occur. Eight years later the city voters approved a special sales tax to fund the purchase of eventually 26,000 acres of open space, many of which were outside city limits in unincorporated areas. In 1976, based on a task force's projection that Boulder's population could grow to 300,000 - 400,000 in 20 years, voters approved an annual growth cap of two percent for the city to be enforced through a limitation on building permits. 

These measures have kept the city's population to under 100,000, but have caused housing costs to skyrocket, making living in the city unaffordable to many, and have had a profound impact on the surrounding jurisdictions. Boulder's residential building restrictions and the rise in housing costs have forced many who work there to live in the neighboring communities of Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, and Broomfield. 

Forty-three percent of the work force now commutes, creating traffic congestion and air pollution and spreading sprawl development to the outer edges of the county. Boulder's open space purchases have insulated the city from the rest of the county but, at the same time, removed land from the market that other jurisdictions might have bought for retail space to enhance their tax base.

Recognizing that some form of regional planning was necessary if the quality of life was to be sustained for all county residents, a group of 38 county leaders formed a committee in 1994 to apply for a planning grant from the Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative (CHCI). In order to be considered, a community must demonstrate broad-based community support and prove that it is a community as defined by the CHCI: " a geographically delineated area defined by the shared interests of all its inhabitants." The proposal was approved in November 1994 and the Boulder County Healthy Communities Initiative was launched in January 1995.

The Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative

The Colorado Healthy Communities Initiative is a statewide, five-year $6.8 million program sponsored by the Colorado Trust and designed and directed by the Denver-based National Civic League. It gives technical and financial support to up to 30 Colorado communities to establish community-based approaches to health and quality of life issues. Health is defined broadly to include issues that address the underlying factors that affect the quality of life beyond the absence of disease: a clean, safe physical environment and sustainable ecosystem, the provision of basic needs, quality education, and a diverse, vital and innovative economy.

Collaboration and consensus-based decision-making are key elements that characterize this work. Communities are encouraged to find new ways of doing things, of providing services, sharing information, and operating local governments. They are encouraged to develop indicators of performance and benchmark goals on a wide variety of community issues such as: air and water quality, educational performance, population density, green space, and economic criteria. 

Once selected, the community follows a specific community-wide collaborative problem-solving process developed by the National Civic League that takes the community through a 12-14 month planning phase and a two-year implementation phase. Each community can adapt this process to reflect its own character - its geography, resources, culture, values, and visions. It is also expected to raise matching grants. To date the Boulder Initiative has raised support from foundations, municipalities, hospitals, the media and the county government. 

The Boulder Plan

In January 1995 an Initiating Committee of community leaders from business, government and non-profit sectors began to design the framework for the initial planning phase. Following the National Civic League's guidelines, one of its first tasks was to select "stakeholders", a core group of approximately 120 people representing every sector of the County. This group was charged with the overall task of defining a vision for the county, beginning the process of finding a set of regional indicators of long-term health, and developing a plan of action to achieve these goals. The Initiating Committee dissolved in April. 

Monthly meetings began in May and will continue until April 1996. They will be held in different parts of the county and the public is encouraged to attend. A plan of action and implementation strategies will be completed by the final session. 

The first meeting was held in May 1995. Participants were asked to express the values and visions they felt are necessary and important for a healthier future for the county. After the meeting, the comments were compiled by theme: social values; neighborhoods; environment; education; economy and business; children, youth, elders, and family; transportation; leadership/government; health care/human services; housing; arts and culture. These were then summarized and assimilated in a draft vision paper for review and discussion at the next monthly meeting. As an integral part of the process the Initiating Committee hired Neal Peirce, a nationally-syndicated columnist and urban affairs reporter, to interview Boulder County residents and assess the county's problems, strengths, and options for action. The report served as a springboard for discussion. It was published in its entirety by The Boulder Daily Camera and the Longmont Times-Call, the county's two leading newspapers, distributed to participants present at the June meeting, and discussed further at neighborhood pizza parties hosted by volunteers during the months of July and August. 

The media has played an important role in publicizing the progress of the Initiative and keeping the public informed. Members of the press have attended meetings and reported on the discussions. The Daily Camera and the Times-Call carry announcements of the meetings and report extensively on each one.

The August session focused on the selection of priority areas and on a draft community profile entitled "Roadmap for Collaboration". Within the overarching themes of sustainability, diversity and communication six primary issue areas have emerged from the meetings: education; children, youth, elders, and families (38% of the county's population is under 24); civic discourse; regional governance; community design, land use and accommodation; and materials allocation and energy use.

In the draft report the Research Subcommittee presented possible indicators, based on research into current, available, reliable data, in each initial theme category. The final set of indicators, to be chosen once the community's vision and goals have been established, will be used to measure progress and success in achieving these goals. This list might also include additional indicators that address linkages between the vision categories, indicators for which original research will be necessary. Subsequent monthly meetings will refine the list of priorities, form committees to develop actions to achieve these goals, and, finally, develop and reach consensus on an action and funding plan. 

Challenges

The critical challenge is to continue to frame the process in the context of sustainability and long-term health, keeping the participants focused on what is best for the county as a whole rather than for each individual. Although several hundred people have been involved to date, the Initiative is still seeking ways to increase participant diversity. They want to involve youth, who have a great deal at stake, and plan to hold youth focus groups. Another challenge will be to strike a balance between a regional vision and the desire for strong, independent local communities - an issue much on the minds of many of the county residents. 

For an area the size of Boulder County the Healthy Communities Initiative process provides a valuable framework for residents to envision and create a sustainable future. It gives the many communities within the county a structured opportunity to work together on a regional vision rather than working independently of each other or in ad hoc collaborations as they have done in the past. It comes at a time when people are beginning to realize how interdependent their neighborhoods have become and that a comprehensive regional plan may be a necessity in order to preserve their environment and quality of life for future generations. 

Vision for a greater New Haven

New Haven, Connecticut

Contact: Heather Samson Calabrese, Director; 195 Church Street, 15th Floor; New Haven, CT 06510; Tel.: (203) 782-4310/80; Fax: (203) 782-4329

Scope: Greater New Haven area 

Inception Date: 1993

Participants: Local citizens, agencies, businesses

Project Type: Community-wide visioning, citizen-led initiatives

Methods Used: Visioning process, community organizing

Lessons Learned: Maintaining an open and representative process is critical to success. It is equally important to balance this process with concrete, visible achievements.

Vision for a Greater New Haven is a community-wide, citizen-driven process for developing and implementing shared community goals. The process consists of three phases: generating ideas for a citizen's agenda; developing short-, medium- and long-term objectives; and implementing the plans, all with continued participation from local citizens.

The New Haven effort is based on the citizens' vision concept that began in Chattanooga in 1984 and has been successful in a number of cities throughout the United States. Chattanooga, for example, estimates that its vision process over nine years produced $793 million invested in the city through 223 projects generating 1,500 permanent jobs, 7,000 temporary jobs, and providing services for 1.4 million people.

A Broad Concept of Citizenship

Vision for a Greater New Haven began in the spring of 1993. Members of the religious community and the Chamber of Commerce organized a group of area leaders to think about an alternative planning process. The initial informal group formed the core of the current steering committee, 22 people representing business, government, the arts, religious organizations, grassroots organizing efforts and individual citizens.

Nearly 2,500 people from the greater New Haven area participated in the initial stage, the visioning process. Ten community meetings were held in February and March of 1994; seven meetings were held in neighborhood schools, two in senior citizens complexes, and one meeting brought together 85 high school students.

The meetings were preceded by three months of aggressive outreach based on two months of planning. The goal of the outreach efforts was and is to involve the broadest range of citizens in Vision, including those with the most power and those with the least power in the community. Vision's Director, Heather Calabrese, recounts that "at one of the early meetings at a neighborhood high school, we literally had a major utility president sitting with an ex-gang member, talking together about their vision for this city."

Early Achievements

The ideas generated at the community meetings were divided into 33 categories ranging from drugs and crime to transportation, economic development and the arts. Over 500 people met to discuss specific topics of interest and develop concrete goals and recommendations. In June 1994, the results were presented on the New Haven Green; citizens were asked to "vote" for the goals they thought most urgent for the city and the region and to sign up for citizen action groups to work on achieving those goals. 

The citizen action groups developed short-, medium- and long-term objectives, the second phase of the process, while continuing to work on outreach and seek opportunities for collaboration with efforts already underway in the city. Early in the implementation process, citizen action groups have also accomplished a number of concrete successes. 

The most visible achievement to date is the mile-long pedestrian pathway to connect downtown with the Long Wharf waterfront created by Vision's Waterfront citizen action group. The group forged an alliance with the U.S. Post Office, the office of Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro's office and the Special Olympics World Games to create the wheelchair-accessible walkway in time for the Special Olympics in the summer of 1995. The next steps will be interim goals of creating signage, lighting and recognition for the "Vision Trail"; long term goals are to create access along all waterfronts, including rivers, and to enrich these areas with recreational and cultural activities.

The Image citizen action group created a Council on Public Relations that produced a press kit distributed during the Special Olympics and an Internet site with New Haven information. The Youth citizen action group implemented a short term goal of a roller skate donation drive with drop off at local libraries and organized roller skating parties at school gyms. The Economic Development citizen action group is building a coalition of groups interested in establishing a summer camp for youth entrepreneurs in 1996.

Priorities for the Next Nine Months

The citizen action groups continue to forge ahead in specific areas, with support from Vision staff. Meanwhile, a strategic planning process in the summer of 1995 brought together steering committee members and citizen action group leaders to decide on Vision's priorities for implementation in the next six to nine months. The Vision Trail is one of four priorities; the others are:

Housing: The Homestead Act for New Haven

Vision's long-term goal is the rehabilitation of 600 units of blighted housing in New Haven. In the next year, Vision will create a formal consortium with city agencies, nonprofit housing developers, banks and intermediaries. The consortium will develop a plan for rehabilitation, ownership and residence and will also rehabilitate 25 units of housing this year.

Transportation

A regional transportation authority is the project's long-term goal. In the next year, Vision will develop and implement a transportation action plan that demonstrates visual progress. Examples include placing bike racks downtown and on buses.

The International Festival of Arts and Ideas

Vision's long-term goal is to support the creation of an international arts festival in New Haven, linking it with the New Haven Register's Waterfront Festival. In the next year, Vision will work with city schools to develop curriculum relating to the festival. Vision will also develop a plan with city artists and neighborhood organizers for local economic and performance opportunities related to the festival.

Promoting Understanding Among Current and Future Leaders

Vision is working with the Anti-Defamation League's World of Difference program to create and implement a 6-hour training for 150 leaders in the community who represent diversity in experience, culture and race. This training will launch an ongoing dialogue to contribute to cultural understanding and respect in the community, and thus to increase diversity within Vision efforts.

Maintaining integrity and trust

Heather Calabrese believes Vision has worked hard to move from a leadership model of planning into a "true citizen's model that strives to give every participant an equal voice." The challenge is to keep moving in that direction. She notes that the two ways that Vision might lose its integrity and fail would be if it does not stay an open process and if it does not continue to reflect the way the community looks. Calabrese recalls a conversation with an outreach worker in the African-American community, a long-time activist who told her "I'm involved in Vision because I trust that you won't just pick my brain, say thank you, and go away and do whatever you want." Calabrese feels that Vision has been successful so far in demonstrating that "this is not a white, middle class, warm and fuzzy effort. In New Haven, people who have been involved in social change for a long time feel really used and abused. Vision will not just use them for legitimacy without allowing them to remain in the decision-making process." Vision's biggest challenge, however, remains the struggle to keep the process as diverse as possible as it moves to a focus on implementation.

Measuring Success

Calabrese emphasizes: "This process is not touchy-feely. It is very strategic, with clear short-term, long-term and intermediate goals. But it moves slowly to allow open participation. The challenge is how to communicate that to the community and to funders." Participants and funders both expect to see concrete, visible results quickly, and neither group is used to this kind of alternative, participatory process. Vision must balance the need to show successes, like the Vision Trail, while continuing education about the process.

Northern Delaware greenway council

Wilmington, Delaware

Contact: Edith Carlson, Executive Director; Northern Delaware Greenway Council, Inc.; P.O. Box 2095; Wilmington, DE 19899; Tel: (302) 762-7237; 

Fax: (302) 762-7907

Scope: Local, urban

Inception Date: 1990

Participants: Volunteer staff, government agencies, county and state park agencies, citizen groups

Project Type: Greenways, land use planning, community design

Methods Used: Educate citizens through civic groups and park groups; speak at planning board hearings; work with public agencies, develop public-private partnerships between businesses, citizens groups and government agencies

Lessons Learned: Persistence of a staunch volunteer core and cooperation of and between government agencies, political leadership, and business sector creates success.

Summary of Project

In 1987, the Presidents Commission on American Outdoors called for the establishment of greenways—human and animal accessible corridors that connect larger natural areas. Greenways provide a solution not only to the problem of limited recreation in urban areas, but also a means of protecting water supplies vital for public health and economic growth; a means of preserving the environment for future use and enjoyment; and a fundamental planning tool to create more livable communities. Recognizing the need for a massive grassroots effort, the Commission called for a "prairie fire of Community action" to create a network of greenways across the USA.

The Northern Delaware Greenway Council, Inc. (NDGC) responded to that challenge and is, today working to build a Greenway network in Delaware. Founded in 1990, the NDGC is a non-profit organization with over 400 members, an Honorary Board that includes former and current political representatives, an Advisory Board, and a core volunteer staff. The Northern Delaware Greenway Council brings together federal, state and local agencies; elected officials; private foundations; businesses and corporations; and private individuals to create greenways. 

At present there are over five miles of completed greenway trails. The NDGC is now working on Phase One of the Northern Delaware Greenway connecting over a dozen city, county and state parks from the Delaware River to the Brandywine River. 

Greenway Benefits

Greenways are multi-objective, resulting in a wide range of benefits, incorporating all facets of sustainability. They:

• • • are attractive tourist destinations;

• • • add value to nearby homes and offices;

• • • create a "quality-of-life" that attracts relocating and new businesses;

• • • add new opportunities for recreation close to homes, schools, and offices;

• • • encourage new recreation-related businesses;

• • • link important cultural and historic sites;

• • • foster local pride and unify communities;

• • • provide refuge and safe migration routes for wildlife;

• • • help preserve the biological diversity of plant and animal species by connecting isolated natural areas;

• • • improve water quality by buffering streams and trapping pollutants;

• • • reduce flood damage and help recharge under-ground water supplies;

• • • serve as car-free routes to and from schools, shops, workplaces and parks; and

• • • help improve air-quality.

Connecting Community

Designed to support an improved quality of life—social, economic and environmental—the Northern Delaware Greenway, when complete, will be a ribbon of green that ties together the natural, cultural, and historical resources of Wilmington. State, county and city parks will be linked to museums (such as Rockwood, Hagley and the Delaware Art Museum), schools, cultural institutions (such as the Wilmington Drama League and Wilmington Music School), churches, synagogues and workplaces. The greenway will protect vital watersheds along the Brandywine River and the Delaware River north of Wilmington. When the Cross County greenway connections are made, the regional greenway system will serve over 440,000 residents of Northern Delaware.

To serve recreational, transportation and preservation purposes, greenways can be either paved or unpaved depending on the location. All trails are pedestrian and bicycle accessible. In accordance with the American Disability Act, many of the trails are built for handicap accessibility. 

The purpose of a greenway is to connect all aspects of a community through a land corridor that will also serve as a social, economic, and environmental corridor. The NDGC has found citizen involvement critical in the development of greenways. The NDGC speaks to neighborhood civic groups, educating them on the purpose of greenways and encouraging their involvement in the development process. The NDGC also talks to "friends of" park groups, environmental groups, planning boards and various public and private agencies. NDGC maintains an on-going public presence, reaching individuals on a personal level, and larger audiences through mass media.

Public and Private Partnerships

Currently, all greenway trails are built on public property including a combination of park land, transportation land, and public works land. One advantage of utilizing public property is that the NDGC can piggyback government projects. For instance, construction of a new sewer line provides ideal conditions for a greenway—a cleared, levelled area that connects major urban centers. A finished sewer line needs only a trail surface to become a working greenway corridor. 

The use of public lands has enabled the NDGC to leverage funding from government sources more easily. In 1990, NDGC encouraged the City of Wilmington, New Castle County and the State of Delaware to establish Greenway programs and policies. In June 1990, the General Assembly slated $500,000 for a state-wide Greenway program as part of open space legislation. In 1991, public agencies were awarded a $98,000 planning grant for the Northern Delaware Greenway Project from the State of Delaware's newly instituted Statewide Greenway Program. In 1992, the first segment of the Northern Delaware Green opened. This 2+ mile trail that was a cooperative effort of the Division of Parks and Recreation, Woodlawn Trustees and the NDGC.

The NDGC worked cooperatively with state and county parks departments to obtain $650,000 in funds under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1990. Under the provisions of the act, a certain percentage of transportation money must be spent on enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian pathways. In this case, the money is being applied to enhancing those features within the greenways. Offering alternative forms of transportation to and from work and other destinations not only cuts down on traffic congestion and air pollution, but enhances the health of people who use them. 

In addition to benefiting the environment and the social well-being of the Wilmington community, the greenways are capturing the support of local businesses and developers. The construction of a greenway increases the real estate values of bordering lands and, therefore, their marketability for future development. In 1995, NDGC began working with the New Castle County Board of Realtors to encourage incorporation of greenways into development projects. And the NDGC has received sponsorship from local companies for trail amenities such as benches and kiosks. 

Bridges Through Cooperation

The NDGC realizes that there is an overarching purpose of greenways: to ensure the quality of life of citizens through both growth and preservation. Only by striking a balance between these two has NDGC succeeded. The economic value of NDGCs work has been proven through the support of the business community in the creation of greenways. Likewise, the greenways protect the areas water supply, thereby benefiting the entire community. Working in a cooperative, non-adversarial way toward common goals, the NDGC has succeeded in building a unique and very strong bridge linking the environment, business and government sectors. 

Because NDGC works with the concerns and motivations of both the environmental and business sectors, it has maintained a positive working relationship with the political leadership. The greenways are working to connect not only sections of land, but create interconnections between the social and economic elements of the state. 

Meeting the Challenges

The interconnected nature of NDGC, while one of its greatest assets, has presented the organization with its toughest challenges. The creation of a greenway demands cooperation between not only citizen and business groups but also cooperative efforts between a multitude of government agencies. For instance metropolitan planning agencies mandate the integration of the transportation departments with land-use planning. While agency cooperation should result in a more constructive process, there are often questions such as which agency has the prerogative in a particular issue. To facilitate the coordination of efforts, NDGC created the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 1994 to coordinate greenway construction between state, county and municipal agencies. Finding the means to develop partnerships between government agencies in an efficient manner has been the greatest challenge for the NDGC.

Present Status

The Northern Delaware Greenway Council was recently one of 10 recipients, out of 2,000 participating groups, selected to receive the "Trails for Tomorrow Award," sponsored by DuPont Cordura® Nylon. As part of the National Trails day event, this award has helped build the confidence of the business community in the work of NDGC. 

The NDGC is presently in transition from an all volunteer organization into a staffed non-profit. At this time the NDGC has a part-time development person as well as 14 board members who contribute substantially to the volunteer efforts. For special event projects, the NDGC generally pulls in an additional 30-40 volunteers. In 1994, the NDGC received a $20,000 grant from the Laffey-McHugh Foundation as seed money to further the organizations goals for expansion. 

The NDGC is also changing its focus from a locally-driven organization to one with a state focus. Goals include creating a "Cross County" greenway system that links to the White Clay Creek, the C&D Canal, Delaware's Coastal Heritage Greenway and to greenways being formed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. In June 1995, NDGC received $6,000 from the State Legislation Grant & Aid Program to expand its work to a state-wide level. 

Marshall heights community development organization

Washington, DC

Contact: Lloyd D. Smith, President and CEO; Marshall Heights Community Development Association, Inc.; 3917 Minnesota Avenue, NE; Washington, DC 20019; Tel: (202) 396-1200; Fax: (202) 396-4106

Scope: Communitywide

Inception Date: 1978

Participants: Civic organizations, residents, businesses, religious institutions 

Project Type: Economic redevelopment, job creation/training, comprehensive community development

Methods Used: Developing strategic plans, demonstration projects, public education campaigns, provides training, use of for profit corporations

Lessons Learned: Value of comprehensive approaches in all activities. Importance of collaboration with public and private institutions and neighborhood organizations. Restraint in not undertaking projects if there is a lack of expertise or experience.

"MHCDO's mission is to build hope, people, neighborhoods, homes, businesses, jobs, and expand the economic opportunity for the citizens of Ward 7 of the District of Columbia."

—Mission Statement

Background

The Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc. (MHCDO) was founded in 1978 with the philosophy that residents could define and control the quality of their community. Since that time it has worked to reverse the decline of a deteriorating neighborhood through a comprehensive approach to economic, human and community development.

MHCDO is located in southeast Washington, in an area that, although historically the poorest of Ward 7, nonetheless has had a history of civic activism. In the mid-1970s, however, its stabilizing middle class population and retail businesses began to leave and the neighborhood began to decline. In 1976 a group of concerned citizens came together to address such issues as housing rehabilitation and deteriorating infrastructure and, in 1978, formed MHCDO.

Since that time MHCDO has employed an integrated approach to community building through a series of initiatives based on collaborations, partnerships and joint ventures.

The Organization

MHCDO's goals are threefold: to create new and diverse economic opportunities; to ensure that all residents have access to affordable housing; and to help area residents overcome barriers to self sufficiency. Its 72-member Board of Directors represents community members from civic associations, the faith community, businesses, public housing and many others. This inclusive mix of board members ensures a strong attention to the needs and desires of the community. 

According to its President, Lloyd Smith, "MHCDO's most significant function is to act as a facilitator in bringing its disadvantaged community into the mainstream of U.S. economic activity through marketable projects that bridge the gap between capitalism and community development." Its activities are funded through government contracts and grants, foundation grants, and profits from its economic activities carried out through three wholly- owned, for- profit subsidiaries: East River Park, the Citizens' Housing Development Corporation, and the Burroughs Development Corporation. 

East River Park, Inc. is a commercial real estate development corporation which co-owns and manages a shopping center. The center began with a $25,000 venture capital grant from the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development, and is now worth more than $10 million. The Citizens Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) develops rental and for-sale housing. The Burroughs Development Corporation (BDC) focuses on industrial development and has recently begun work on the Kenilworth Light Industrial Park and is planning development of an office complex. These three corporations are involved in the various other projects and all their profits are fully reinvested into MHCDO.

Four-pronged plan

MHCDO's various projects are organized under the areas of housing, economic development, human development, and drug and alcohol abuse programs. Within each a wide range of processes and strategies have been used.

Housing

Since the inception of its HomeSight Housing Development, the CHDC has renovated and sold 69 units totaling over $4 million. These have included renovated single family homes, new modular houses, and condominiums. The CHDC also owns units which it rents. The Transitional Housing Program gives homeless individuals and families a place to stay while MHCDO provides job counseling and placement services. In another effort to make housing affordable, MHCDO has initiated its Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing project, a building where individuals have private bedrooms while sharing common rooms and kitchen and bathroom facilities with other residents.

Economic

MHCDO's Business Development Services (BDS) program, established in 1994 and funded by the city, works to expand business development and job creation in order to increase and diversify the local economic base. As a full-service business incubator, BDS offers not only a location for businesses but also consulting services and seminars on subjects as the different kinds of insurance businesses need. The BDS includes a micro-loan program for local businesses which otherwise may have difficulty raising capital. The loans range from $1,000 to $5,000 and are made in conjunction with local banks.

The MHCDO is undertaking other business ventures aimed at community economic development through East River Park, Inc. One such project is the construction of a new bank branch. It has also established several funds aimed at attracting new businesses to the area and providing affordable housing. As a result of MHCDO's economic development efforts, residents now spend 50% of their disposable income within the community, up from 20% previously.

Human Development

The mission of the MHCDO's Human Development Division is to help people overcome barriers and move toward self-sufficiency. Its strategy includes employment counseling, crisis intervention, housing and financial counseling, education, senior day care, telecommunications training and an integrated service delivery model using a telecommunications system to bring services to low and moderate income residents of Ward 7. This past year the Human Development Division provided services to the equivalent of 24,250 clients. Moving into the forefront of human services delivery, the Division is spearheading initiatives regarding family services, sustainable community education opportunities and job development.

This holistic approach to social change is not only helping residents improve their quality of life, but in some cases is helping residents rebuild their lives. One story illustrates the range of services residents can receive. One resident, the mother of two young children, decided to confront her addiction to crack cocaine and after receiving medical treatment turned to MHCDO's John Wilson Center where a counselor helped her organize her life. She received help in finding food, an apartment, and furniture. She also received job training, help in locating a job and one-on-one training in dealing with her personal finances. Today she is working toward self sufficiency and her children, who had been in the juvenile system, will shortly be returned to her.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Programs

The Fight Back Initiative is MHCDO's campaign to improve the health of Ward 7 residents. To raise public awareness it has sponsored a number of events from seminars to walk-a-thons. Its prevention, intervention and early identification component includes curriculum development for seventh and eighth graders and the annual Shoot Hoops! Not Guns! three-on-three basketball tournament.

The environmental improvement component motivates and empowers residents to better use the resources available to them and improve their community's quality of life. MHCDO acts as a conduit for environmental activities: its staff and board members along with community residents have participated in cleanups of the Anacostia River, the Richardson elementary school and Ladybird Park.

Treatment is another focus of the Fight Back Initiative. In partnership with the D.C. Department of Human Services, this program provides services from counseling and child care to HIV/AIDS testing.

Rebuilding Communities Initiative

In the fall of 1995, with a planning grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, MHCDO began its new Rebuilding Communities Initiative. This initiative is a process in which all the community's stakeholders — businesses, residents, organizations — are actively involved in developing a comprehensive approach to improve the neighborhoods in which they live. Beyond the tangible results, the ultimate goal of the initiative is to further strengthen the network of bonds between community organizations and the individuals who reside in the community. The initiative is guided by an 88-person steering committee and four working groups. It has five components: 1) Education, 2) Jobs and Training, 3) Health and Community Wellness, 4) Housing, and 5) Systems Reform and Resource Development.

Challenges

Many parts of Ward 7, however, remain underdeveloped and disadvantaged. Crime and drug use continue and the infrastructure is still inadequate. The community needs to attract a greater proportion of city funding given its population and would benefit from greater community recognition of its needs. It would also benefit from a strong economic base that can encourage middle class residency and leverage other business activity. 

MHCDO is distinctive in its holistic approach to community planning and development. It has been extraordinarily successful in simultaneously addressing a broad array of issues. MHCDO's most important role has been in attracting new businesses, programs and services to the community.

Quality indicators for progress

Jacksonville, Florida 

Contact: Lois Chepenik, Executive Director; Jacksonville Community Council; 2434 Atlantic Boulevard; Jacksonville, FL 32207; Tel.: (904) 396-3052; Fax: (904) 398-1469

Scope: County, urban 

Inception Date: 1985

Participants: Jacksonville Community Council Inc., Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, City of Jacksonville (City Council, Mayor, government agencies), other small municipalities in the county, local citizens

Project Type: Sustainable indicators, public education

Methods Used: Multi-stakeholder cooperation; coordination by non-profit organization; citizen participation in committees and task forces; assembly and presentation of data from standard reference sources and a special telephone survey

Lessons Learned: The broad-based interest in indicators, including that of the Chamber of Commerce and a local non-profit, has lead to diverse support and funding for the indicators project.

Summary of Project

Each year, since 1985, a report on Life in Jacksonville: Quality Indicators for Progress (QIP) has been produced in the community of Jacksonville, Fla. The report contains current and historic values for a set of statistical measures that have been selected to reflect changes in the city's quality of life. The information is used to monitor community performance in a number of key areas including: education, the economy, public safety, natural environment, health, social environment, government/ politics, culture/recreation and mobility. The indicators report is specifically intended as a tool to help in building a sustainable future for the community. 

The reports features include: 

• • • data that shows both where the community has been as well as the progress that has been made in moving toward target values for each statistical measure;

• • • priorities among the statistical measures;

• • • text that includes explanatory information concerning the significance and the source of data for each measure;

• • • graphic charts showing trends over time;

• • • "gold star" indicators for significant progress;

• • • "red flags" for current or emerging problems; and

• • • recommended community actions for achieving target levels.

Specific objectives of the Jacksonville QIP report include:

• • • producing an annual report card on community progress;

• • • highlighting community success stories and giving credit for work well done;

• • • identifying areas of decline or concern where community action is needed;

• • • educating residents about their community and the factors that citizens consider important to their quality of life; and

• • • encouraging citizens to take an active part in addressing community problems.

The target audience for the indicators is broadly defined and its information is used in a variety of ways: 

• • • Citizens use the report card to gain knowledge about their community;

• • • Elected and appointed officials use the information for planning, legislative and budgeting activities;

• • • Professional planners, both in government and private institutions, use the data as reference material to guide their decision-making;

• • • Journalists and media representatives use the community information in research, reporting, and editorials;

• • • Business and community organizations use the information for strategic planning and developing annual work plans;

• • • Foundations use the data to gain understanding of the community needs and to guide grant-making decisions; and

• • • Local governments and Chambers of Commerce use the data as an economic development tool.

Citizen Involvement in QIP

The QIP project was initiated by the Jacksonville Community Council Inc (JCCI), a non-profit organization of citizens concerned about the future of their community. At the beginning of the project, the President of JCCI sought and obtained initial funding from the local Chamber of Commerce. A 10-member steering committee was selected whose participants served as the chairs for subcommittees organized to develop indicators in specific topic areas. Participation on the subcommittees was open to members of the JCCI and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as to other interested citizens. Each subcommittee met four times on a weekly or biweekly basis. Subcommittee members had access to background information obtained and organized by the JCCI staff. This included responses to a questionnaire published in the local newspaper as well as suggestions sent in by community members in response to public interest announcements on the local television stations. The subcommittees selected specific indicators that conformed to agreed upon criteria. Initially, background data for each indicator was collected from the mid 1970s through 1984 or 1985. Once the project was initiated, the data was gathered on an annual basis. Data on personal perceptions was obtained in telephone surveys. The surveys were conducted by AT&T American Transtech from 1985 through 1992. In 1993 and 1994, the surveys were conducted by Populus Research. Both survey groups donated the costs for these surveys.

Indicator Development Process

In 1991 an additional 140 citizens were organized into task forces to review and enhance the indicators used in the project. This followed a process similar to that used in 1985. The task forces eliminated several indicators because of questionable validity or unavailable data. For purposes of clarity, several other indicators were revised. New indicators were added, including four new telephone survey questions.

The task forces identified target values for each of the indicators. The JCCI collected and summarized research and reference data on generally accepted standards and goals for each data category supported by Community Development grant funding provided by the Jacksonville Department of Housing and Urban Development. This data was then used in selecting target goals for the year 2000. Task forces prioritized each of the nine subject categories, selecting a key indicator within each category for reference purposes.

In addition to the planning groups, the annual compilation of indicators is generally overseen by a citizen Quality of Life Committee. Its members are selected to represent a range of interests and expertise, including members with specific background in demographics and statistics. The Committee helps oversee the data collection process and provides comments and recommendations on the specific results. Currently, the compilation of the annual report and the work of the committee are being supported by funds from the City of Jacksonville.

What the Community Learns

A total of 74 indicators in nine categories are included in the most recent November 1994 report. The main categories, the key indicator for each, and examples of the other indicators in the category are listed below:

Education

Public High School Graduation Rate— achievement-test scores, expenditures per student, and participation in higher-education programs.

Economy

Net Job Growth—black unemployment, effective buying income and retail sales, taxable real- estate value, new housing starts, students in free/reduced lunch program, tourism/bed tax revenues.

Public Safety

People Feeling Safe Walking Alone At Night—violent and nonviolent crime rate, people reporting being victims of crime, response times for rescue, fire, and police calls, motor vehicle and other accident deaths.

Natural Environment 

Days of Air Quality Index in the Good Range—river and stream compliance with water quality standards, water level in aquifer, septic tank permits, tons of solid waste.

Health

Infant Deaths Per 1,000 Live Births—deaths from heart disease and lung cancer, number of packs of cigarettes sold, new AIDS cases, student fitness test scores, rating of local health-care system.

Social Environment

People Believing Racism Is A Local Problem—substance-exposed newborns, child abuse/neglect reports, births to females under 18, city human services expenditures, contributions to charities.

Government/Politics

People Rating Local Govern-ment Leadership Good/Excellent—percent 18 and older registered to vote, percent registered who vote, percent of elected officials nonwhite and female, rating of local public services effectiveness.

Culture/Recreation

City Financial Support of Arts Organizations—parks and recreation expenditures, public park acreage, public library materials and circulation rate, attendance at museum , symphony, and zoo.

Mobility

People Reporting Commuting Time of 25 Minutes or Less—commercial flights and destinations with direct flights, bus ridership, miles of bus service, bus headways..

The fact that the Quality Indicators of Progress reports have continued to be produced annually for ten years confirms their usefulness for Jacksonville citizens, government and business. As mentioned earlier, the reports can be used by a wide variety of individuals and groups for different purposes. Two specific examples of successful applications are cited here: A continuing decline in water quality indicators from 1983 to 1987 resulted in a city-wide campaign and the establishment of a group, Stewards of the St. John's River, which worked with local jurisdictions and private citizens to improve water quality; similarly, a decline in high school graduation rates from 1984 to 1989, led to the development of a very successful "Cities in Schools" program in which local citizens and businesses worked with school personnel, students, and parents to improve educational performance.

Today, the Quality of Life Indicators program can be adapted by other communities. The Jacksonville Community Council Inc. offers a replication package for sale, complete with educational video tapes, instructional and guidance materials, and support services. Although this package is not inexpensive, it could prove to be of significant value to communities who want a head start in developing similar programs for themselves.

Carver hills neighborhood project

Atlanta, Georgia

Contact: Arnold Weathersby, President; Carver Hills Neighborhood Association; 1586 Mary George Avenue, NW; Atlanta, GA 30318; Tel.: (404) 799-5382

Olin Ivey, Executive Director; Georgia Environmental Organization; 6750 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite 802; Atlanta, GA 30360-2218; Tel: (770) 447-4367; Fax: (770) 447-5668; E-mail: 75773.3340@compuserv.com

Scope: Neighborhood, Urban 

Inception Date: 1964; Carver Hills Civic League formed; revitalized as Carver Hills Neighborhood Assoc., Inc. in 1989

Participants: Neighborhood residents, non-profit organizations, public agencies, businesses 

Project Type: Leadership development, redevelopment, urban forestry

Methods Used: Citizen empowerment and participation through monthly meetings, door-to-door canvassing, civic participation, community events and fund-raisers, annual events, clean up campaigns

Lessons Learned: Strong leadership, tenacious and active community participation, and assistance from local and national grassroots organizations are important.

Summary of Project 

Carver Hills is a low-income, African-American subdivision of single-dwelling units enveloped by several government and subsidized apartment complexes in the Northwest, inner-city section of Atlanta. The residents have for the most part maintained their homes in good condition with attractive, though simple yards.

In 1964, residents formed the Carver Hills Civic League. In 1989 the community revitalized itself in the face of mounting environmental and social injustices resulting from the neighboring, city-owned Gun Club Landfill. The landfills blowing trash and lumbering trucks were a constant presence in the community, creating unsanitary conditions and pollution that is thought to have contributed to an increase in health problems in the community. Discouraged by seemingly insurmountable challenges, apathy settled in among the Carver Hills residents. In response to this, and with hopes of mobilizing community residents as well as improving poor environmental conditions, the Carver Hills Neighborhood Association, Inc. (CHNA) emerged.

The overarching goals of the Carver Hills Neighborhood Association are to:

• • • empower community residents;

• • • increase the awareness of the city government and its citizens regarding problems of health and environment as they impact on the community;

• • • train the citizens of the community in the process of critical thinking and analysis so they are able to identify problems and the means to solve them;

• • • create new and stronger organizations within the neighborhood as well as strengthen existing ones so that the goals of CHNA can be more effectively realized and a stronger interlinking bond can be established among the people;

• • • expand awareness concerning the environment and plan action programs to bring about a cleaner, greener, and healthier community;

• • • be alert to the manner in which any of the issues confronted can be solved not only through community involvement but also by entrepreneurial solutions within the community.

To achieve these goals, the Carver Hills Neighborhood Association and the Georgia Environmental Organization, Inc. (GEO), a non-profit, statewide organization headquartered in Atlanta, established a partnership in Summer 1992. GEO provided strategizing assistance to the community, and was able to make available its local, state, and national contacts, which provided additional support to the community. One of those, the Highlander Educational Research Center in Tennessee, helped increase national awareness of the Gun Club Landfill problems by publicizing the story. The publicity bolstered the interest of the Carver Hills residents, letting them know that outside support did exist. GEO and Highlander have also provided leadership training to neighborhood residents throughout the process to close the landfill and turn the residents energies to improving their community. 

Closing the Landfill

The Gun Club Landfill lies on the opposite side of Procter Creek from the Carver Hills neighborhood. Dumping first began in 1965, and in 1974 it became a licensed municipal landfill. It is situated on 179 acres, of which 106 acres were licensed for dumping. It received up to 890 tons of trash a day to reach a height of 23 stories of layered household solid waste (garbage, trash, leaves, paper, and yard waste) and soil. The Department of Public Works resisted closing the Gun Club Landfill because it served as one of Atlantas largest receptacles of garbage. The ultimate closure would mean finding new means of dealing with vast amounts of garbage.

Despite the resistance of the Dept. of Public Works, the Carver Hills Neighborhood Association was able to catalyze a strong campaign for the closing of the landfill through monthly neighborhood meetings, flyers, door-to-door educational canvassing and neighborhood events. Residents of Carver Hills and the nearby Gun Club community (residing on the other side of the landfill) attended City Council committee meetings and testified about the poor environmental and economic conditions of the community due to the landfills existence. After several unsuccessful attempts to close the landfill, the City Council passed an ordinance to do so in December 1992. 

Creating a Community Vision

Once the landfill was closed, the CHNA led residents to search for ways that the resources of the community—both natural and human—could be improved to make the area a more livable one. Carver Hills is a neighborhood of approximately 2,000 people. The Carver Hills Neighborhood Association meets the first Monday evening of each month with between 30-50 residents attending at any one time. All members of the neighborhood have both voice and vote. Activities for the whole neighborhood and for the various age-groups occur regularly.

The CHNA set out to find a means of improving Carver Hills. The abandoned Finch Elementary School site offered the ideal location for community life and activities that could also enrich the ecology of the area. The property, comprising 13 1/2 acres of land, had lain fallow ever since the school was closed and torn down. It has four naturally tiered levels, the lowest of which is a wilderness area that borders Proctor Creek. The Gun Club landfill is on the creeks opposite bank. 

Carver Hills purchased the 13 1/2 acres of land for $6,000: $1,500 in earnest money was provided to the community to secure the property by the Georgia Environmental Organization; the remainder was raised through a combination of community donations, special event fund-raisers such as "Fish Fries" and money from city and foundation grants. 

With the acquired land, Carver Hills residents plan to transform the entire neighborhood into a "Natural Space/Urban Forest Community" that will include:

A Community Center

• • • Within the parameters of the budget, the neighborhood center will be designed with community needs and ideas in mind and will be built with donated environmentally friendly materials and equipment;

Natural Areas

• • • Two wilderness areas with a total of four and a half acres and a connecting trail;

• • • The park will be ringed by trees, about one third of which are already standing and two-thirds of which will be planted. Trees will be planted in conjunction with Trees Atlanta, Georgia Trees Coalition, U.S. Forestry Service, American Forests, and Trees Working for Tomorrow Foundation;

Stream/Stream Bank Restoration

• • • Proctor Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River, has little life left in it. Working with the city, with Roy F. Weston Company, and with an arm of Americorps, the neighborhood will clean the Creek and develop streambank stabilization;

• • • GEO, working with the stakeholders who live or own businesses along Proctor Creek, will develop a Protection and Management Plan for the whole of the waterway;

• • • Working with the Environmental Forum and the student environmental organization from Georgia Tech, the neighborhood will establish monitoring stations for Proctor Creek;

Neighborhood Design

• • • Each block in the neighborhood, working with students from the School of Environmental Design from the University of Georgia, will design its own sidewalks and the public spaces in the block;

• • • Each household will be taught how to compost. For those who do not wish to have their own compost bin, two central composting sites will be provided and maintained by the Neighborhood Association;

• • • All playground equipment and the park benches will be made from recycled material. A neighborhood recycling program will collect materials to be recycled into the equipment;

• • • Other programs to train households in how they can be sustainable are in the planning stage.

A board has been formed to oversee the project. Fourteen leaders from many sectors of Atlantas leadership have joined with members from the community to direct the project. The board has been meeting for over a year to lay the plans and to gather wide-spread support for the overall project and its many components.

Making the Vision a Reality

One of the larger barriers to the project lies in the procurement of funds for a full-time staff person. The community has been able to obtain volunteer assistance from a landscape architect, an architect designing the community center, and nearby universities, as well as representatives from organizations such as the president of Safeplay Systems. Once plans are in place, two week-ends will be set aside to bring everyone together to do an old fashioned "barn-raising" in which the majority of work on the community center will be completed. The goal is to finish the project, including the trails and planting of the trees, by the Summer of 1996. 

Wai'anae backyard aquaculture project

Wai'anae coast, Hawaii

Contact: Puanani Burgess; Wai'anae Coast Community Alternative Development Corporation; 86-649 Puuhulu Road; Wai'anae, HI 96792; Tel.: (808) 696-4629; Fax: (808) 696-7774

Scope: Local, rural

Inception Date: 1987

Participants: Families and community residents

Project Type: Community development, economic development, cultural preservation, food production

Methods Used: Fish farming tank technology; family scale enterprise as a condition; subsidy at start-up with trainings; revolving loan aspect.

Lessons Learned: The "family-run" requirement gives powerful benefit to eroding traditional social structures; new home-based venture encourages other options to emerge. Initiatives based in community culture and values, gains supporters and participants; single initiatives lead to expanded opportunities.

Summary of Project 

The Wai'anae Backyard Aquaculture Project provides support to families interested in the small-scale production of Wai'anae sunfish as part of a community economic development project. Under a formal agreement, the project provides financial assistance to families for initial capital expenditures and first-year operating costs. It supports the development of a local market for sunfish and the formation of a family-run association of aquaculture producers.

The goals of the Backyard Aquaculture Project are:

• • • self-reliance in food production;

• • • the strengthening of social relationships;

• • • home-based income opportunities for Wai'anae Coast families; and

• • • improvement of the community's nutritional standards.

The project:

• • • selects, trains and provides technical support to families interested in backyard-scale fish production;

• • • arranges financial assistance for tank construction and first-year operating costs;

• • • coordinates a common marketing system for all participating families;

• • • develops local and external markets for the Wai'anae sunfish; and

• • • conducts research to improve the productive efficiency of the backyard aquaculture system.

Families participating in the program:

• • • complete an intensive hands-on training program designed to produce competent and confident backyard aquaculturists;

• • • construct a backyard aquaculture system and help other families do the same;

• • • participate in the project's coordinated marketing system; and

• • • become active members of the Wai'anae Backyard Aquaculture Family Association.

The project sponsor is the Wai'anae Coast Community Alternative Development Corporation (WCCADC). It was formed as a 501(c)(3)tax-exempt, non-profit organization in 1987. Its aim is to promote self-sufficiency and self-reliance for the Wai-anae Coast, and, in the process, to rebuild the community's self-esteem and strengthen community members identity as Native Hawaiians.

"Work is Medicine"

The WCCADC developed out of a citizens movement in the late 1970s to challenge plans for construction of a $3 billion luxury class tourist and residential project by West Beach Estates at the mouth of the Wai'anae coast community. Concerned residents formed an unincorporated association, the Wai'anae Land Use Concerns Committee (WLUCC). The residents saw that the development of the type and magnitude proposed at the mouth of the Wai'anae coast would deplete human and natural resources as well as cause environmental, social and spiritual problems in an already stressed community. There was 20% unemployment in the community and high rates of substance abuse and domestic violence. So the WLUCC actively sustained its challenge of West Beach Estates' plan for more than ten years.

A mediated agreement was reached between West Beach Estates and the WLUCC on January 22, 1987. In the agreement, West Beach Estates formally recognized the need for the Wai'anae Coast Community to maintain stewardship of its own natural and human resources by developing an independent economic base to support the social, cultural and spiritual development of people and families in the community. West Beach Estates contributed funds to assist in the establishment of a community-based development organization. The Wai'anae Coast Community Alternative Development Corporation resulted. It represents the mature vision of many community members and organizations that have tried for more than two decades to solve the problems of rapid urbanization and ghettoization of one of the few remaining rural areas on the island of Oahu. It seeks to provide a cultural anchor for the people of the Wai'anae Coast, and to assure residents that there can be economic development that does not sacrifice the community's self-esteem and respect for Native Hawaiian culture. Its guiding philosophy is "work is medicine."

One Foot on Land; One in the Ocean

The Backyard Aquaculture Project is one of two WCCADC projects. The development process used by WCCADC in the project draws upon traditional Hawaiian values and principles of sustainable development, appropriate technologies, cultural compatibility and spiritual guidance. 

The first two years of the project, 1989-90, were devoted to technical research and development using funds contributed by West Beach Estates. The pilot phase of the project began in 1991 with nine families. It was funded by a $300,000 grant from the Hawaiian Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. The Growth Phase ending in June, 1995, was funded by a $617,000 grant from the Administration for Native Americans. 

Backyard aquaculture was chosen because the island people say they live with one foot on the land and one foot in the ocean. Historically, fish has been a key element in the diets of all Hawaiians. Present day consumption of fish has declined dramatically. This decline reflects a supply and demand situation that supports high prices for fresh, locally caught fish. 

Fish farming provides an alternative means of supplying fresh fish to local markets. Backyard aquaculture is essentially a modern translation of the ancient practice of raising fish in enclosed ocean "ponds." In earlier times, raising fish ensured families of available food when oceans were rough or fish was not plentiful. The same thing is true today. A fish-raising family can have fresh, safe fish to eat even in times when fish are scarce, polluted or, because of high prices, prohibitive to buy.

Most Wai'anae families can master the technology of backyard aquaculture. It is not time, space or water intensive. The tasks of tank construction, management and harvesting of the fish can involve all members of the family. 

A major long-term goal of the project — self-reliance through food production — is beginning to be met both for the family and the community. There are 28 families participating in the project, including five who are currently being trained. The families operate a total of 50 backyard aquaculture tanks. A family operating a single backyard system can produce 500 to 600 pounds of sunfish per year and are averaging approximately 235 pounds of market-sized fish per tank per six month production cycle. Collectively, the families in the project are able to produce about 20,000 pounds of sunfish per year. 

Families Work Together

The projects focus on strengthening social relationships is based on an interpretation of the difference between work and employment. Work is considered to require passion and dedication and leads to building self-esteem for individuals, families and communities. Employment is considered an activity that pays bills, but may not help self-esteem. The project promotes backyard aquaculture as family work. It supports the idea that families who work together will form strong bonds that can endure stress. And the project provides residents with a way to share the results of their work with friends and neighbors. Participating families have agreed to sell fish to community members at a discount ($3.00 to $3.25 a pound) in comparison with Oahu's market price ($4.00 to $4.50 a pound). The spirit of sharing success is valued in Hawaiian culture.

Another goal of providing home-based income opportunities for Waianae families can be met because the production of sunfish is profitable. The cost of production is between $1.00 and $1.30 a pound, well below the price to community members. A single tank may not generate much income, but additional tanks can be built by a family. 

The project also has the potential to improve the community's nutritional standards. State Health Department statistics show that the Hawaiian population of the Wai'anae Coast has the greatest prevalence of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. Health officials link the problems to high fat diets. The Wai'anae Sunfish has one of the lowest fat contents of any species available to residents. As fish replaces other animal protein in the diet, people will benefit. 

Next Steps

The Backyard Aquaculture Project is entering into an expansion phase, planned to extend through June 1998. This expansion will:

• • • Extend participation to include families dependent on public assistance programs;

• • • Double the number of families participating in the program to approximately 60;

• • • Enhance the capacity of current families to produce food by: 1) supporting the expansion of their aquaculture activities; and, 2) providing training and technical support for integration activities such as taro, vegetable, or fruit cultivation, and/or hydroponic plant production;

• • • Aggressively establish an expanded market for the sunfish;

• • • Broaden the product base by introducing new species of fish; and

• • • Establish a legally-defined family cooperative;

The community-based economic development approach and activities of the Waianae Backyard Aquaculture Project are well known within the community and throughout the state of Hawaii. The project has gained a number of supporters in state government, some of whom initially wrote the project off as "small-scale and insignificant." Agencies supporting the expansion include the Departments Agriculture, Hawaiian Homelands, the Housing Authority and Welfare Dept.

The WCCADC has developed a formula that works—for the people, for their economy and for their environment—and it is replicable, in similar climates "state-side," or with protection in colder climates. 

Tri-State implementation council

Sandpoint, Idaho

Contact: Ruth Watkins; Project Coordinator; Tri-State Implementation Council; 206 No. 4th Avenue, Suite 157; Sandpoint, ID 83864; Tel.: (208) 265-9092

Scope: Regional

Inception Date: 1993

Participants: Federal and state agencies; representatives from industries, municipalities, counties, utilities, Native American tribes, timber, agriculture, and environmental groups 

Project Type: Regional watershed management, public education, restoration/cleanup

Methods Used: Public outreach and participation, coordination of implementation activities 

Lessons Learned: Importance of broad representation of stakeholders in planning and policymaking. Effectiveness of collaboration with local and state agencies. Necessity of ongoing public education.

Background

The Tri-State Implementation Council came into being in 1993 to oversee, review and educate the public about the three-state water quality management plan developed for the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille watershed which encompasses roughly 26,000 square miles in northern Idaho, western Montana and northeastern Washington. 

This plan was the outcome of a series of steps that grew out of citizen concerns over the increasing amount of algae and aquatic weeds in the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille Lake in the late 1980s. In response, additional language was added to the 1987 Clean Water Act directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a three-year study of pollution in the basin. The result of this study was the development of the tri-state management plan. Seventy different control measures were identified and categorized, resulting in a condensed list of the top priorities. 

The Tri-State Implementation Council, a citizen-led group, was formed by the EPA and the three states' water quality agencies in October 1993 to oversee implementation of the plan. The Council is staffed by a project coordinator at its headquarters in Sandpoint, Idaho. It meets biannually at different locations throughout the three states.

The Council consists of 28 individuals who represent major stakeholder groups such as industry, municipalities, counties, businesses, utilities, Native American tribes, timber, agriculture, and environmental groups. The members, all volunteers, take an active role in building support for implementation activities through both the formal work of the Council as well as its subcommittees which work locally. Each Council member sits on one of the local subcommittees which meet at different times and frequencies depending on the needs of their local projects. They are each responsible for raising funding to support these activities. 

The Council helps coordinate policymaking and the work of local committees. It provides assistance to those working on specific aspects of the management plan. Information and updates on committee activities are compiled and circulated by the Project Coordinator. After five years the Council will review and evaluate the progress made on the plan. 

Pollution control and prevention 

Initially, the Council listed the following as its most immediate goals:

• • • the reduction of phosphorous and nitrogen pollution in the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille Lake through a nutrient allocation system;

• • • the introduction of alternative wastewater treatment at the municipal facilities in Butte, Deer Lodge, and Missoula;

• • • the development of a coordinated approach for wastewater management in the Pend Oreille watershed;

• • • the design and implementation of a nonpoint pollution control strategy beginning with the Pend Oreille River and Lake and the Bitterroot river valley;

• • • the establishment of a coordinated water monitoring network; and,

• • • the promotion of citizen education programs to educate them about their role in protecting the watershed. 

Integrated Planning

During the first 18 months of its existence, the Council has worked to make the most efficient use of its members and resources to collaborate with other organizations, primarily at the grassroots level, in an integrated process. It began to address the most pressing needs first as initially defined. These include:

Nutrient Targets

The first meeting of this committee was held in early 1994 to review current data and reports and to develop consensus among dischargers and agencies on nutrient target levels. The committee held a briefing workshop to better understand target levels and how they might be incorporated into a lake nutrient allocation strategy for the rivers and the Lake. Strategies are currently being developed for state and federal approval.

Wastewater treatment

Deer Lodge and Butte jointly agreed to obtain a declaratory ruling on water rights issues as they relate to the proposed application of wastewater on land. For Missoula the committee researched and compiled alternative wastewater treatment options and is participating in a facilities planning effort with the city. 

Pend Oreille Lake Sewers

Several information sessions have been held for local sewer district officials to identify issues, problems and concerns, as well as existing regulations and technical options for dealing with operational problems. The subcommittee is working with the county on possible land use planning alternatives. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution 

The Bitterroot River valley is one of the five heaviest nutrient sources in the Clark Fork Basin. For this reason, the Council has been working with a local grassroots organization, the Bitterroot Water Forum, to develop a nonpoint strategy. They began an extensive inventory of water quality data to use in identifying priorities for additional information needs as well as developing a management strategy. The Council is also working informally with the Pend Oreille County Watershed Coordination Committee, an independent group in northeastern Washington, on a broad-based community education plan. 

Water Quality Monitoring

Charged with developing a tri-state monitoring plan, the subcommittee enlisted the services of a consulting firm to help with its design and evaluation.

Public Education

Some of the greatest progress has come in the area of public outreach to all ages. In Idaho the subcommittee developed three project concepts: a Natural Resource Center for a new county library; a citizen monitoring program on the Pack River featuring an intergenerational (student and landowner) monitoring/streamwalk emphasis; and a primer for newcomers on water quality. 

In Montana, a series of events and educational activities have begun to spread the word about individuals and their impact on the watershed. In June, the Missoula Water Festival was held to celebrate the Clark Fork. In partnership with the Montana Natural History Center, one of the members of the Council's subcommittee worked with sixth grade teachers to plan two days of educational and entertainment programs including hands-on projects developed by the students. This effort brought together local volunteers who had not known each other previously and who were successfully able to raise over $20,000 for the project. 

The Council has helped prepare a traveling watershed educational program designed for elementary schools,. When completed the Paddle to Pend Oreille Watershed Trunk will contain puppets and other entertaining educational presentations. In order to introduce the general public to watershed protection, the Council will distribute a basinwide publication to report on the management plan and establish a "sense of place" for watershed residents.

Challenges

One of the ongoing challenges is obtaining the funding needed to staff the Council and to carry out the work of the subcommittees. Some support has come from local sources, businesses and government grants. The Council is not incorporated as a nonprofit organization. It has found that it can carry out its mission by working with and developing partnerships with local organizations and by complementing the work of public agencies. 

The Council is playing a key coordinating and educational role in this watershed and has been effective in gaining widespread support for its protection. 

Buckwheat growers of Illinois

Sumner, Illinois

Contact: Kevin Brussell; Buckwheat Growers of Illinois; Route 1, Box 450; Sumner, IL 62466; Tel.: (217) 923-3774

Scope: Throughout rural Illinois

Inception Date: 1991

Participants: Farmers

Project Type: Marketing cooperatives, sustainable agriculture, value-added businesses

Methods Used: Growing, marketing and selling buckwheat

Lessons Learned: It takes complete dedication to make a project like this work. Things take twice as much time and cost twice as much money as you think they are going to.

The Buckwheat Growers of Illinois is a not-for-profit corporation formed in 1991 to help farmers in Illinois grow buckwheat for commercial purposes. Corn, soybeans, and wheat are the major crops in Illinois, but none of them replenishes the soil and helps other crops the ways that buckwheat does. The Buckwheat Growers has made it possible for farmers who were previously either not growing buckwheat of growing buckwheat only as a cover crop (cover crops are grown to protect the soil) to profit from raising buckwheat while improving their farmland.

The Buckwheat Growers of Illinois pools the production from many growers to guarantee a large and constant supply of buckwheat to millers. The delivery point of the buckwheat is at the Buckwheat Growers' processing facility in Sumner, Illinois. The buckwheat owned by each individual farmer is tracked as the crop goes from harvesting to processing to final sale.

In 1995, the Buckwheat Growers of Illinois is raising buckwheat on approximately 1900 acres, at 750 pounds per acre. This will yield 1.425 million pounds of buckwheat. About 35 farmers pay 25 dollars per year to be members of the Buckwheat Growers. This entitles them to sell their buckwheat through the Buckwheat Growers of Illinois and to attend the group's meetings which are partly educational. There is a wide range of farmers that are members: their f