food planning in detroitmedia2.planning.org/apa2012/presentations/s527_food systems pl… · as...

Food planning in Detroit

Muddling through crisis and

creative engagement

© Kami Pothukuchi, Ph.D.,

Director, SEED Wayne

Wayne State University

[email protected]

APA Conference, April 16, 2012

mailto:[email protected]

Background

• City in fiscal crisis—consent agreement

• Significant loss of population & wealth, 2000-10

• High rates of poverty, unemployment

• 3 out of 10 Detroit households food insecure

• One in five Detroit high school students is obese

• Low nutrition program participation rates

• $200 million grocery gap

• Only one black-owned grocery store in a city in which 4 out 5 residents are African-American

• Significant grassroots food planning activity

© Kami Pothukuchi, 2012

Urban Agriculture

• 1,300 vegetable gardens; 300 community, 60 school, and 40 market gardens.

• D-Town Farm grows to 7 acres

• Earthworks Farm is certified organic; composts more than 300,000 lbs of food system wastes annually.


Neighborhood Food Retail • 8 neighborhood farmers’ markets

• 2 mobile markets, 40 farm stands,

• 18 Detroit FRESH “healthy corner stores”

• Green Grocer Project of Detroit Economic Growth Corp.


City food policy • Detroit Food Security Policy

• Detroit Food Policy Council

– Annual summit

– Food system report

– Urban agriculture policy development

– Food finder participatory mapping/assessment


Undoing racism dialogues • Undoing Racism dialogues w ~400

participants

• Emphasizing local, black leadership in city,

food planning processes


Factors in food planning

1. Local government absence

– Vacant land and urban ag growth

– Nutrition program delivery

– Capacity issues

– City v grassroots tensions

2. Creative grassroots collaboration

3. Black power history as inspiration

4. External support




2. Creative collaboration

– from organizational need to system need

– Incremental food system capacity

– Civic institutions play leadership roles

– (Tensions due to uneven capacity)


4. External support






– Political self-determination

• Detroit Food Security Policy; Council

• Undoing racism dialogues

– Economic self-determination

• Urban ag

• Food retail, entrepreneurship

4. External support






4. External support

– 3 USDA CFP and other federal grants

– Significant foundation support

– Planning by “outsiders” and uneven

development as sources of tension


Recap

• Detroit faces many problems and has

many unmet food system needs

• The city has diverse strengths, resources

and much food planning capacity, with

many accomplishments to date

• Several factors account for grassroots-led

food planning, offering hope and serving

as a model for community planning


Thank you!

Contact me at [email protected]

Continuing challenges, tensions

• City government leadership

• Uneven development

• Broad based participation by residents

• Outsider involvement, interventions


National Scan of Food System Policies

American Planning Association Los Angeles, April 15, 2012

Subhashni Raj, Kailee Neuner, and Samina Raja University at Buffalo

Introduction

A combination of public policy tools are being developed and implemented at different levels of government - local, county, and regional - to strengthen food systems

Tools: plans, regulations, and fiscal incentives

Draws on a larger study

FOOD PLANS REGULATIONS FISCAL

Production

Processing

Distribution

Consumpti

on

Disposal

Planning Levers

PLANS Regional County Municipal

Inclusion in

general plans

Health

Boston Metro (2008)

Agriculture

Southern California (2008)

Health

Harrison County, MS

(2008)

Ag and Nat. Res.

Dane County, WI (2007)

Marin County, CA

(2007)

Energy

Dillingham, AK (2011)

Environmental Stewardship

Boise, ID (2010)

Ag and Nat Res

Madison, WI (2006)

Parks and Open Space

Seattle, WA, (2005)

Inclusion in

other plans

Climate Change Plan

Portland and Multnomah County,

OR (2009)

Environmental sustainability

Plan

Philadelphia, PA (2009)

PLANS

Regional County Municipal

Food system

plans

Eating here: Greater

Philadelphia’s food

system plan

Delaware Valley Regional

Planning Commission

(2011)

A Healthy Community

Food System Plan

Region of Waterloo, ON

(2007)

Recipe for success

Dane County, WI (2005)

Multnomah Food Action

Plan: Grow and Thrive

2025

Multnomah, OR (2010)

Food Works: A vision to

improve NYC’s food

system

New York, NY (2010)

Transforming the Oakland

Food System: A Plan for

action

Oakland, CA (2010)


Production

Processing

Distribution

Consumptio

n

Disposal

REGULATORY TOOLS

Type Municipal

Zoning and other

ordinances

Community gardens permitted in residential districts

Cleveland, OH; Kansas, MO

Chickens and bees permitted in residential areas

Madison, WI, Cleveland, OH, Seattle, WA

Fast food restaurant restrictions

Arcata, CA, Los Angeles, CA, Detroit, MI

Development

Incentives

Bonus points for community gardens in Planned Unit

Developments (PUD)

Minneapolis, MN

Density bonuses for grocery stores carrying fresh produce (New

York, NY)

Reduced parking requirements for grocery stores carrying fresh

produce (New York, NY)


Production

Processing

Distribution

Consumptio

n

Disposal

FISCAL/ECONOMIC DEV. INCENTIVES

Type State Municipal

Grants and loans Fresh Food

Retail

PA, NY

Community gardens creation and expansion

Madison, WI (federal community block grant)

Healthy Mobile Vending

New York, NY (Green Cart Initiative)

Food-based job training

Milwaukee, WI (425, 000 in federal HUD funds)

Real estate tax benefit Fresh food retail

New York, NY

$500 per full time employee for 25 years

Sales tax Benefit Fresh food retail

New York, NY

Mortgage tax benefit Fresh food retail

New York, NY

Mortgage reporting tax of 2.05%/2.80% ($500,000)

License or permitting

fee benefit

Healthy mobile vending

Kansas, MO

Reduction in vending permit fees

Levy Portion of park and open space levy dedicated to

community gardens

Seattle, WA

2million for P Patch community gardens

Concluding Remarks

Challenges

– Standards and Definitions

– Lining up all three policy tools

Opportunities

– Rust belt cities: opportunity to shrink with grace

Rejuvenating Rustbelt Cities

Food Systems Planning in Buffalo, NY

American Planning Association

Los Angeles, April 15, 2012

Samina Raja, Ph.D.

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

Outline

■ Context

■ Food environment

■ Food systems planning trajectory

■ Challenges and lessons

Context ■ Population 261,310

■ 39% African American

■ 20% are youth,18 and

younger

■ 30% of individuals below

the poverty level

■ 30% of households have

no access to an

automobile

■ ~15,000 vacant lots

Food environment ■ Limited food retail stores

■ Small stores and

convenience stores

predominate

■ Limited healthy food

options near schools

Food systems planning trajectory

Youth programs

Community gardens (more than 70)

Growing Green Works (youth business)

Farm-to-school

Acquaponics

Mobile market

Urban farms (farmers cooperative)

1990s 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Food System Education:

Working on Other Local

Farms


Youth programs

Community gardens (more than 70)

Growing Green Works (youth business)

Farm-to-school

Acquaponics

Mobile market

Urban farms

1990s 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Food for Growth plan ‘03

‘Chicken’ ordinance ‘10

Queen city gardens plan ‘09

‘Green Code’ ‘11

Comm. gardens resolution ‘10

‘Healthy Corner Store resolution ’ ‘12


“Community gardens will be allowed in all Zones, both

as stand-alone uses and accessory to other uses, such

as schools and places of worship. …As with all farming

operations, [impacts] need to be mitigated, such as noise,

dust, odor, and vibrations.”

“The UDO will allow market gardens in all yards,

including front yards, and allow the sale of produce from

operators of market gardens.

“A conditional approval process and related standards will

address more intensive urban agricultural uses, such as

aquaculture facilities.”

“The ability to create vertical farms should [be]

addressed in the UDO.”

March 16, 2012

What factors explain the

trajectory?

1. High community need and food-blind

local government policy and structure

(this is rapidly changing)

2. Active grassroots groups

3 Diverse and complementary partnership

– community gardeners, farmers,

medical campus, city government,

university

4. National trends

5. Capacity building in the community to

participate in planning and policy

processes

December 2011

What factors explain the trajectory?

1

Challenges and cautionary notes

■ External funding and resources create

challenges and uncertainties

■ Reduce emphasis on what doesn’t work

■ Network the food infrastructure, not scale

it up

Questions

A system

Production

Processing

Uneven access to healthy food in Erie County, NY

Distribution

Planning Healthy Food Systems

What’s the problem?

Production

Processing

Marketing and

Distribution

Consumption

Disposal

Distribution

Absolute proximity to restaurants and relative proximity to convenience stores (versus supermarkets) is correlated with higher BMI among women in Erie County, NY

Consumption

What’s the problem?

Disposal

Disposal

How did we get here?

Market failure

“Faith” in science and technology

Invisibility of the food system to ordinary people

Institutional vacuum - there is no ‘department of food systems

Disciplinary vacuum - few academic departments of food systems

Short-sighted federal, state, and municipal policies

Freedom from hunger

Food security

Food justice Food

sovereignty

What does a good food system look

like?

?

Why food systems

planning and policy?

Planning […] works to improve the

welfare of people and their

communities by creating more

convenient, equitable, healthful,

efficient, and attractive places for

present and future generations. Good

planning helps create communities

that offer better choices for where

and how people live.

Source: American Planning Association


Why food systems

planning and policy?

Uses information to make

reasoned judgment about

future actions

Systemic and long term

view

Multi-sectoral and

interdisciplinary view

How are (municipal) planners engaged?

Planners are responding cautiously

Planning practitioners/agencies are active

in few communities but involvement is

growing rapidly

Professional associations such as the

American Planning Association are

building capacity

Teaching and research on food systems is

growing rapidly across the country

Survey of (professional) planners

- About 70% of US planners see food

systems planning as an issue of

significance or high priority

- Agricultural land preservation ranks high,

hunger prevention ranks low

- Actual involvement of planning agencies is

limited (30% are engaged)

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lack of community support for the issue

Lack of awareness regarding food issues

Lack of in interest

Other

Lack of political support

...Organization ... does not intersect ...food issues

Lack of staff trained in this area

Lack of resources

Very Important or Primary Explanation Moderately Important Not at all important or Minimally Important

Barriers to involvement in food planning

among planning organizations is similar Lack of resources

Lack of trained staff

Organization’s work does not intersect with food

issues


Other

Lack of interest by planning organization


Lack of community support for food issues

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lack of community support for the issue


Lack of in interest

Other


...Organization ... does not intersect ...food issues

Lack of staff trained in this area

Lack of resources

Very Important or Primary Explanation Moderately Important Not at all important or Minimally Important

1. Gather at the table

2. Envision, set goals and objectives

3. Assess

4. Identify

and propose

strategies

5. Adopt and

Implement

A decade of “covert” food system planning

Relationship building and organizing

Evaluate, change course


Public sectors

-Public health

-Agriculture

-Schools

-Others

Private

sectors

-Farmers

-Processors

-Retailers

-Distributors

Residents

Age

Race

Income

Non-profits

-Food

advocacy

groups

2. Envision

2. Envision

Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities-Buffalo, NY

Youth-led visioning

3. Assess

3. Assess

Food Environments Around Schools

LOCAL –SCALE

3. Assess

NATIONAL–SCALE

4. Propose strategies

Planning for Sustainable Community Food Systems Plans Regulations Fiscal tools

Stand-alone food system plans

Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Commission (Planning process under way

Food System Study Complete)

Region of Waterloo, Ontario

Dane County, WI

Buffalo, NY (Food for Growth)

Zoning Ordinance or Bylaws

Kansas City, MI (Urban Agriculture)

Cleveland, OH (Urban Agriculture)

Milwaukee, WI (Community Gardening)

Los Angeles, CA (Fast Food)

Arcata, CA (Fast Food)

Concord, MA (Fast Food)

Loan/grant programs

Minneapolis, WI

(Healthy corner store

program)

New York, NY

(grant for mobile vendors)

Pennsylvania

(Fresh Food Financing

Initiative);

Madison, WI

(federal Community

Development Block Grant

for CG)

Plans for a component of the food system

Buffalo, NY (Community Garden plan)

Madison, WI (Community Garden plan)

Numerous communities (Ag Plans)

“Chicken and bee” ordinances

Buffalo, NY (Chicken)

Madison, WI (Chicken)

Cleveland, OH (Chicken and bees)

Food element in a general or

comprehensive plans

Minneapolis, MN (underway)

Harrison County, MS (Health)

Dane County, WI (Ag and Natural Res.)

Madison, Wisconsin

Marin County, CA (Agriculture)

Watsonville, CA (Land Use)

Seattle, WA; (Parks)

Toronto, Ontario (Parks)

Development review

Watsonville, CA (2006)

(Permit for convenience stores conditional on

availability of fresh fruits and vegetables)

Purchase of development

rights

Numerous communities

Density bonuses

New York, NY

(One additional SF of residential FA for each SF

for FRESH store in a mixed use buildings; limit)

Streamline permitting

Oakland, CA (healthy mobile vending)

New York, NY (waive special permit for FRESH

stores in light manufacturing district)

Reduced Parking Requirements

New York, NY (no parking for FRESH stores <

40,000 SF on ground floor of mixed used

buildings in Comm. Districts)

5. Adopt, implement, evaluate


2. Envision, set goals and objectives

3. Assess

4. Identify

and propose

strategies

5. Adopt and

Implement

A decade of “covert” food system planning in

Buffalo

Relationship building and organizing

Evaluate, change course

1990s - Neighborhood organizing

- Youth programs

- Community gardens

2003

Neighborhood-scale Plan

- “Food for Growth”

2004-

Program Implementation

- Urban farm

- Youth food business

- Aquaponics facility

- Mobile Market

- Farm-to-cafeteria

2008-

City-wide policy and plans

- Community Gardens Plan “Queen City Gardens Plan” (2009)

- Community Gardens Resolution (2010)

- “Chicken” ordinance (2010)

2010-

City and county-wide policy and plans

- City’s Green Code (underway)

- County’s Farmland Preservation Plan

(underway)

Covert planning takes time

Challenges for ‘covert’ food system planning 1. Planning and policy making processes are opaque

2. Institutional/agency structures pose barriers

3. Policy/planning timeline is different than community timeline

4. Taking time to reflect

Lessons from ‘covert’ planning 1. Community food systems planning is a means to

an ‘agreed-upon’ end

2. We shape policies, before policies shape our communities

3. Relationships, relationships, relationships

4. Scaling up, versus replication

5. Assets, not deprivations


Thank you for your attention!

food planning in detroitmedia2.planning.org/apa2012/presentations/s527_food systems pl… · as...

Documents