Occupy Fresno plans a May Day action focusing on holding the banks accountable for the foreclosure crisis. Read the May Day article, which starts on this page, for more information.

By Mike Rhodes

May 1 has always marked the coming of spring: a time of rebirth and new possibilities. For more than a century, May Day has been known as International Workers Day, a day where the 99%—workers throughout the world—have united to fight their common exploitation by the 1%.

Chicago 1886 The origins of May Day lie in the revolutionary year of 1886 when Read the details]]>

Occupy Fresno plans a May Day action focusing on holding the banks accountable for the foreclosure crisis. Read the May Day article, which starts on this page, for more information.

By Mike Rhodes

May 1 has always marked the coming of spring: a time of rebirth and new possibilities. For more than a century, May Day has been known as International Workers Day, a day where the 99%—workers throughout the world—have united to fight their common exploitation by the 1%.

Chicago 1886
The origins of May Day lie in the revolutionary year of 1886 when a wave of mass strikes— focused on the fight for an eight-hour day—surged across the heartland of America. The American Federation of Labour had adopted a resolution stating that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886.”

In Chicago, more than 100,000 workers struck. There, during a demonstration on May 3, a crowd confronted strike-breakers leaving the nearby McCormick factory, chasing them back inside. Without warning, police opened fire on the crowd, killing four and seriously wounding many.

The following day, a rally was called at Haymarket Square to protest the police violence. The mayor was in attendance, and the crowd debated how to continue their strike. As the meeting was winding down, a group of 180 police stormed in and ordered everyone to disperse. A bomb was thrown toward the police line. Who threw it—whether protestor or provocateur—has never been determined. As the bomb exploded, chaos descended. One police officer was killed, and many others were injured.

The police opened fire on the crowd, killing dozens. A police dragnet swept the city. Eight revolutionary labor leaders were arrested, seven of whom had not even been present in Haymarket at the time. In the absence of any evidence linking them to the bomb, the “Chicago Eight” were tried solely on the basis of their political beliefs. All eight were sentenced to death.

Several years later, in honor of their slain comrades, a coalition of workers’ groups declared May 1st International Workers Day. Ever since, people around the world have come together on May Day to remember the sacrifices of those who have struggled before us, to defend the gains they made and to discuss the way forward to a better world for the 99%.

May 1, 1968—Paris
The dust was still settling from the March 22 student occupation of the University of Paris at Nanterre. Civil and student unrest were bubbling up across the world. The authorities were discussing how to manage the growing industrial strikes and the emerging conflicts with students at Nanterre. No one knew that the very fabric of French society was about to explode.

It all happened quickly: May 1968 was totally unplanned and unexpected. On May 2, the administration decided to shut down Nanterre, and within a week tens of thousands of university and high school students were confronting the police on the streets of Paris: the police in full-scale riot gear wielding batons and tear gas and savagely beating students, the protestors throwing rocks and burning cars in defense. The protestors gained mainstream support in Parisian society and called a general strike for May 13. It was a historic day—a million people marched, the prisoners were released and the Sorbonne was occupied!

A wave of mass strikes and worker occupations immediately followed. The strike lasted weeks, involving 11 million workers, nearly 66% of the workforce and 22% of the population of France. Striking students and workers refused negotiation, putting forward broad and radical platforms for the transformation of modern society.

For a week in May, the city and its surrounding area were controlled by the workers themselves. The old guardians of power and authority looked on helplessly as workers took control of their own lives and city. On May 24, road blocks were set up around the city as farmers made a protest of solidarity with the workers and students.

French society was on the brink of collapse; President de Gaulle fled the country and the remaining ministers secretly counted the days until the full-scale revolution would topple them. With the military surrounding Paris, de Gaulle dissolved the parliament and called for new elections. It was a stroke of strategic brilliance, ending the revolution nearly as quickly as it had begun. The remaining protestors could sense their betrayal, dawning the slogan “Elections are a con.”

Perhaps the most striking element of the May 1968 revolution was the symbolic occupations that occurred in three distinct realms of Parisian life: education, work and culture. The student occupations of both Nanterre and Sorbonne united them with student uprisings around the world in the 1960s; it was a global uprising that signaled a young, militant, discontented youth. The workers of May 1968 took occupation and self-management to a new level. At its peak, 122 factories were occupied by workers, without the consultation of union officials. The cultural occupations symbolized by the occupation of the Odeon Theatre took the revolution to the sphere of cultural expression and production: Parisians fought for sexual rights, individual freedoms and the rights of women and homosexuals.

To this day, May 1968 represents one of the most powerful historical critiques of capitalism, imperialism, consumerism and the foundations of representational democracy. The general rebellion of May 1968 took as its task no less than the rethinking of all social relations, the reshaping of politics and the liberation of a whole society from the shackles of capitalism. As they declared in 1968, “We don’t want to be the servants of capitalism.”

May Day in Fresno
The May Day Committee for Immigration Reform is asking supporters to come out to the streets on this historic date in unity and to continue the struggle for immigration reform, a stop to deportations and the separation of families, no to the implementation of unjust anti-immigrant laws and car impounds and equal rights for all immigrants and their families.

The May 1event will start at 2 p.m. at Courthouse Park in downtown Fresno. There will be a march starting at 6 p.m.

In another May Day action, Occupy Fresno has announced that they will foreclose on the Chase Bank at First Street and Shaw Avenue. That event will start at 5:30 p.m. on April 30 and continue until closing on May 1 or until they shut down the bank.

According to Occupy Fresno organizers, this action is in solidarity with other Occupy groups who are also holding direct actions targeting banks around the nation. They plan to surround the bank in crime scene tape, post foreclosure notices on the bank and fire the bankers handing them pink slips. This action includes a temporary move of the Occupy Fresno encampment from Courthouse Park to the Chase Bank.

The group’s goal is to bring awareness to the foreclosures and fees and crimes that the big banks have done. They are asking people to move their money from the big banks to a local credit union.

What can we learn from history?
The progressive inclusion of voices and segments of the 99% in May Day demonstrations indicates a profound shift in the struggle for a better, more equitable world. It serves as an important historical message that the 99% is not only the worker but also all those displaced, mistreated and exploited by a vicious and cruel economic and political system: students, immigrants, the unemployed, the invisible, the homeless, women, the LGBT community, precarious workers, the incarcerated, etc.

Reading May Day’s history in 2012 makes it clear: The 99% is just that—99% of us who suffer while the 1% prospers. May Day 2012 is a day that the 99% steps onto the stage of history, declaring from Fresno to New York and from Cairo to Durbin:
We are all workers
We are all immigrants
We are all the 99%
And we demand a better world for all.

Note: Major sections of this article were found at www.maydaynyc.org.

Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper.  He can be reached by email at editor@fresnoalliance.com.

West Fresno activist Mary Curry spoke at this press conference in front of City Hall, where the group announced a lawsuit had been filed against the City of Fresno. Curry said, “The community has suffered through decades of threats to our health and well-being. We will tolerate no more delays—only a solution.”

West Fresno citizens have finally had enough of the noxious odors, flies and pollution from Darling International’s meat rendering plant in their neighborhood, and enough dithering from the City of Fresno. Now they’re going to court. The lawsuit was announced Read the details]]> By Vic Bedoian

West Fresno activist Mary Curry spoke at this press conference in front of City Hall, where the group announced a lawsuit had been filed against the City of Fresno. Curry said, “The community has suffered through decades of threats to our health and well-being. We will tolerate no more delays—only a solution.”

West Fresno citizens have finally had enough of the noxious odors, flies and pollution from Darling International’s meat rendering plant in their neighborhood, and enough dithering from the City of Fresno. Now they’re going to court. The lawsuit was announced by West Fresno Concerned Citizens at a news conference held April 9 in front of City Hall.

Legal action was brought against the City of Fresno because the plant has never had a conditional-use permit (CUP)—a clear violation of the Municipal Code. Residents have been complaining about the meat processing factory for more than 60 years, yet the city has yet to do anything much to resolve the issue.

Darling International processes 850,000 pounds of meat a day within yards of West Fresno homes. Pastor Booker T. Lewis II of the Rising Star Missionary Church grew up in the neighborhood near his church. He says the decades of inaction by the city is an environmental injustice, “For 20 years my family endured unbearable odors, swarming flies, gatherings of stray dogs attracted to the odors and residues around the plant. The air quality around this plant is still questionable as the odor became so pungent that picnics were impossible and spending time in the yard was insufferable.”

The public interest law firm California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) is working with the group to compel Darling International to finally obtain a CUP from the city. They are also seeking relief from what they say is the discriminatory actions by the City of Fresno that have negatively affected West Fresno residents.

Phoebe Seaton, the CRLA attorney on the case, claims the city has been violating its own law for years, “The city has been aware that this is an illegal, nonconforming use and they have failed to take appropriate action.”

In 2005, the company sought to expand its operations but relented after strenuous opposition. The next year, the city approved housing developments less than a half mile away from the plant, despite continuing grievances about the odors. In 2007, Darling International entered into an abatement agreement with the city and was told to apply for the CUP, but that never happened.

Finally, last December, a mediation process took place between the city, the company and residents. For Mary Curry, president of West Fresno Concerned Citizens, it was the last chance for a negotiated settlement, “There was a lot of talk about what might be done and give them another 90 days, which we did. We’ve acquiesced to everything they asked us to do.

“When this last thing from mediation came out, the city said at the end of mediation if the Darling people did not come up with some solutions, they must start the arbitration process, which means they must get a CUP. They didn’t do that. They came up with another plan to wait two to five more years. We just said, ‘enough.’”

The plant employs around 30 people. They are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The company claims that the rendering plant has been improved in light of numerous complaints. One worker said the odor coming from the plant is not as bad as residents say.

Dillon Savory, political coordinator for the Fresno-Tulare-Madera-Kings Central Labor Council, backs the company’s position, “These members, all of them are concerned about the plant getting closed because originally the members of the [West Fresno Citizens] Coalition for the past 50 years or more wanted this plant closed. But they haven’t understood the legal challenge that poses.

“Over the past 30 years, there are so many upgrades that Darling has tried to do in compliance with the citizens that are concerned that they’ve actually exceeded the federal regulations that are required to run such a plant.”

After private meetings between the company and the City of Fresno, officials now say the company only needs to agree on abating the problems, rather than moving the plant to another location. After decades fighting for a solution, Curry thinks it falls far short of what is needed, “I’m 80 years old. How much longer should we have to wait for justice?”

The City Council was scheduled to meet in closed session on April 28 to decide whether Darling International, after 60 years in business, would be required to have a conditional-use permit.

*****

Vic Bedoian is an independent radio and print journalist working on environmental justice and natural resources issues in the San Joaquin Valley. Contact him at vicbedoian@gmail.com.

1953—Limited Permit Issued, First Odor Complaints Fresno County grants Sierra Meat Co. Variance 377 to engage in meat rendering to support its slaughterhouse with 4,000 pounds of tallow expected to be processed per day. Several local residents voice opposition.

1965—Increase to 286,000 Pounds per Day Peterson Manufacturing Co. purchases the plant. At this time, the plant was processing 286,000 pounds per day of raw material. No permit was granted for the increase.

1967—Original Conditional-Use Read the details]]> 1947—Plant Opens
Sierra Meat Co. (now Darling International) receives Special Use Permit 9 to operate a slaughterhouse and meat packaging plant facility from Fresno County.

1953—Limited Permit Issued, First Odor Complaints
Fresno County grants Sierra Meat Co. Variance 377 to engage in meat rendering to support its slaughterhouse with 4,000 pounds of tallow expected to be processed per day. Several local residents voice opposition.

1965—Increase to 286,000 Pounds per Day
Peterson Manufacturing Co. purchases the plant. At this time, the plant was processing 286,000 pounds per day of raw material. No permit was granted for the increase.

1967—Original Conditional-Use Permit (CUP) Demand
The County of Fresno Planning Department meets with Peterson to discuss odor issues and points out the plant’s owners are not operating in compliance with Special Use Permit 9 or Variance 377. Notes from the hearing state that the county informed Peterson it would have to get a CUP.

1971—Plant Annexed into City
The plant is annexed into the City of Fresno into an area zoned M-3, which designates that those engaged in meat rendering obtain a CUP. Peterson does not seek a CUP, and the city does not require one. At this time, Peterson is no longer operating a slaughterhouse or meat packaging plant and is only engaging in meat rendering for other slaughterhouses, a not-permitted activity.

1974—Odor Complaints
The newly formed Fresno County Air District begins receiving complaints from local residents about horrible smells.

1978—Odor Complaints
Significant numbers of residents complain about offensive odors from the plant.

1981—Residents’ Complaints
More documented evidence of residents’ continued complaints about the plant’s smell and of carcasses and blood dripping from uncovered trucks onto West Fresno streets.

1987—Darling Buys Plant
The rendering plant is sold to Darling-Delaware Inc.

1988–1989—Air District Complaints
Between July 1, 1988, and March 22, 1989, the air district receives 72 official complaints of odor from Darling. It requires Darling to construct a metal enclosure to address odors. The city prepares a negative declaration related only to the enclosure construction and how the enclosure will address smell.

1989—First Lawsuit
Precious Whittle and 37 other West Fresno residents file a complaint in Fresno Superior Court alleging Darling and other adjacent businesses have been operating negligently and causing a nuisance.

1990—Trucks Dumping Waste
Residents complain repeatedly of Darling trucks spilling foul liquids and animal waste from their trucks throughout West Fresno and offensive odors.

1992—850,000 Pounds per Day
By 1992, Darling had tripled the plant’s processing volume to producing 850,000 pounds of raw material per day without having obtained a CUP.

2005—City Again Ignores CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), Residents Stop Darling Growth
Darling seeks to expand its operation through the San Joaquin Valley Air District. The district attempts to declare a negative declaration of environmental effects despite a proposed increase to 1,115,000 pounds per day of raw material. The City of Fresno refuses to act as the lead agency as called for in California environmental law. Concerned Citizens of West Fresno and others voice opposition, and Darling withdraws its application.

2006—City Approves Housing
The city approves permits to construct 175 homes and 69 rental units at the Hope VI project of the Fresno Housing Authority just 1,800 feet from the plant.

2007—350 Residents Complain
The Valley Air District again prepares a negative declaration in response to another application from Darling seeking to increase production to 1.5 million pounds per day. The district again claims that there will be no effect on the environment. More than 350 people complain, and Darling again withdraws its application.

2007 (December)—City Demands a CUP
The City of Fresno sends a letter to Darling stating the company must enter into a temporary abatement agreement and apply for a CUP.

2008—Darling Refuses to Get a CUP
In response to a letter from Darling, the city sends a letter to Darling requiring the company to apply for a permit within three weeks.

2011—Abatement Agreement Released
After non-public negotiations between the city and Darling, the city reverses its position and instead asserts that Darling need only agree to an abatement agreement.

2012—West Fresno Citizens File Lawsuit Against the City of Fresno
California Rural Legal Assistance represents the Concerned Citizens of West Fresno in filing a legal action requiring a city decision on a CUP for the Darling plant.

Note: Chronology courtesy of Kevin Hall, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition.

Photographer Howard Watkins was there to record the historic moment when the Fresno City Council voted (5-2) for a smart growth plan that will focus more on infill and higher density.

April 19 might go down as one of the most important dates in the history of the City of Fresno. That evening, the City Council finalized a General Plan Update, approving on a 5-2 vote a plan for “smart growth”—called A2—that will set a course for Fresno’s future—a quantum leap from the past and business as usual.

Just a few years Read the details]]> By Chip Ashley

Photographer Howard Watkins was there to record the historic moment when the Fresno City Council voted (5-2) for a smart growth plan that will focus more on infill and higher density.

April 19 might go down as one of the most important dates in the history of the City of Fresno. That evening, the City Council finalized a General Plan Update, approving on a 5-2 vote a plan for “smart growth”—called A2—that will set a course for Fresno’s future—a quantum leap from the past and business as usual.

Just a few years ago, the subject of general plans was pretty humdrum. But this is an exciting time. Fresno finally seems to be coming around—as a collective—to understanding that how we use our living space matters in all sorts of ways that affect our lives—the lives of all people who form this community, at all economic levels, among all the diverse groups that make up Fresno, so that it actually might become a “community” in the most positive sense of the term. And there are real signs that Fresno is actually learning how to be a community. That’s what urban planning, at its best, should be all about.

The process started two years ago with many local organizations, such as Fresno Metro Ministries, the Building Healthy Communities and the Fresno Housing Alliance, as well as individuals, contributing to the discussion led by chief planner Keith Bergthold and consulting architects Mark Steele and Michael Dyett. A General Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee had 18 meetings, and 13 public workshops were held. On March 21, the City Planning Commission, under the brilliant leadership of presiding member Jaime Holt, voted unanimously to recommend Alternative A (the precursor of A2).

The General Plan Update was the subject of a special meeting of the City Council on April 5. At the end of that meeting, the Council postponed a vote to April 19. Council members were to vote for one of five alternatives, A through E. This vote was all about Smart Growth and computer modeling. City of Fresno planners, led by Bergthold, have been working with architects Steele and Dyett for more than two years on this update.

Briefly summarized, Alternative E was recently put in play by the Building Industry Association (BIA)—the developers. It represents business as usual—more sprawl, more greenhouse gases, more pollution, less health.

“A” was the most radically environmental alternative. It would require growth to stay within the so-called sphere of influence (SOI)—a narrow strip of land around the already developed city. It would focus on a revitalized downtown as the community core and utilize a concept called “complete neighborhoods” to develop self-contained communities along boulevards—Shaw, Blackstone, Ventura and Kings Canyon. These “complete neighborhoods” would contain housing for all income levels, as well as shopping, schools, parks and other recreational opportunities, entertainment, financial and medical services—in short, everything an individual or family needs for daily life—all within walking or biking distance. Walking and biking would reduce vehicle miles traveled by an amazing 32%.

Alternatives B, C and D represented the middle ground between A and E, with D being the next most environmental plan after A. But Alternatives B, C, D and E all proposed development outside the SOI—sprawl.

The prime mover of this vote was the 300 or so folks that took time out of their busy lives on April 5 to fill the Council chamber to the brim, standing room only. Most of these folks came from Fresno’s progressive community—the audience of this newspaper—You.

At the April 5 meeting, by the time Council President Clint Olivier had collected all the cards from those who wanted to make a public comment, he had 87. Five hours later, about 80 of the 87 had recommended Alternative A.

Why? Quality and quantity of life is a big part of the answer, and Alternative A, also called the “Boulevard Plan,” would do the most, in these folks’ opinion, to improve the quality and quantity of life. It would do the most to improve residents’ health and create real community—a place where people can become citizens, not just consumers, not just cogs in a machine. In these folks’ opinion, Alternative A offered the best opportunity for Fresno to become a healthy, vibrant community.

Community members packed Fresno City Hall to lobby for a plan that would limit growth and improve our quality of life.

Commenter Kevin Hamilton of Clinica Sierra Vista summed it up well, saying previous general plans had been designed for cars, not for people. “This city should be designed for people…Cars do not breathe. Cars do not have a society. They do not join together for events. They do not have a community. Cars put us in little boxes so we don’t have to meet each other.”

Hamilton’s comment aimed at both health and the difficult-to-define concept of community, inseparable concepts—the yin and yang of Alternative A. Hamilton works with a low-income mostly non-White clientele—a group disproportionately
affected by air pollution. And, of course, cars—those little moving boxes that let us avoid interaction with other people while we travel—produce lots of air pollution in Fresno. Specifically, they produce not only lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 but also lots of ozone precursors and particulates, some of the worst concentrations on this planet, which kill thousands of people every year in the San Joaquin Valley, significantly reducing both the quantity and quality of life, especially in the so-called environmental justice communities (served by Clinica Sierra Vista), communities located in spaces most adversely affected by pollution of all sorts.

There is more to health than freedom from environmental pollution. Indeed, getting rid of pollution requires that people care about each other enough to get rid of it, and that’s what community is about—people caring about each other. Hamilton believes Alternative A will get us out of our little fossil-powered isolation cells. It will begin slowly to dismantle and rebuild a city that up to this point seems to have been designed to isolate individuals, to atomize us, to separate us all and possibly—could the hidden plan be so diabolical?—make us easier to control, to keep the reins of power in the hands of some elite cabal—to prevent community. And by community I mean a living situation that encourages interaction among members, which breaks down barriers that separate us geographically, physically, economically and racially.

Jose Luis Barraza addressed all these issues in his Walt Whitman like, Fresno poet style comment: “I have lived in central Fresno all my life. I have lived in the confines of that triangle of highways, freeways and byways between the railroads of the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe. I have witnessed large portions of my neighborhoods disappear to those developments that left behind long strips of land sitting without development for nearly two decades. I’ve seen homeowners turn into renters, watched major businesses dwindle away or be relocated to the north.” Barraza supported Alternative A.

How will Alternative A break down social barriers separating ethnic and economic groups? That’s a big part of “complete neighborhoods.” These complete neighborhoods, arranged along Shaw, Blackstone and Kings Canyon–Ventura, will provide housing to all income levels, mixed-use buildings (which contain commercial and residential space and could be 3–5 stories in height), schools, parks, recreational and entertainment facilities, shopping, medical and
financial services—in short, everything one needs to live a decent, comfortable life. All of this will be located within less than a mile so that one can easily walk or bicycle instead of utilizing the fossil-powered isolation cell, aka the automobile. Imagine! It will now become possible to live in Fresno without a car.

There were many progressive community activists at the City Hall hearings on the General Plan. In the foreground are attorney Patience Milrod and Paul Pierce. The “A” that Patience is wearing is for General Plan Alternative A, the smart growth plan, which was passed.

Jack Schutt, longtime Fresno architect and university urban planning instructor, has been involved in urban planning in Fresno for many years. Schutt explained that Fresno has a footprint of 112 square miles and a population of 500,000, compared to San Francisco with 48 square miles and a population of 805,000 (2010) and Boston, containing 43 square miles with a population of 617,000 (2010). “You can put two San Franciscos and two and a half Bostons in the footprint of Fresno.” Schutt ended by asserting, “Sprawl is most expensive because it is least efficient. You have one way out, and that is Alternative A.”

Commenters included speakers from at least three language groups—English, of course, as well as Spanish and Hmong. They were ethnically and economically diverse. All age groups were represented. The disabled participated. Children spoke. Commenters came from all walks of life, from affluent business owners, to middle and working class. Nearly all supported Alternative A.

Several spoke up for the homeless, including J.D. McCubbin, who numbered the homeless in the thousands and said, “Where will you put the homeless? Where will they sleep at night?”

Bill Simon said, “Nobody in our city should have to sleep at night behind an oleander bush or on a sidewalk.”

Farmers supported Alternative A, including Ryan Jacobsen, president of the Fresno County Farm Bureau. Pat Ricchiuti, president of P&R Farms and Fresno County Farm Bureau board member, thanked the diverse coalition that filled the chamber and referred to Operation Rezone. “We have now built a community of honesty and integrity and we will never revisit [Operation Rezone] again.”

Jacobsen supported Alternative A in a letter dated April 4 to Council President Olivier: “Only one alternative significantly follows the growth principles of A Landscape of Choice, preserves prime farmland and aims at bettering the communities the City currently has as well as reshaping the City’s future: Alternative ‘A’—Boulevard Plan.”

Dr. Robert Merrill discussed Operation Rezone, the antithesis of current planning culture: “Stop supporting urban sprawl, which privatizes profits while leading to subsidies at taxpayer expense…Fresno’s past suburban sprawl model allowed
developers to reap exorbitant benefits and profits by taking options on agricultural land beyond the sphere of influence. They then came before this Council asking for a zoning change, which often violated the General Plan. When the Council approved zoning changes, the value of the land increased astronomically. With their options, developers were able to buy at the old price, pocketing the profits. Then they invested pennies of these profits on campaign contributions.” Merrill supported Alternative A.

Kevin Hall, director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, said the city has to do a better job at dealing with costs than do businesses, like the developers represented by the BIA. “Businesses externalize costs to taxpayers,” Hall said, referring to taxpayer-funded subsidies to support infrastructure needed by new housing tracts, especially those outside the city SOI, which means developers profit at taxpayer expense. “City governments have to account for all the costs.”

Francine Farber of the League of Women Voters answered the BIA’s criticism that Alternative A won’t work because of the market: “They say, ‘It can’t be done.’ The same was said about the four-minute mile, crossing the Atlantic in an airplane, walking on the moon, and the telephone.”

Elizabeth Jonasson of the Coalition for Clean Air also addressed costs: “When someone says Smart Planning, Scenario A is ‘unfeasible’ or ‘costs too much,’ whose costs are we looking at? The health costs a family must endure: 62% of bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those had insurance…Asthma is the No. 1 reason for school absences in Fresno Unified.”

After the huge outpouring of public comment, Larry Westerlund moved to approve Alternative A, with a second by Lee Brand. Brand explained his decision to support Alternative A: “We are at a critical juncture. We need to find ways to make it work.”

At the end of the 6-hour meeting that lasted almost until midnight, it was moved to continue the vote until the next available meeting time—April 19. The motion passed 5-2, with Westerlund and Brand dissenting. The Council also agreed to end public comment, including talking with the public during the two weeks before April 19.

Ah…well. In any case, it was surprisingly encouraging to see two members generally considered conservatives, Brand and Westerlund, move and second a motion to adopt Alternative A as the preferred alternative.

Many feared a return of Operation Rezone during the two-week interim, with the BIA surreptitiously gaining access to Council members. It was a worrisome two weeks for the progressives supporting Alternative A.

Fast-forward to April 19. The Council chamber was again packed. Many in the audience held green placards with a big block “A.” Members of the Southeast Asian and Hispanic communities wore headsets to hear a translation of the proceedings. The chamber was a beehive of lively conversation.

Members discussed the vote for more than two hours, mostly supporting Alternative A. Brand moved almost immediately to approve an amended version of Alternative A that would move 3,000 units out of multiple-family housing units into single-family units, reasoning the plan would be more realistic under Fresno market conditions. For most of the rest of the evening, the discussion centered on what to call the approved alternative, how realistic it is and what it would take to make it real.

Olivier threw a curve, inviting Granville Homes President Darius Assemi to speak. A murmur of concern came from the audience as Assemi spoke of the costs of Alternative A to the taxpayers, consumers and builders. Many grumbled that Olivier had reopened public comment without approval.

Without being recognized, Hamilton provided the evening’s fireworks display, speaking up vociferously from the first row against the out-of-order move by Olivier. Olivier admonished Hamilton, who clearly had public support on his side. But Hamilton continued for what seemed about a minute, until Olivier threatened to have him forcibly removed.

In the end, the Council voted 5-2, with members Sal Quintero and Olivier casting “no” votes.

The community will have—to echo Brand—to “make this work.” City General Plans are one thing. Their realization is another. As City Manager Mark Scott said, a general plan is only about 25% of what is needed for change. The rest has to come from the community. He added in the late night discussion on April 5 that “neighborhoods have to bring themselves back.” The planners are doing their part; we the people have to do the rest.

So what will Fresno look like in 2035? In my opinion, it will look a lot like Alternative A—vibrant complete neighborhoods inhabited by leaner and healthier citizens (not mere consumers) who actually talk with each other and know their neighbors. These complete neighborhoods will be connected by complete streets, offering multimodal transportation, including lots of public transit—maybe even light rail. (Hey! It could happen. Fresno had trolleys from 1889 to about 1940.)

Fresno will look like “A” because its progressive community gets it. We understand that we have to get down to City Hall to make it happen. We take Tip O’Neill’s adage seriously: “All politics is local.” We are also participating in the county government on planning issues. And it’s not just about the proposed mine on Jesse Morrow Mountain—which is, of course, very important. We have members on the Fresno County Council of Governments (COG) dealing with transportation, housing, community health, etc. If we stay engaged—and I believe we will—we will change Fresno profoundly for the better. We are becoming better informed and more skilled, and we are starting to find this planning business interesting, engrossing, invigorating, maybe even a little—dare I say it?—fun.

Even more encouraging—we are finding allies on some issues—as in this case—in conservatives like Brand and Westerlund. Even Mayor Ashley Swearingen supports Alternative A. What could have brought this about? My thought is that intelligent, articulate conservatives, like Brand, Westerlund and the mayor, understand the problems of climate change, pollution and class better than many of those who vote for them. This makes it possible to work with them on some issues. Wow! Who knows where this may lead? Let’s stay engaged.

The unity from the progressive community on the issue of the General Plan is an example of what the Progressive Umbrella (organized by progressive leaders Mike Rhodes, Howard Watkins, Stephen Sacks, Connie Peterson, Camille Russell, C.J. Radellant and others) is attempting to accomplish. Rhodes believes that “if we can strategically build unity around key issues like this, we will have a bigger impact on local politics.” The Progressive Umbrella even rescheduled its meeting to encourage more people to turn out for the April 19 General Plan discussion.

Fresno is growing up—and that means not only physically up for more efficient use of space, but intellectually up and spiritually up as we learn to understand that the space around us and our interior space—our spiritual and intellectual space—are inextricably linked and mixed. Fresno can grow up with our help.

*****

Chip Ashley is an independent environmental and political activist. Contact him at wattsvalleypreservation@gmail.com or 559-855-6376.

May Is Bike Month

By Community Alliance Staff

One million miles. That’s how much bike riding we think we can do in Fresno this May. One million happy, carefree, feel good, environmentally friendly miles.

How do we ride that much? You. We want you to pledge your miles and ride toward I Bike Fresno’s Million Mile Challenge. After all, it’s bike month and if we all ride together, we know we can do it. Here’s how I Bike Fresno is going to help:

Million Mile Challenge Counter (May 1–31) If you’re going to be riding Read the details]]>

May Is Bike Month

By Community Alliance Staff

One million miles. That’s how much bike riding we think we can do in Fresno this May. One million happy, carefree, feel good, environmentally friendly miles.

How do we ride that much? You. We want you to pledge your miles and ride toward I Bike Fresno’s Million Mile Challenge. After all, it’s bike month and if we all ride together, we know we can do it. Here’s how I Bike Fresno is going to help:

Million Mile Challenge Counter (May 1–31)
If you’re going to be riding a ton of miles this month, you’re going to want a place to track your miles. By registering on www.ibikefresno.org and logging your miles, you’ll be helping your fellow biking Fresnans toward riding a collective million miles in May. You’ll even get badges for the different types of riding you do. Commute to work? Get a badge. Ride to the store? Get a badge. Ride in a century? Get a badge.

Plus, all that riding will make you eligible for…
31 Days of Prizes
Sometimes we all just need to be bribed a little. That’s what our 31 Days of Prizes is all about. Ride your bike and log your miles at www.ibikefresno.org. Every day that you log a mile, you’ll be entered into that day’s drawing. We’ll be selecting a name from that pool at random to win some awesome prizes. We’re not talking water bottles and tire levers either. We’re talking a year’s supply of Chick-Fil-A, a wine tasting weekend in Paso Robles and indoor skydiving in San Francisco. Right?

Drawings will happen at noon the following day (i.e., Monday’s drawing will take place at noon on Tuesday to give you time to get your miles in).

Mall-to-Mall Ride (May 9)
Need a quick five miles to add to your growing Million Mile Challenge counter? Come ride the city streets with your fellow Fresno I Bikers while the Fresno Police Department stops traffic so we can ride the city streets. It’s a fun ride and a great way to meet other riders.

Bike Valet at Clovis Farmers Market (Fridays, May 11–September 28)
We’ll be parking your bike for free at the Clovis Farmers Market again this year. Avoid the parking debacle and park your bike with us, get your Farmers Market wares, retrieve your bike when you’re done, then ride home and log your miles at www.ibikefresno.org—completely free. How great is that?

California Classic Weekend (May 19–20)
The EYE-Q California Classic Weekend presented by Michelob Ultra and Rabobank is two days of races and events on bike and foot. It’s open to all ages and includes a century, a metric century and a 35-mile mini-metric century that starts at Chukchansi Park and heads down a bike-friendly Highway 168 that’s completely closed to car traffic.

Bike to Work Day (May 23)
If we’re going to make it to one million miles in May, we’re going to need everyone riding. Even Joe in accounting and Tammy in HR. Get a team together and ride in the “Bike to Work Corporate Challenge.” It’s a fun way to get the office motivated to ride and create a few open parking spots every week.

For more information about any of the events listed above, visit www.ibikefresno.org.