policy audit topic: urban agriculture + food security

AECOMFINAL: DECEMBER 17, 2010

PHASE ONE: RESEARCH AND PRIORITIESPOLICY AUDIT TOPIC:

URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITY

FINAL – DECEMBER 17, 2010


PHASE ONE: RESEARCH AND PRIORITIES

AUDIT ORGANIZATIONURBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITY

INTRODUCTIONOVERVIEWPREFACE

KEY ISSUES

OBJECTIVES + PRIORITIESOBJECTIVES

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

METHODOLOGYKEY SOURCES + RESOURCESEXCLUSIONS / MISSING DATA

EXISTING CONDITIONS + TRENDSKEY POLICIES

INVENTORY + TRENDSCOMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES + CONCERNS

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONSPRIORITIES / TRANSFORMATIONAL THEMES

PRECEDENTSOPPORTUNITIES + CHALLENGES

11.11.21.3

22.12.2

33.13.2

44.14.24.3

55.15.25.3


1. INTRODUCTION


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYINTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

SOURCE:1.1

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Urban Agriculture + Food Security policy auditbegins with a discussion of the background and past agricultural initiatives in the City of Detroit and includes a description of the current momentum and scale of urban agriculture, which is unprecedented.

The scales of urban agriculture are addressed, to define the verbiage used and to provide background on the broad spectrum of gardening efforts, from backyard to commercial‐scale efforts.

Further, for the purposes of this study, it is important to not focus strictly on urban agriculture, but also to expand attention to issues addressing food security as well.

2. OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIESObjectives are overviewed, including guiding principles established in key documents. The City of Detroit Policy on Food Security and draft Urban Agriculture Policy are referred to throughout this policy audit.

3. METHODOLOGYKey references and resources are outlined, as well as an acknowledgment of exclusions/missing data that is unavailable.

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS + TRENDSAn inventory of the existing scales of urban agricultural efforts is illustrated, and information on proposed agricultural initiatives is provided.

Although information describing current gardening initiatives is provided, it should be considered “soft data” due to the lack of an existing inventory and/or stakeholders’ preference to keep sites and other information within the community. Information is therefore incomplete, and considered to be a ‘minimum’ description of existing conditions. Existing food sources, including grocers and produce markets, is also summarized.

Existing programs are overviewed, including those providing gardening support, enhancing accessibility of fresh local produce to food assistance clients, facilitating physical constraints to food shopping, and providing support to local businesses.

Current community perspectives and concerns related to urban agriculture are summarized.

5. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONSLeading from the inventory compiled in the previous section, a list of priorities and transformational themes is explored.

Precedents including cities that facilitate urban agriculture initiatives through policy efforts are described. Other precedents include a summary of incentives used by other municipalities to formally encourage agricultural uses. State legislation is also considered, comparing Michigan to other states with forward‐thinking legislation addressing urban agriculture and related public health issues. A variety of educational opportunities is also explored. Other precedents include initiatives that mitigate the spatial mismatch between food sources and residential neighborhoods are summarized.

Finally, opportunities and challenges are lined out for both short‐term and long‐term attention.



1.2 Preface

SOURCE:1.2

DETROIT HAS A LONG HISTORY OF GARDENING AND GROWING FOOD. •Many job‐seekers drawn to the City for employment in industry, over the decades, brought with them expertise in growing food, a practice that continued in family gardens. •Victory Gardens were planted and flourished during WWII. •Mayor Coleman A. Young’s Farm‐A‐Lot program facilitated gardening on vacant lots in the 1970s.

TODAY’S AGRICULTURAL MOVEMENT IN DETROIT IS TRULY UNIQUE AND PRECEDENT-SETTING. Not only is gardening for personal consumption commonplace, but there are countless gardening efforts led by churches, schools, neighborhood groups, and other community organizations. Growing produce for sale and use within the City is occurring to an extent not seen in other urban areas either in the US and internationally. An abundance of resources, including seeds, plants, and education on successful gardening, are available for assistance for the private gardener as well as for community‐scale efforts.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS DRAWN FROM THE PHRASE “URBAN AGRICULTURE” ITSELF. A single Detroit stakeholder may have differing reactions and levels of support for “urban agriculture” based on the scale of an agricultural enterprise. A small neighborhood garden that produces food for private consumption typically is seen positively, as is a well tended and cared‐for community garden.

However, many residents and stakeholders of the agricultural community express concerns at the vision of large‐scale farming efforts in the City, particularly given that there are proposed large‐scale farming activities proposed. Nuisances, impacts to property values, and concerns about competition with the thriving local community gardens are some of the typical concerns.

PHOTO FROM RECOVERYPARK.ORG



1.3.1 Key IssuesSCALES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE

SOURCE1.3.1

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY, URBAN AGRICULTURE IS DIFFERENTIATED BY SCALE AS FOLLOWS:

COMMERCIAL SCALE/ FARMING OPERATIONS•Currently proposed in Detroit, but no such large‐scale farms are in operation • Produce anticipated to be for‐sale, mostly consumed outside community• Agricultural jobs anticipated rather than volunteer/community participation• Ag machinery required is more extensive• Typically 20+ acres

NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE•Gardeners themselves typically harvest and consume produce•No staff; neighborhood‐based effort

COMMUNITY SCALE / MARKET GARDENS• Produce is typically consumed within community; surplus is often for‐sale at farmers’ markets or on‐site•Often CDC‐driven; some staff, mostly volunteers• Typically approx. 2 acres



1.3.2 Key Issues“URBAN AGRICULTURE” VS. “FOOD SECURITY”

URBAN AG IS JUST ONE ELEMENT OF FOOD SECURITY.Urban agriculture has many benefits to a City, but its effect should be considered broadly. The most critical consideration is its role within the food system and the overall food security of a City.

The following elements comprise the food system:‐ Food production: includes growing and harvesting.

‐Processing: includes manufacturing and packaging.

‐ Distribution: includes transporting as well as marketing and selling

‐ Consumption: addresses consumption of food in homes, schools, institutions, and restaurants.

Waste management and disposal, including opportunities for waste reuse, repurposing, recycling, and composting apply to all of the above steps. Each of the steps also provides opportunities that not only enhance food security but also provide economic benefit and jobs.

SOURCE City of Detroit Policy on Food Security1.3.2

PHOTO FROM URBANFARMING.ORG

POLICY ON FOOD SECURITYIn 2008, the City of Detroit adopted a Policy on Food Security addressing:• Current Access to Quality Food•Hunger and Malnutrition• Impacts/Effects of an Inadequate Diet• Citizen Education/Food Literacy• Economic Injustice within the Food Systems•Urban Agriculture• The Role of Schools + other Public Institutions• Emergency Response

The City is clearly exploring food issues holistically. In this policy, urban agriculture is considered one of many strategies to improve public health, increase access to nutritious food, and provide outreach to its citizens via education.

These issues are deeply intertwined and must be addressed in the strategy for this topic; thus, the topic is titled“Urban Agriculture + Food Security.”



1.3.3 Key IssuesURBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITY

SOURCE : Definitions of “access” excerpted from LiveWell Colorado's Blueprint on Food Policy 1.3.3

* ACCESS IS A PRIMARY UNDERLYING THEME FOR FOOD SECURITY.

Access to healthy food options for personal consumption involves several considerations, including:

‐physical access to a store or other source of food, either on foot or by a convenient mode of transportation

‐ financial access, or whether the food is affordable

‐nutritional access, or whether enough food, and enough types of food, are available to compose a healthy, balanced diet

‐ cultural access, or whether the food is familiar and whether the consumer knows how to prepare it

On a broader scale, access to healthy food options requires stronger food systems that affect where and how food is produced, processed, and sold, as well as programs to assist personal access to healthy food.

All of these types of access will need to be addressed for a successful urban agriculture and food security strategy.

KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:• Access to healthy food options, education, and public health implications*• Supporting existing gardening efforts and related initiatives that bring healthful options to residents• Land use issues and implications of large‐scale farming• Benefits of local foods, including supporting the regional economy, reduced transportation costs, and associated implications of shipping food products

PHOTO FROM URBANFARMING.ORG


2. OBJECTIVES + PRIORITIES


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYOBJECTIVES + PRIORITIES

SOURCE: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (HEALTH DISPARITIES DEFINITIONS)2.1.1

IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH •Reduce health disparities* and the likelihood of health conditions related to poor diet (obesity, diabetes)

*Health Disparities are preventable differences in the burden of disease and disability, or in lack of opportunities to achieve optimal health. Disparities can be defined in terms of geographic location, gender, race, education, income, or age. )

•Increase social stability through improved health, community pride

IMPROVE ACCESS TO LOCAL, HEALTHIER FOOD OPTIONS•Identify feasible strategies for food production/distribution

•Increase demand for local, healthy food by schools and other institutions, as well as residents

SUPPORT AND ENHANCE DETROIT’S THRIVING COMMUNITY GARDENING EFFORTS•Identify successful urban gardening/farming models and consider policy recommendations to encourage

2.1.1 Objectives: Overview



SOURCE MICHIGAN DEPT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH. “OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN MICHIGAN: SURVEILLANCE REPORT SERIES. “OBESITY CHAPTER 2009.CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION BEHAVIORAL RISK FACTOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM SURVEYhttp://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100902/FREE/100909967/metro‐detroit‐gets‐16‐2‐million‐grant‐for‐health‐information‐exchange‐on‐diabetes2.1.2

RESEARCH INDICATES THAT ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE, AS WELL AS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS INCLUDING LIFESTYLE AND FOOD CHOICES, CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AND DIABETES.

Obese adults have a higher prevalence of arthritis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma,coronary heart disease, stroke, heart attack, diabetes and inadequate sleep compared with non‐obese adults.

Obese adults also reported the highest prevalence of poor life satisfaction, poor general health,poor physical health, poor mental health and activity limitations compared with non‐obese adults.

Diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure are closely linked to obesity.

OBESITYMichigan had the 8th highest prevalence rate of obesity in the United States in 2008.

Adults:•Obesity in Michigan has risen 21.8% among adults from 2001 to 2008.•In 2008, 65.3% of Michigan adults were either overweight or obese; 35.2% were overweight and an additional 30.1% were obese.• African Americans had a significantly higher obesity rate (39.8%) than Whites (28.8%).

Youth:• In 2007, 28.9% of Michigan youth, grades 9 through 12, were either overweight or obese; 16.5%were overweight and an additional 12.4% were obese.

• African American youth had a higher obesity rate (18.5%) compared with white youth (11.2%).

DIABETESMichigan had the 15th highest prevalence rate of diabetes in the United States in 2008.

Detroit City death rates for diabetes exceed county and state rates.

In 2009, diabetes played a role in 23% of all hospital admissions in metropolitan Detroit

2.1.2 Public Health Implications



SOURCE: CITY OF DETROIT POLICY ON FOOD SECURITY, DRAFT URBAN AGRICULTURE POLICY

2.2

POLICY ON FOOD SECURITY:•Improve access to quality food in Detroit

•Reduce hunger and malnutrition

•Reduce impacts/effects of an inadequate diet

•Enhance citizen education/ food literacy

•Eliminate economic injustice within the food systems

•Encourage urban agriculture

•Increase the role of schools and other public institutions

•Be prepared for emergency response

DRAFT URBAN AGRICULTURE POLICY •Provide access to fresh, chemical‐free food for residents of all income levels

•Create opportunities for community ownership of land and for entrepreneurial cooperatives

•Develop the local economy and promote opportunities for ownership for residents in all aspects of the local food system

•Create jobs for residents in cultivation, processing, and distribution of food, as well as non‐food crops

• Become a source of fresh food to emergency food providers

•Provide for an eco‐tourism industry

•Stabilize neighborhoods and enhance community cohesion; engage neighbors and foster an intergenerational social network

•Provide recreational and therapeutic opportunities

2.2 Guiding Principles

•Provide for community‐based education and peer learning

•Reduce Detroit’s carbon footprint through creation of a local food economy

•Lower the urban heat‐island effect

•Provide a productive use of vacant land

•Create and enhance an urban habitat

•Promote stewardship of the land and neighborhood; curb illegal dumping and other criminal activity

•Provide an opportunity for a variety of sizes and models of urban agriculture

•Provide the catalyst and opportunity for youth to pursue careers in agriculture

•Make Detroit the world leader in developing models for sustainable urban agriculture


3. METHODOLOGY


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYMETHODOLOGY

SOURCE3.1

• CITY OF DETROIT POLICY ON FOOD SECURITY

• DRAFT URBAN AG ORDINANCE

• URBAN AG PLANNING GROUP AT P&DD

• DCDC COMMUNITY GARDEN MAP**

** NOTE: None of the sources (P&DD, Social Compact, or DCDC) can verify source/accuracy of the garden locations. As we have heard from other sources, DCDC indicates that gardening groups are hesitant to verify locations out of concerns (theft, code issues, property ownership issues, etc..), Consider this map as a starting point for informational uses only; original research on community gardens will be layered on top of DCDC map.

•WAYNE STATE/SEED DETROIT

• DETROIT BLACK COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY NETWORK

• DETROIT AGRICULTURE NETWORK

• DETROIT GARDEN RESOURCE PROGRAM

• GREEN GROCER PROJECT

• SOCIAL COMPACT

• MICHIGAN FARMERS MARKET ASSOCIATION

3.1 Data Collection Approach and SourcesKEY SOURCES + REFERENCES

• “FOODNYC: A BLUEPRINT FOR A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM” Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer

• “PROMOTING URBAN AGRICULTURE AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE FOR VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF DETROIT” Professor John E. Mogk, WSU Law School

• “EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF FOOD DESERTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN DETROIT” •Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYMETHODOLOGY

SOURCE3.2

• Inventory of community gardening efforts/locations must be considered “soft data” due to stakeholders’ hesitance to reveal information.

• Inventory of Detroit FRESH participants is unavailable due to reluctance to reveal program participants beyond the immediate community, to avoid potential disruptions.

•WSU Childhood Obesity Project was funded in Oct. 2009; research is ongoing. Preliminary findings from first phase requested and to be provided by project director late Oct. 2010.

• Full inventory of current partnerships between community gardens and schools, as well as on‐site school gardens, has not been compiled.

• Brownfield GIS maps are unavailable; vacant industrial land is considered an appropriate proxy data set per Environmental Affairs.

3.2 Exclusions/Missing Data


4. EXISTING CONDITIONS + TRENDS


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYEXISTING CONDITIONS + TRENDS

SOURCE: Draft Urban Agriculture Policy, dated March 20104.1

4.1 Key Policies

DRAFT URBAN AGRICULTURE POLICY FOR THE CITY OF DETROITDraft text/placeholders address the following:• A variety of agricultural activities and uses, at different scales• An agriculture district proposed for larger/more intense uses (in progress)• Reduced tax rates, cost of land designated for ag uses, and protection of agricultural uses

•Note that the Michigan Right to Farm Act, which is intended to protect existing farms from urban sprawl, is a hindrance to Detroit Zoning enforcement. As the policy is written, the City may not be able to regulate farming operations, or address nuisances, if they conform to Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices, which are not designed for interpretation in an urban context. Consideration of how to resolve this policy conflict is being addressed as part of the zoning update.

CITY OF DETROIT POLICY ON FOOD SECURITY

• Provides a statement of key issues for each policy area (urban agriculture, hunger and malnutrition, etc.) as well as recommended actions to address them

• Establishes a Detroit Food Policy Council to address issues of food security



X 1CLEAR

E V I D E N C E B A S E D S T R A T E G I C D I R E C T I O N

SOURCE: AECOM4.2.1

4.2.1 InventorySCALE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE EFFORTS

1 lot = .1 acre

Neighborhood: Lot scale (.1 acres)

1 block face = 2 acres

1 block = 4.25 acres(including alley)

Community: Block scale (1-2 acres)

20 acres(5 blocks, including alleys)

Commercial : Neighborhood scale (20+ acres)



SOURCE: AECOM4.2.2

4.2.2 InventorySCALE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE EFFORTS

These examples are for illustrative purposes only, to demonstrate how much land the proposed large‐scale commercial farms would use in a typical Detroit neighborhood.

Although the illustrations assume alley vacation, they do not incorporate the public way, in keeping with current proposals.

SHAR Farm scale (30 acres)

30 acres(7 blocks)

Hantz Farm scale (115 acres)

115 acres (28 blocks)



SOURCE: Detroit Collaborative Design Center, P&DD, Social Compact; see note above. 4.3.3

4.2.3 InventoryPRESENCE OF COMMUNITY GARDENS

NOTE: NONE OF THE SOURCES (P&DD, SOCIAL COMPACT, OR DCDC) CAN VERIFY SOURCE/ACCURACY OF THE GARDEN LOCATIONS, OR WHAT SCALE OF GARDENING EFFORTS IS MAPPED.

•The “Presence of Community Gardens” map is considered a starting point for informational uses only; there are many more known gardens.

•A major obstacle to data collection on community gardens is that gardening groups are hesitant to specify locations out of concerns including code issues, property ownership issues, etc.



SOURCE: “Presence of Community Gardens” diagram by DCDC; various internet sources providing garden locations; mapped by AECOM 4.3.4

4.3.4 InventoryCOMMUNITY GARDENS

Community-scale garden/farm

Community-run garden market

Other gardens (per DCDC diagram)

COMMUNITY GARDENS ARE TYPICALLY SUPPORTED BY EITHER THE GARDEN RESOURCE PROGRAM OR URBAN FARMING.

In 2009, the Garden Resource Program provided support to more than 875 urban gardens and farms in Detroit, Highland Park, and Hamtramck, including 263 community gardens and 55 schools.

Urban Farming, based in Detroit and leading gardening efforts across the country, supports dozens of 20’x20’ garden plots throughout the City.



SOURCE: INFORMATION PROVIDED THROUGH AUGUST 2010 ISSUE SUMMIT PRESENTATIONS; HANTZ FARM INFORMATION UPDATED VIA PHONE INTERVIEW BETWEEN AECOM AND MICHAEL SCORE 10/25/10. 4.3.5

4.3.5 InventoryPROPOSED: COMMERCIAL-SCALE FARMINGCurrently, no farming efforts over 3 acres exist in the City.

Zoning code revisions are in progress to address large‐scale farming efforts (as well as existing small‐scale farms).

The following two large‐scale farm operations are proposed in Detroit:

SHAR FOUNDATION –RECOVERY PARK• Proposed: 30‐acre farms in multiple neighborhoods, totaling 2,000 acres

• Designed to be a community redevelopment opportunity, with agriculture as a tool

•Complementary uses anticipated to include food processing, fish farming, building deconstruction

• Employment estimated at 10‐12 jobs per 30‐acre site

HANTZ FARM• Proposed: 120‐acre farm, including ~115 acres just east and west of Indian Village (and 5‐acre parcel next to Hantz Farm office)

•Crops are anticipated to include fruits and vegetables, Christmas trees, orchards, etc.; approx. 50 types of crops reflecting Michigan’s rich agricultural variety

•Land with contaminated soil unsuitable for food production could be used for growing timber, hydroponics, or aeroponics

•Complementary uses are anticipated to include tourism and education, Research and Innovation Center in partnership with MSU, and complementary retail use

•Employment estimated at: ‐20 jobs for site prep and planting; ‐100 jobs for tourism/education; ‐ additional jobs for Research and Innovation Center

PHOTO FROM RECOVERYPARK.ORG



SOURCE:4.3.6

4.3.6 InventoryTHE STATE OF THE SOIL AT COMMUNITY GARDENS

Per Environmental Affairs, brownfield GIS maps are unavailable; vacant industrial land is considered an appropriate proxy data set.

The gardening efforts mapped appear to be located in residential neighborhoods, avoiding land zoned for industrial uses. Note that a more detailed brownfield analysis and mapping effort is required to identify, for example, contaminated parcels in commercial areas, to comprehensively identify which areas of the City would not be appropriate for urban agriculture without substantial clean-up.

Further, gardening strategies have been identified and implemented successfully even for areas that have some level of contamination. Raised beds with fresh soil is often recommended for urban gardens. Hydroponic farming has also been successful on brownfield sites, with proper precautions and site preparations.

Wayne State University has an experimental garden, the Parking Structure 5 Garden, which monitors soil- and airborne lead, chemicals leaching from treated lumber (which is often used for raised beds or planters), and other environmental factors. It was launched in 2009 and has studies ongoing.

Vacant parcels

Land zoned for industrial uses

Community-scale garden/farm

Community-run garden market

Other gardens (per DCDC diagram)



SOURCE4.3.7

GARDEN RESOURCE PROGRAM •Provides technical and material support including Detroit‐grown vegetable transplants, seeds, flowers, compost, tool sharing, and other supplies.

•Training and classes are also offered.

•Individual families pay $10/year; community groups pay $20/year.

GROWN IN DETROIT • Cooperative program that grew out of the Garden Resource Program for support selling produce

• Program pools produce from participating gardens for more efficient sales

URBAN FARMING• Assists communities with planting food on vacant land, as well as rooftops and walls

•Harvests are shared amongst the community for free; neighbors are encouraged to donate surplus food to local food banks

•Provides educational programs to the community, as well as support to school gardens

4.3.7 InventoryCURRENT PROGRAMS: GARDENING SUPPORT



SOURCE: www.mifma.org; mapped by AECOM

4.3.8

4.3.8 InventoryFRESH PRODUCE MARKETS

MICHIGAN FARMER’S MARKET ASSOCIATION MARKETSDetroit (9 Locations)•Eastern Market •East Warren Avenue Farmers Market•Meldrum Fresh Market•Northwest Detroit Farmers' Market•Replenish the Earth Market•Sowing Seeds Growing Futures Farmers Market•Wayne State Wednesday Farmers Market•Windmill Market Inc.•WSU School of Medicine Farmers Market

COMMUNITY-RUN PRODUCE MARKETS• Peaches & Greens • D‐Town Farm• Brother Nature (also launched a CSA** program in spring 2010

** CSA = Community‐Supported Agriculture: Community members pay the farmer a membership fee to cover the production costs of the farm, and receive a share of the harvest regularly through the growing season. This model is common for small‐ scale farms.



SOURCE:

4.3.9

4.3.9 InventoryCURRENT PROGRAMS: ACCESSIBILITY FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE CLIENTS

BRIDGE CARDThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit card is accepted at 8 of 9 Detroit Farmers Markets; exception is the Windmill Market.

PROJECT FRESH COUPONSThrough the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, locally administered by the Michigan Department of Community Health, seniors and WIC clients receive coupons that they can spend at certified farmers markets.



SOURCE: Detroit FRESH information and graphics from http://clas.wayne.edu/multimedia/usercontent/File/SEED/df_brochure_print.pdfGreen Grocer information and graphics from http://modeldmedia.com/devnews/greengrocer051810.aspxMichigan Neighborhood Food Movers information from http://www.michigan.gov/foodmovers4.3.10

4.3.10 InventoryCURRENT PROGRAMS: FOOD DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL ENHANCEMENTS

DETROIT FRESH HEALTHY CORNER STORE PROJECTInitiative of:• SEED Wayne, Capuchin Soup Kitchen, Eastern Market Corporation, and MOSES• Supports produce sales in convenience/corner stores• Launched June 2009; 17 stores as of April 2010, mostly on Eastside

MICHIGAN NEIGHBORHOOD FOOD MOVERSFunded by the State of Michigan, the Michigan Neighborhood Food Movers program provides revolving loans to small businesses to deliver fresh fruits and vegetables to underserved areas. Currently, three non‐profits are part of this program: Peaches and Greens, Field of Our Dreams (F.O.O.D.) and Up South; each serves different neighborhoods in the City with regular scheduled stops, mobile markets within a designated service area, and stops at special events upon request.

GREEN GROCER PROJECTDEGC‐run initiative providing technical assistance via a revolving loan fund to stores selling produce, meat, dairy, baked goods, and grocery items.



SOURCE: Michigan Neighborhood Food Movers http://www.michigan.gov/foodmovershttp://www.centraldetroitchristian.org/Peaches_and_Greens_Truck.htm http://fieldofourdreams.ning.com/Mapped by AECOM4.3.11

4.3.11 InventoryMARKETS + DELIVERY SERVICES

Michigan Farmer’s Market Association Markets

Community-run produce markets

Produce delivery area (MI Neighborhood Food Movers)

Regular produce delivery stops

DELIVERY SERVICES:1. Peaches & Greens• Run by Central Detroit Christian CDC; sponsors community gardens where volunteers grow produce for sale in the mobile market• Serves Central Woodward; makes home deliveries within zip codes 48202 and 48206 •Also runs a brick‐and‐mortar store

2. Field of Our Dreams (F.O.O.D.)•Mobile market on the Eastside•Makes scheduled stops 2 days a week

3. UpSouth•Mobile market on the Eastside•Also serves churches and special events



SOURCE: mimfa.org, detroitagriculture.org; data collected by AECOM

4.3.12

4.3.12 InventoryCURRENT FLOW OF PRODUCE TO DISTRIBUTION CENTERS

NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALE GARDENS Harvested by residents, typically with no distribution outside neighborhood.

COMMUNITY-SCALE GARDENS Offer produce for sale, serving their immediate neighborhoods and communities first and foremost.

Surplus produce is often sold at venues throughout the City. The Grown in Detroit collaborative provides support with transport and sales of produce at markets. The Eastern Market is the largest local market, with a regional draw. There is also a hub of processing industries surrounding the Eastern Market.

Goods sold at Eastern Market primarily come from Michigan, as well as Ohio and Ontario. The Grown in Detroit collaborative collectively sells local produce through farmers’ markets; many Detroit community gardens sell produce through this cooperative.

Eastern Market



4.3.13 InventoryFLOW OF PRODUCE TO THE CONSUMER

Produce harvested from neighborhood‐scale gardens or sold from markets at community gardens typically stays within the neighborhood; the gardens serve more as neighborhood assets than community or regional draws.

Farmers’ markets at the Eastern Market and Wayne State draw the greatest number of vendors – and customers –and serve more than the immediate neighborhood.

Several community‐scale gardens sell produce via other avenues, such as directly to restaurants and through subscription to weekly produce boxes available for pick‐up.

Eastern Market

SOURCE

4.3.13



SOURCE: Social Compact’s Detroit Fresh Food Access Initiative reportGrocery statistics from discussion with Sarah Fleming, Project Manager for Green Grocer Project, 10/7/10, with an update on 12/16/10

4.3.14

4.3.14 InventoryCURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESSIBILITY TO GROCERY STORES

(sq. ft.)

In Detroit, there are 81 independently owned, full‐service groceries including 2 Aldi chain groceries (as of Dec. 2010). These stores sell produce, meat or meat alternatives, baked goods, dairy, and grocery items. Pharmacies that may stock fresh produce are excluded from this inventory.

‐Most of these groceries are less than 10,000 sf, whereas industry standards assume a minimum of 10,000 sf of retail floor space for a full‐service grocer.

‐ There are few grocery stores over 30,000 sf; most of the larger stores are on the periphery of the City.

‐Many independent grocers do not appear to be full‐service stores; some may look like “party stores” from the exterior.

To assist with this issue, the Green Grocer Project provides technical assistance and other resources to help strengthen independent grocers and enhance their presence in the community. Three stores have been approved for funding for technical assistance.

(sq. ft.)

Up to 10,000 sf10,000 – 30,000 sf 30,000 sf +

Note: this map is from the Oct. 2010 data update; however, it was later discovered that several grocers were inadvertently omitted. A revised map is anticipated from Social Compact in Jan. 2011.



SOURCE: Social Compact’s Detroit Fresh Food Access Initiative report; map is from Oct. 2010 data update; http://www.michigan.gov/foodmovershttp://www.centraldetroitchristian.org/Peaches_and_Greens_Truck.htm http://fieldofourdreams.ning.com/Mapped by AECOM4.3.15

4.3.15 InventoryGROCERY STORES AND FRESH PRODUCE OUTLETS

(sq. ft.)

Entrepreneurial efforts – through the Michigan Neighborhood Food Movers initiative as well as community gardens and markets – are helping create oases within the food deserts.

Also, note that Detroit FRESH Healthy Corner Stores may not be mapped in Social Compact data, and exact locations and neighborhoods served are not available for public release beyond the immediate community.**However, the majority of the Detroit FRESH stores are on the Eastside, with locations in underserved areas.

As of Oct. 2010, there are 20 participating stores in the Detroit FRESH program; currently, the program is not recruiting additional participants and is focusing on outreach.

** Per conversation with Kami Pothukuchi 10/7/10, out of concern that publicity /press might disrupt business operations.)

Michigan Farmer’s Market Association Markets

Community‐run produce markets

Produce delivery area (MI Neighborhood Food Movers)

Regular produce delivery stops

Up to 10,000 sf10,000 – 30,000 sf 30,000 sf +

Note: map with grocer locations is from the Oct. 2010 data update; however, it was later discovered that several grocers were inadvertently omitted. A revised map is anticipated from Social Compact in Jan. 2011.


SMALL-SCALE COMMUNITY URBAN GARDENING IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED A POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE THAT MAKES GOOD USE OF VACANT LAND WHILE PROVIDING FRESH FOOD.


SOURCE:

4.4

4.4 Community Perspectives and Concerns

THERE IS A RELUCTANCE TO PUBLICIZE SUCCESS STORIES, DUE TO CONCERNS OF DISRUPTION OR PRESS ATTENTION.

Concerns that have been voiced include a resistance to publicly identifying garden sites, to avoid public attention, fines or fees, disruption, or even theft of produce.

Similarly, grocers participating in the Detroit FRESH Healthy Corner Stores initiative are not publicized, out of concern that publicity or press might disrupt business operations.

LARGE-SCALE FARMING HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS:•Will large‐scale farming will compete with existing small‐scale gardens?•Will a large‐scale farming effort be a good neighbor? What will it look like, and what nuisances will it cause?•Will large‐scale efforts use fertilizers and other chemicals that might reduce air and water quality?•Should so much land be dedicated to farms as a long‐term use? What if the farms are not productive or feasible?•Is farming really the highest and best use of urban land?•Are agricultural jobs appropriate in Detroit, particularly given that many African‐Americans came to Detroit to leave agriculture behind and pursue opportunities in industry?


5. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS


POLICY AUDIT TOPIC : URBAN AGRICULTURE + FOOD SECURITYPRELIMINARY FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS

SOURCE:

5.1

5.1 Priorities / Transformational Themes

• What if small‐scale gardeners could be permitted to raise and sell food as‐of‐right? What is the “breaking point” at which greater regulation is required?

• What if food deserts were eliminated throughout the City by creative distribution of fresh produce?

• What if education on good nutrition started in schools, leading by example?

•What if community gardens partnered with institutional food‐service departments?

•What if Detroit became the world leader in developing models for sustainable urban agriculture?

•What if composting and mulching significantly reduced the reliance on conventional waste disposal practices, while producing natural soil enhancements?

• What educational and informational programs/ campaigns might cause better public health trends?



SOURCE: Madison Zoning Code public review draft http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborhoods/zoningrewrite/documents/legistarpublichearingdraft.pdf

5.2.1

5.2.1 PrecedentsCITIES FACILITATING URBAN AG INITIATIVES

MADISON WI:UPDATING ITS ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL USES AND FOOD PRODUCTION IN URBAN AREAS.

The purpose of the Urban Agriculture district is:“to ensure that urban garden and farm areas are appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local food production, and to enhance community health, community education, garden‐related job training, natural resource protection, preservation of green space, and community enjoyment.”

THE DRAFT CODE WOULD ALLOW COMMUNITY GARDENS PLANTED BY GROUPS TO PRODUCE FOOD FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OR DONATION ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.

Conditional use approvals would be required for “market gardens” that produce food for sale (allowed in any district).

FOR THE URBAN AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, MANAGEMENT PLANS ARE REQUIRED FOR RELATED OPERATIONS: • Animal husbandry including keeping more than 4 chickens, beekeeping and fish farming

•Off‐street parking of more than 10 vehicles

• Food processing

• Spreading of manure

• Application of agricultural chemicals

•Use of heavy equipment such as tractors



SOURCE: Cleveland Zoning Codehttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_336.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_347.html5.2.2


CLEVELAND OH: ADOPTED ZONING REGULATIONS TO FACILITATE URBAN GARDENING.

The purpose of the Urban Garden District is: “to ensure that urban garden areas are appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local food production, community health, community education, garden‐related job training, environmental enhancement, preservation of green space, and community enjoyment on sites for which urban gardens represent the highest and best use for the community.”

ONLY THE FOLLOWING MAIN USES ARE PERMITTED IN THE URBAN GARDEN DISTRICT:• Community gardens, which are permitted to hold “occasional” sales of produce•Market gardens, including the sale of produce

Regulations are in place governing the keeping of farm animals and bees; proposals are subject to approval only when a building permit is required.

RE‐IMAGINING A GREATER CLEVELAND



SOURCE: Amendment UDO‐095 of the Bloomington, IN Unified Development Code https://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/5244.pdf

5.2.3


BLOOMINGTON IN:ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT TO ITS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO FACILITATE URBAN GARDENING, THROUGH TWO USE CATEGORIES.

“COMMUNITY GARDENS” PLANTED BY GROUPS TO PRODUCE FOOD FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OR DONATION ARE A PERMITTED PRIMARY USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

This use is subject to special conditions addressing on‐site retail sales, structures, hours of operation, signage, etc.

“URBAN AGRICULTURE” IS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTSThis use includes small‐scale gardens for personal use but does not include animal husbandry.

This use was established to clarify that these personal agricultural activities are permitted by code.


OTHER INCENTIVES USED TO FORMALLY ENCOURAGE AGRICULTURAL USES MAY INCLUDE:•Long‐term leases of City land

•Waiving any special use permits for small‐scale uses, and expediting permits for uses over a certain size (to be determined, if required)

•Tax abatements or other incentives for properties using a significant area of a property for agricultural uses, including formally encouraging agricultural uses in designated areas within appropriate Renaissance Zones

•Reduced tax assessments to protect and encourage agricultural uses

RELATED POLICY PRECEDENTS:Other municipalities, including Seattle, are recognizing conflicts arising in their codes that restrict sales of food from gardens in residential areas. Seattle is in the process of developing revisions to their zoning code to facilitate such enterprises, which are currently addressed in their Home Occupation regulations.


SOURCE:

5.2.4


WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY URBAN FARMING PRECEDENTS SIMILAR TO THE SIZE OR SCALE OF THE PROPOSED LARGE-SCALE EFFORTS.

Hantz Farms dubs its proposal “the world’s largest urban farm,” which our research indicates is accurate; it has learned from international examples of urban agriculture, but has not seen initiatives of this scale.



SOURCE:

5.2.5

5.2.5 PrecedentsSTATE-LED INITIATIVES FOR SCHOOLCHILDREN’S HEALTH BENEFITS

FARM-TO-SCHOOL INITIATIVESFarm‐to‐school programs are mutually beneficial, providing fresh, local produce to schoolchildren while supporting the local agricultural community and economy.

Eighteen states have passed legislation addressing farm‐to‐school programs, to encourage consumption of local fruits and vegetables.

Michigan does not have farm‐to‐school legislation; however, there are existing initiatives that provide technical assistance to get local food into school cafeterias.

The Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) in southeastern Michigan has partnered with Detroit Public Schools on a pilot program for 18 schools, where a locally grown fruit or vegetable is featured each month.

The C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU is another key resource that supports linking farms to schools and provides a purchasing manual for food service directors.

HIGHER NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS THAN FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL-PROVIDED FOODS •Nineteen states have nutritional standards for foods provided in schools that are stricter than current USDA requirements.

•Michigan does not have such standards.

•Five years ago, only four states had legislation requiring stricter standards.

NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS FOR “COMPETITIVE FOODS” OFFERED AT SCHOOLS•Twenty‐seven states have nutritional standards for competitive foods sold a la carte, in vending machines, or via other sales.

•Michigan does not have such standards.

•Five years ago, only six states had nutritional standards for competitive foods.

HEALTH SCREENING AT SCHOOLS•Twenty states have passed requirements for body mass index (BMI) screenings of youth, or have passed legislation requiring other forms of weight‐related evaluations in schools.

•Michigan does not have such screening programs.

•Five years ago, only four states had passed screening requirements.



SOURCE:

5.2.6

5.2.6 PrecedentsEDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES

CATHERINE FERGUSON ACADEMY, DETROIT MIPublic school for pregnant teens; features an urban farm (vegetable gardens, goats, chickens, beehives, etc.) that complements science curriculum.

CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLSGROWING SCHOOL GARDENS INITIATIVELearning gardens in over half of all City public schools, used for teaching about food sourcing, nutrition, biology, and related topics.

PROJECT FRESH, DETROIT MIOffers a cookbook and buying guide for fresh produce.

ANGELIC ORGANICS, CALEDONIA (NEAR ROCKFORD) ILThe “what do I do with unfamiliar fresh vegetables?” problem alleviated through cookbook with recipes for the crops provided through this Community‐Supported Agriculture (CSA) program.

PEOPLE’S GROCERY, OAKLAND CAOffers youth and adult outreach programs, cooking classes, and nutrition workshops.

COOK COUNTY DEPT OF CORRECTIONS ROOFTOP GARDEN, CHICAGO ILParticipants learn to grow herbs and vegetables sold to local restaurants; participants can take Certified Master

Gardener training from the University of Illinois.



SOURCE:

5.2.7

5.2.7 PrecedentsGROCERY COOPERATIVES AND COOPERATIVE KITCHENS

FLATBUSH FOOD CO-OP, BROOKLYN NYMembers receive discounts and other benefits, but are not required to work in the store. Also, as with most other co‐ops, non‐members are welcome to shop in the store.Flatbush Food Co‐op is one of 114 independent co‐op members of the National Cooperative Grocers Association, who operate close to 150 stores in 32 states. There are a host of independent co‐ops as well, including the following precedent, the Dill Pickle Co‐Op:

THE DILL PICKLE CO-OP, CHICAGO ILThis cooperative grocery store solicited membership fees before it opened, a decision that required patience and trust amongst its (future) members. It then picked its location in the neighborhood with the highest concentration of members. Its “Hands‐On Owners” policy provides discounts to members who volunteer to work in the store.

DETROIT’S LAST COOPERATIVE GROCERY STORE, CASS CORRIDOR CO-OP, CLOSED ITS DOORS IN THE MID-2000s.

THE AGRICULTURAL INCUBATOR FOUNDATION, BOWLING GREEN OHDeveloped an agricultural facility to incorporate teaching and research as well as crop production and processing. One of its initiatives is the Northwest Ohio Cooperative Kitchen (NOCK), a nonprofit commercial kitchen facility designed to establish and expand food‐related businesses.

KITCHEN CHICAGO, CHICAGO ILA fully equipped and licensed shared‐use commercial kitchen available to members for rent by the hour. Launched in 2005, this venture has served as a kitchen incubator for businesses that have become established and gone out on their own. The Chicago Department of Public Health has looked askance at this unusual start‐up; whereas most restaurant kitchens are inspected every 1‐2 years, Kitchen Chicago has had health inspections almost weekly. The City is drafting a shared‐kitchen use ordinance (approval pending) to address the CDPH’s licensing requirements and standards while considering the needs of this cooperative business.



SOURCE:

5.2.8

5.2.8 PrecedentsREDUCING FOOD DESERTS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES

INITIATIVES BRIDGING THE SPATIAL MISMATCH BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND ACCESS TO FOOD ARE GOOD ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NEAR-TERM AND, FOR THE LONG-TERM, MAY SUCCESSFULLY SUPPLEMENT GROCERY STORES FOR THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION.

THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS ARE EXAMPLES OF BRINGING FOOD TO RESIDENTS…

Michigan Neighborhood Food Movers Initiatives, Detroit MIThree non‐profits are funded through this program, operating produce markets on wheels; service area includes Midtown and the Eastside.

People’s Grocery, Oakland CAMobile Market, a grocery store on wheels that sells fresh produce.

Fresh Picks Organic Delivery, Chicago ILOrganic produce, dairy, meats, baked goods delivered year‐round; when local and regional produce is out‐of‐season/unavailable, distributes organic produce from elsewhere.

Peapod Grocery DeliveryChicago, Milwaukee, areas of WI, CT, NJ, NY, RI, DC, MD, VA (Note: Peapod service area excludes several urban areas with food desert conditions, such as Baltimore, New Haven, Newark; as yet, we are unable to identify for‐profit enterprises that deliver to underserved areas.)

Food Trucks are common in Portland, OR, where vending turns a parking lot into a bustling but mobile “restaurant row” during business hours. Other cities with a thriving food truck scene include Philadelphia, PA and Washington, DC.

…AND BRINGING RESIDENTS TO FOOD:

Village Gardens, Portland ORProvides shuttle buses to local farmers markets.

Grocery Shuttles, various urban locationsNon‐profit organizations team with grocers or operate independently to facilitate transportation from stores to senior housing and other destinations (Example: New Community Corp. in Newark NJ)



SOURCE:

5.3

5.3 Opportunities + Challenges

SHORT-TERM• For all efforts, address access to food: physical, financial, nutritional, and cultural access

•Identify local successes, and incentivize their expansion/duplication.

• Identify complementary programs modeled from initiatives/businesses elsewhere; consider how initiatives or elements of the programs may be implemented.

• Consider potential impacts of large‐scale ag efforts on neighborhood identity, infrastructure, employment, etc.; how best to mitigate impacts, what types of initiatives are appropriate to encourage?

• Facilitate, via code and incentives, the “right kind” of farming/gardening, in the “right place” while addressing potential nuisances.

•Identify partnerships for public information campaigns, while remaining sensitive to the community’s concerns of having too much public attention creating disruptions.

•Research potential opportunities for food processing, considering Eastern Market as a hub for businesses and existing expertise.

LONG-TERM•Identify how City policy can facilitate small‐scale urban ag (such as allowing neighborhood gardens as‐of‐right, facilitating long‐term leases, etc.)

•Identify what types of support are needed for appropriate scales of urban ag; explore the ability of key organizations to expand support.

•Engage institutions, particularly schools, to create strategies for food service to incorporate nutritious local products

•Propose reform to State policies addressing:‐Farm‐to‐School initiatives‐ Nutritional standards for school food offerings that are stricter than current USDA requirements. ‐Nutritional standards for competitive foods sold a la carte, in vending machines, or via other sales. ‐Require regular body mass index (BMI) screenings

•Research the carbon footprint implications to shipping food and other ag products, vs. local growing and processing.

•As the food security of the City and food‐related enterprises increase, consider whether there is opportunity to become a center of culinary arts.

policy audit topic: urban agriculture + food security

Documents