The latest Madville Times poll finds that the community thrift store steering committee had better have a Plan B. On Monday, I posed this question: "Do you support spending $1,050,000 in public and private dollars to build a thrift store in Madison?" 144 of you answered thus:
- No (83%, 119 Votes)
- Yes (17%, 25 Votes)
As usual, the margin of error of this online poll is just slightly larger than the amount of vacant retail space on Madison's Main Street. However, bolstering the reliability of these results is a parallel poll on KJAM's website this week. Their results as of 9 a.m. this morning:
88% No, 12% Yes. Uff da. I thought the Madville Times was where all of Lake County's radical reactionaries hung out. But the percentage of people voting against the publicly subsidized (but not publicly owned or overseen) thrift store is actually larger on Madison's mainstream radio station website than here on that darned blog.
Clark Sinclair and other thrift store committee members say this project will not go forward without public support. These two polls suggest that's exactly where the project is: too little public support, too many other good uses for our money.
As they formulate their Plan B, Messrs. Sinclair, Amert, Amert, Knuths, Bloom, and Mr. and Mrs. Johnson might want to ask why what seems like such a nice idea, creating an ongoing generator of revenue for local charity, would meet with such swift and vigorous opposition. It's not because your "detractors" simply don't understand what you're trying to do, or because a majority of Madison residents are selfish, small-minded jerks. I suggest the opposition has much to do with the committee's failure to put the "community" in what they call a "community thrift store." The committee didn't engage the community until they'd already set their plan in stone. Now they engage the community not in dialogue but in marketing and debate where they try to prove their plan is great and that we should pay for it.
The thrift store plan is failing in public opinion, and its boosters are now having to fan out to various groups and venues to "tell their side of the story," because it reinforces the perception many Madison citizens have of an "us versus them" exclusive hierarchy that treats the taxpayers as funding sources, not real planning partners in identifying and meeting our shared community goals.
More to come... stay tuned!
If they build it, we will come.
I know that the steering committee probably religiously follows these blog posts to see how people feel, so I have a request.
I want to address the basic issue here, besides putting existing self-made businesses out of business. FUNDING! There are very vague, good sounding bites about funding from the city to buy and demolish buidings, funding from the county to pay expenses, and supposedly big donations. Where/who are these donations coming from, and in what amount? How much is the county expected to kick in yearly to fund expenses? And how much profit can be expected if up front expenses and ongoing expenses are so high that the project can't support itself? Give us exact numbers, not pie in the sky. Money is tight, wages are low,and this is a heck of a lot of money for an unproven project and unneeded new building when there are other empty buildings in town that could provide both space and privacy.
Please committee, give us specific figures. Explain how this is going to generate more money to help the needy than is already being provided by the county, by donations to the clothing room and the food pantry, etc.
Are there meetings planned to discuss this with the community? I mean open meetings, now addresses to the chamber of commerce etc. Is the committee willing to listen?
Why wait, Grudz? Drop by now! Come visit!
Linda, I don't know if they read the blog, but they do check their e-mail: community.thriftstore@yahoo.com. I sent an e-mail to them Wednesday morning; a committee member visited me in person Thursday evening. From that conversation, I can tell you this:
--The exact number is $1,050,000.
--The expected city contribution is $150,000.
--The expected county contribution is $150,000.
--The expected private fundraising is the remainder, $750,000.
I'm unclear on the exact nature of the county's ongoing contribution. The committee says they think they can make $250,000 in sales each year and have $100,000 left to disburse to charity. The $1.05 million covers the building loan. The committee is taking five-year pledges. The committee says they need to show they can raise that amount to get the loan from the bank. No loan, no new building, no thrift store. (I will be eager to learn whether our local banks will lend money based the assertion of the person seeking financing that other people have promised to hand over money in coming years.)
Public meetings? None scheduled that I heard of last night. The big problem is that they should have had public meetings six months ago. Now they are in marketing mode.
OK, I will ask it in a different way, hopefully more clear. Is the county expected to subsidize it $150,000 each year? How much do they pay now toward expenses for the needy? Does the thrift store save money yearly for the county, or is the yearly contribution over and above their present cost? These are the nuts and bolts for the county to consider.
And money pledged does not mean money in hand; circumstances change regardless of the donor's best intentions. Or if the store is shown to be a losing proposition early on, will those contributors keep on coming? Who is left holding the bag for the $1 million plus if the thrift store does not work? All questions that should be asked and answered in public meetings with charts, exact numbers, etc.
And the committee had better be reading this blog!!
You are asking the right questions, Linda, the answers to which we all should have been privy before this went to our elected officials. My understanding is that the $150K from the county is analogous to the city contribution, one shot to get things rolling. Maybe spread over five years, maybe all up front; I'm not sure.
The county currently disburses $43K a year for indigent assistance. The committee's selling point (about the only valid one I hear from them) is that this investment up front creates a mechanism to provide another $100K in assistance each year. What the committee appears to miss is that they could build a similar mechanism without any investment of public dollars right now in an existing building.
Who's left holding the bag if the project starts and donors bail? The Madison Community Foundation is the designated owner of the building. That's the same organization that raised money to build John Green's studio (which the MCF still owns) and provides subsidies for poor folks to join the Community Center. At the end of 2010, MCF had $425,172 in cash on hand.
And hey, why the heck am I the one offering answers to these questions? Why isn't one of the seven members of the steering committee on this blog answering these questions definitively? If you can come to my house, you can come to my blog. Start typing, committee!
Gene Hexom is listed as a director on the 990. At what point is voting a conflict of interest for commissioners who sit on other boards of organizations that request funding?
In a small town where some people are very active.
If the committee is reading this blog, I hope they know that the silent majority is behind them.
Let the record show, members of the committee, that Grudz is also an out-of-town provocateur with no real knowledge of the situation and no data to back his assertion.
From my private discussions with friends, no one has been supportive of this proposal.
If you'd make everyone use their real name, you would not have to worry about provocateurs.
John: reliable. Grudz: not.
Same here, John. I haven't talked to many people, but I haven't talked to anyone who thinks it's anything better than an awful idea.
Then again, there's a whole 25 people supporting it. That's almost enough to fill a high school classroom. I can see how there could be confusion about how much support this has, when the numbers are so close.
I am not a provocateur, whatever that is. I am a raconteur.
Maybe it is his real name! Maybe he is Nicolas Grudzennheimer.
You're both, Grudz.
I notice that many people here have no problem posting their name. I respect that. I know many here just use their first name and while both Cory and I might know who you are, it makes far more sense to have a community discussion if everyone knows your name.
BAH, Mr. "Black".
If you wrote a letter to the editor of the Madison Daily Leader, you would be asked to sign your name. The same standard should apply to all media.
Controlling the internets is something Mr. PP fought and fought, Mr. Black. And blogs are not media, sir. They are a rummage sale sign taped to the tree two blocks up the street from your house.
(Not the place for the argument, Nick/Grudz. Michael Black is the man's name. Quote marks are unnecessary and disrespectful.)
raconteur: a teller of stories? In the derogatory sense, that phrase may be appropriate....
Hey now. I remember Grudz' story about Bill and the Latin American Priest. I liked that story.
I say, let us all write letters to the Madison paper and provide copies of our passports, notarized by Mr. Gant himself, and support Mr. Black in his endeavors of blog control.
Grudz, it's not even Michael here. Cory's the one with the policy that he openly allows you to break. I wouldn't go pushing it, if I were you. The rest of us obey the rule.
OK, Mr. Carter. I guess I didn't realize there was a rule. If there's a rule, then I'm totally out of line.
OK, I'm back to my whole name. I just quit because so many others only used their first name. Who's next??
Could we get back on track?
One more point I would like to make about the Four Seasons Flea Market. The owner (Gayle Barger Mayberry) has and is friendly to other for profit stores. She encouraged the last antique store (a few doors down to the south), realizing everyone would benefit from increased foot traffic and refers customers to other stores. She helps non-profits by setting up a consignment account so they can make some cash with resale goods. Her point and those I talk to is we just don't have a need for this new store. The community has other priorities that are not being satisfied so its just not sensible for us even if it works well for a community in a different set of circumstances. Instead we need a grocery and other things downtown to make it a destination.
Grudznick, a friend today also hopes for a Trader Joe's - a much-loved grocery store chain from California. Dream on. A food coop would be nice!
For just one minute, I'm gonna be honest with you. I think people join the LAIC (our economic development corporation) to protect their business, not to encourage growth if it in any way might impact them. Tell me I'm wrong.
A food coop! what a great idea. I have belonged to several and they are fun and most are centered on nutritious food. Maybe Carter could try eating some real oats and dump the cheerios : -) .
Does anyone know if there has ever been any market analysis done on the viability of the thrift store project? Or is it just a case of Milbank has one - it will work in Madison too?
Sunshine could (would?) match or beat prices to kill a coop, so it's a risk.
Thanks for the refocus, John! Gayle does consignment deals with non-profits? I didn't know that! That's an important part of the discussion that I haven't heard yet. If I were a non-profit, I might prefer doing business with Gayle: I could get donated items, consign them with Gayle, and then know exactly how much money I would get from the deal if I make the sale. With the thrift store, I'd have to apply to the private board (the Madison Community Foundation? a separate committee?) and hope they decide I'm worth the money.