Live on the Lawn

following up on mark's comments two posts above, what I find most disconcerting about all this is the rather randomness of the edict from above (no more dancing) and the seeming randomness of who is impacted (bruce, not hoopers).

being a coop member, I do have a sense of "ownership" of the lawn. I have had no notion of there being a "problem" that needed to be "fixed."

laura
butterflites dot com

Can I second Steve's comments ?
The other morning my husband and I - both headed in ultimately opposite directions - left our Carrboro house with the intention of stopping at WSM on the way out. I took the direct route - Main to Weaver, he went around his elbow - 54, Greensboro, Roberson. Guess who got there first ?

This experience with Weaver Street Market and Carr Mill Mall should be a lesson to town planners in both towns. People congregate where they get their needs met - grocery shopping, shopping for gifts, using a bank machine, getting coffee, having a meal or ice cream. My 5-year-old would rather go to Weaver Street Market than Wilson Park. Among other things, she's likely to see her friends there. Or puppies. Or puppets.

In future planning, how can we integrate publically owned space into privately owned business spaces or next to privately owned business spaces? Not segregating our parks and meeting places in residential neighborhoods or off on the edge of town. I know some residential developments have been required to donate space to build schools. Could the same approach be used to require future business developments to donate space for outdoor community parks of varying sizes ?

By the way, I went to a movie at the dread Streets at Southpoint a few weeks ago and there was a salsa band, people dancing and children playing in the fountains. No doubt, they like all malls have to deal with their fair share of illegal behaviors (harrassment, public drunkeness, vandalism, shoplifting - possibly assaults), but there they are trying to cultivate loitering. Crazy, isn't it ?

Nothing like controversy close to home to get people motivated.

Which makes me think... I don't know a darned thing about how to use my WSM ownership status to make a difference on this issue. Is there anyone who can share some ideas on what all of us WSM owners can do to address our grievances? That might really get me motivated.

Also, I think putting the policy to the test with regular solo dancers might be an interesting test and protest. Let's say people signed up online for 1 hour shifts every day before 6 PM. It would give us a way to judge under what circumstances and with what authority WSM & CMM will enforce the policy.

I know one easy thing WSM owners can do is express our disappointment directly to Ruffin Slater and to members of the WSM board. I'm disappointed to see the board member who has been involved in this discussion hasn't done more to acknowledge how upset many WSM owners and customers feel about this and has instead focused on denying WSM has anything to do with Carr Mill's "compromise" policy. I must admit I've paid not a lick of attention to WSM board elections in recent years, but you can bet that's going to change.

And Steve, let me echo those who have commended you for your great points. Our malls are the closest thing we have to piazzas, and while that may be a lamentable travesty of "urban planning," it's also a fact we largely have to live with. Some malls are smart and actively work to cultivate this function because they've realized--SURPRISE--it's good for business. You'd think Carr Mill's management would be among the smart ones, but apparently not.

As an aside, I was driving by WSM today and looked over at the "lawn." Am I the only one who wonders whether Nathan Milian's real problem is he's trying to save his owners the money they spend to replant grass there each year?

Are there plans for the dance-ins to continue? I hope so.

The Carrboro police department is right across the street. Nothing happened on Wednesday, and here's why: numbers. Police don't like dealing with crowds. If called, they would arrive in force.

From a management perspective, that makes it a no-win situation. They don't want people to dance, but a bunch of cops descending on the lawn to stop them would be a public relations nightmare.

I'm sure they were caught off guard by the show of support for Bruce - imagine what would happen if they actually tried to arrest somebody!

Folks are talking about whether to do another dance-in next Wednesday or not.... there seems to be a lot of energy, but questions about how to make it actually have an impact on Carr Mill and WSM's policies abound-- Do we pose questions about why a crowd of us are not turned away, but Bruce and others have been? Who dowe pose these to, to the media? or do we come up with a letter stating our demands and invite Nathan and Ruffin to join us?Do we engage the possibility of a boycott???

To that end, just wanted to remind folks about the screening of Footloose this Sunday evening (Aug 27) , MORE IMPORTANT perhaps than the film itself, before the movie there will be an OPEN DISCUSSION about how to proceed on the Lawn issue..... so please come by : the discussion is at 7pm and the movie will follow. we hope to have more shirts by then!

The location is 116 Old Pittsboro Rd, where Sparrow's pool is (now empty).. do bring blankets to sit on and food and drink if you like!
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!!

(the issue of public/private space -- as Steve and others have pointed out --goes beyond this particular instance, I think it is key we find a way to use this energy to make some changes to ensure Carrboro remains the special place it can be-- there are a few other initiatives surrounding public and greenspace in town that we can maybe talk about, or at least mention.)

At what point is a person "dancing"?!

We've done the vast majority of our shopping at WSM and the Carr Mill HT (as well as other CMM businesses) for the last 10+ years-- since we lived in Carborro and CH. Even as we've moved further away-- we are now about 40-45 min away, literally a couple miles north of OC-- we have loved it so much we continued to shop there. Until last week.

I'm the kind of person who likes to move-- especially with my daughter, and ESPECIALLY when there is music around; and when we went to WSM on Saturday the mood was different. The Carr Mill cop was watching the lawn like he was waiting for one of the kids to get a little too spontaneous. I felt intimidated. I usually dance a little on the way in while carrying my daughter, but didn't feel like dealing with a potential hassle. We did get a few things at WSM, but decided not to bother with HT though we do like the people there.

Though we will contact the businesses and inform them of our decision not to shop there anymore and let WSM understand why we will likely be getting back our membership, it is not really so much a matter of "boycotting" as the "chill" we felt-- not to mention the fact that everyone we talked to seemed to have collectively gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. We have far more valuable things to worry about than whether or not I've become a little too fluid in my movement for someone else's taste. It would be fun to attend the protests and fight it, and we were hoping to become more involved in WSM as it moved north; but at this point we are more interested in funneling our energy into our more immediately local community. To be honest, we've had some questions about WSM leadership lately anyway.

I'm also not convinced that this isn't a racial issue. I suspect that if Bruce were a young white girl (with no criminal record) instead of a "scary" black man, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

As if my last post wasn't long enough, I had one more thought: If this isn't racially motivated, then its roots must lie in the realm of the persecution of Falun Gong in China. Which is to say the fear and hatred of free and spontaneous souls by stiff and (often self-)imprisoned souls-- exspressions of life terrify the undead. Who knows, perhaps the two are intertwined...

I just received the email from WSM/Ruffin Slater. I would hate to see this whole incident change the way WSM is used and enjoyed by everyone. What is the background of the owners? What are their real goals? Who are they?

I'd like to make a (hopefully) final contribution to this thread with as definitive a statement as possible in my role as a WSM board member.

Weaver Street Market, definitively, did not have any role whatsoever in the creation of this action by Carr Mill Mall to limit the use of the lawn. Weaver Street Market, definitively, does not in any measure support the ban, and, definitively, would like it lifted as soon as possible. The action to ban Bruce's dancing was a peremptory decision by Carr Mill management of which WSM had no advance warning: you heard about it the same time as we did. WSM general manager Ruffin Slater has tried to persuade Carr Mill management to lift the ban, to no avail. As tenants of the Mall we have to obtain permission from Carr Mill Mall management for every single event on the lawn. In exchange for that permission WSM undertakes considerable reponsibility for maintenance of this cherished resource but gains no special privileges thereby.

The Live on the Lawn program is a concession that WSM management has managed to secure from Carr Mill management with the intention of partly alleviating the effects of the ban. It is of course no substitute for spontaneous expression. Proposing and securing consent from Carr Mill for this program is not an indication that WSM accepts the Carr Mill ban and it is deeply regrettable that it has been interpreted as such. It will not make things as we wish them to be. I hope it's not the end of the story. Certainly it's too soon to give up.

I hope with this post to make it clear that the general manager and board of Weaver Street Market are as dissatisfied with Carr Mill's actions in this matter and with the current state of play as any of those who have posted on this thread. The petition can only confirm the board's belief that our position is aligned with the ownership community in this issue: we support Bruce, value his presence in the community, value his spontaneous dance expression, wish for it to resume. That we have no power to compel the Mall to change its policy is a function of our status as tenants. Would that we had the power to change this.

I have written before of how important it is for the board to hear from those whom it serves. Please do not cease to be vocal, to be active, to be critical, but please also be effective, and make sure you're tilting at the right windmills. It's your Market. With your support it can only get better. With your neglect, it can only get worse.

I'd prefer a longer-term, more permanent solution to this riff between the community and the mall owners. My proposal is that the town negotiate some kind of lease with the owners to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. I haven't looked at the zoning for the mall but I can't imagine the lawn would ever be available for development so the mall owners don't lose anything, the town gets its open space, and WSM can continue on with their wonderful community events and they can maintain the space in exchange for its use.

With the ArtsCenter development coming up, I think it's vitally important that the town make some permanent agreement up front with those owners to ensure the public space they are designing will always remain truly public space.

Why wouldn't eminent domain apply here? If the owners and management of the property are acting in a way that is harmful to the Carborro's economic vitality-- and they are-- why can't the town simply take/buy it? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Courts current stance on the issue, the town would have a good chance... and one would think the threat would be enough to soften stances...

Banning dancing is not consistent with Carrboro values, but taking someone's property through eminent domain in the absence of an emergency is just downright WRONG by anyone's values.

tony a,

I'm pretty sure that you would find little, if any, support for the Supreme Court's decision on Eminent Domain, either in Carrboro or Chapel Hill. The idea of local governments taking over private property for private development in Carrboro or Chapel Hill is so diametrically opposed to our constitutional rights I shudder to think what the response would be should someone seriously propose this.

James Morgan,

Thank you for your clear and concise explanation of WSM's position on this matter. From your description it sounds as if this has been as painful and troubling a journey for you as the rest of the community. I'm sure everyone appreciates your forthrightness.

I'm surprised no one has yet posted the letter sent this evening via email to co-op owners. It addresses many of the questions raised here. Here it is:

To Weaver Street Market Owners,

We would like to take this opportunity to report to you about Weaver Street Market's intent and actions regarding the issue of Bruce Thomas Dancing on the Lawn. We have been in discussions with Carr Mill Mall, and have made some progress in sorting out various issues involved in community access to the lawn. We want to tell you what these issues are, and to report on some first steps we are taking to try and maximize the use of the lawn. We also want to suggest some things that those concerned about the future of the lawn can do to help the situation.

To start with, Weaver Street loves activity on the lawn, the more the better. We're proud that the lawn has such a valued place in the community and that it is the center of so much activity. We have worked hard over the last 18 years to build the lawn into a community institution, and are committed to its future as a vibrant and active space.

However, Weaver Street does not own the lawn—Carr Mill does. Weaver Street does not have the authority to grant permission to use the lawn. In fact, for every outdoor event Weaver Street sponsors, we need to request permission to use the lawn, just like anyone else.

We have spent a lot of time over the years securing permission to use the lawn not only for Weaver Street events, but also for many other community events. To name a few that will occur in the coming weeks: Sept 10 Animal Adoption and Awareness day, Sept 22 Car Free Day, and Sept 24 Carrboro Music Festival. In order to obtain permission for these events, we devote a lot of the co-op's resources to provide staff for the events, guide people to satellite parking, pick up the trash, maintain the grounds, and more.

Weaver Street did not ask Bruce Thomas to stop dancing. We appreciate Bruce. He has been a co-worker, a loyal customer, and a friend. Carr Mill Mall, our landlord, asked Bruce to stop dancing. It is not a decision that we would have made. We had no warning it was going to happen, and we wish it hadn't happened.

However, it did happen. By the time we became aware of the decision, it was already in the hands of the press, and the Mall manager was committed to stand by his decision. Many people publicly criticized Carr Mill, which caused Carr Mill to dig in its heels even more.

We decided to refrain from criticizing the Mall publicly, and instead decided to express our concerns directly to the Mall. Many people wonder why we made this decision. Why isn't Weaver Street doing anything? Why are we siding with the Mall? The answer is that we aren't siding with the Mall. We are striving for a productive resolution. Before we explain what we were trying to do, let me explain why we decided not to join the fray in criticizing the Mall.

The first reason is that we believed that publicly criticizing the Mall wouldn't succeed in pressuring Carr Mill to reverse its decision. In fact, we believed it would have had the opposite effect by causing them to dig in its heels even more. In 15 years of dealing with these owners, they have never reversed a single decision as a result of pressure Weaver Street has exerted. Even the Carrboro Mayor pressured Carr Mill management to reverse its decision; he failed and they haven't spoken about this since.

The second reason is that we believed that publicly criticizing the Mall would have severely strained a relationship with the Mall that in the past has been shaky, and potentially caused additional harm by having all events on the lawn canceled. We are trying to get Carr Mill to allow us to expand our store, to better meet customer needs (such as doubling the size of the café) and to address staff safety issues (such as rolling 2,000 lbs of groceries backwards down a ramp to get them in the store). We are also very concerned that Carr Mill could cancel all uses of the lawn. You may think this point is an exaggeration; however, we have been on the brink of having permission for all events withdrawn several times.

Instead of spending our energy publicly criticizing the Mall, we sat down with Mall management to look at a broad range of issues related to the lawn. How could we continue and expand the use of the lawn? How could we address the Mall's concerns? How could we move things forward from a stalemate situation? We felt that by addressing the broader issues we would have the best chance of resolving the specific issue of Bruce's dancing.

One thing that everyone is trying to figure out is what prompted the Mall's decision to ask Bruce to stop dancing. What did Bruce ever do? I don't know the answer to that, but I do understand that the Mall receives many complaints about the use of the lawn. Office tenants above Weaver Street complain about the noise. Retail tenants complain that their customers can't find a place to park. Neighboring property owners complain about their lot filling up and start to tow cars. People get bitten by dogs. Kids climb trees. People sit on benches and get drunk. People get harassed. People drink beer on the wall at the entrance to the upstairs offices. The grass dies. The mulch gets washed into the street. Recognizing these issues (that are unrelated to Bruce's dancing) is important to understanding the Malls decision about Bruce.

The main thing I've come to understand about the whole Dancing Bruce issue is that it's not really about Bruce. From the Mall's perspective, the issue is about how to maintain some control of the lawn in order to manage Carr Mill to the standards it holds. From what I understand about the day in question, Bruce just happened to be dancing on the wrong day when an influential visitor to the Mall complained about the state of the lawn: the grass was dead, the bushes were trampled, furniture were scattered about, kids were climbing the trees, people were drinking on a bench and, yes, Bruce was dancing. To the Mall manager, the visitor's critique indicated that he wasn't doing enough to manage the main entrance to the Mall's property. So the Mall manager set about to remedy the situation, part of which involved asking Bruce not to dance.

From the point of view of the community, Dancing Bruce is a symbol of what's good about Carrboro: the spontaneous exercise of community. If Bruce can't dance, then we have lost what's vital about Carrboro.

So Bruce became caught in the middle of a larger struggle. From the Mall manager's perspective, reversing his decision about Bruce means he was giving up control of the lawn—the very control that he sees as the only tool he had to manage the most visible part of his property. From the community's perspective, the failure to reverse the decision about Bruce means that the heart of our community is lost.

In our discussions with the Mall, we have realized the importance of acknowledging that there are other issues about the lawn besides Bruce's dancing. To the Mall, we expressed our desire to be a good neighbor and take responsibility for the consequences that our lawn activities foster. I know some believe that recognizing the fact that our use of the lawn has consequence equates to “siding” with the mall. In my mind, it's just a common-sense way to ensure community access to the lawn. By identifying the issues, we can reduce their impact and thereby remove them as an obstacle to the use of the lawn.

So far in our discussions with the Mall, we've made progress in three areas:

The first is drafting eight simple “Good Neighbor” rules about the use of the lawn. These are a combination of common sense rules (control your dog), existing legal restrictions (only drink alcohol in designated areas), and rules that respect Carr Mills ownership (no large public meetings without permission.) We plan to help the Mall publicize these Good Neighbor rules this fall.

The second is establishing a regular monthly meeting with Mall management to discuss lawn issues, so that in the future we can be involved in trying to resolve potential conflicts before they spiral out of control.

The third is establishing the "Live on the Lawn” Program. This program expands the use of the lawn to casual performers who weren't able to use it before. I can't count the number of people who have asked us to use the lawn to whom we have had to say "Sorry--we can't approve your request, and there isn't any avenue to request permission from the Mall." Once again, Weaver Street is volunteering to do the work to make this program happen, including providing insurance, coordinating the scheduling, and cleaning-up afterwards. I publicly supported the Mall's willingness to allow this program because I think it is a good program that meets a community need. We already have several applicants for the program.

We have not been able to convince Carr Mill to reverse its original decision about Bruce dancing on the lawn. Carr Mill is unwilling to change its mind about that. Live on the Lawn, however, creates a way for Bruce to dance again in a very limited way, and Bruce is also welcome to dance along with everyone else during Weaver Street's regular Thursday night and Sunday morning events.

Good Neighbor rules, monthly meetings with the Mall, and the Live on the Lawn Program create an opening to build upon with Carr Mill. If the users of the lawn can demonstrate that we can be good neighbors, than the Mall will hopefully allow us to increase the duration and the frequency of lawn events, and to use the lawn for additional purposes. These three measures are a small step forward. It's not an end point, and Weaver Street plans to continue to actively engage in discussion with Carr Mill to maximize the community's use of the lawn.

We intentionally choose the approach of working directly with Carr Mill rather than joining the fray of public criticism and brinkmanship. We did this because we thought this strategy has the best chance of continuing and improving the community's access to the lawn.

I know it's not a popular approach. People would like to see us swing for a homerun, to get Carr Mill to “back down.” Instead, we tried to bunt to get on base, to get Carr Mill to discuss the issues and find a way to move forward.

Let's talk about the strategy that we didn't take: demanding that Carr Mill reverse its decision. Some people have advised Weaver Street to stop discussions with the Mall, and instead issue an ultimatum: Carr Mill needs to reverse its decision about Dancing Bruce or else. Or else what? Or else Weaver Street is going to move out? Or else we are going to boycott the Mall? Or else we are going to stop paying our rent? Since I've been at Weaver Street, I've gone the brinkmanship route with the Mall a few times. In one dispute we stopped paying rent. In another we called the Police to determine who controlled a piece of equipment located in the common area. We lost each dispute—property rights in those cases, like this one, were not on our side. Those were ugly situations. I don't want this situation to become ugly. I don't want to see police on the lawn. I don't want all lawn events to be canceled. I want us to work this out.

Given the context in which we find ourselves--that we don't own the lawn, that we don't control the lawn, and that this is a reality that's not likely to change--I feel like trying to convince the Mall to limit its restrictions, while at the same time taking responsibility for the effects caused by the use of the lawn, is the only realistic course of action.

I would like people concerned about the future of the lawn to consider doing these four things:

1. Recognize that Bruce dancing on the lawn is really a larger issue concerning community use of the lawn. Don't stake the entire future of the lawn on how many times Bruce can dance next week. If we can figure out the broader issue of the lawn, we can likely get Bruce dancing more.

2. Recognize the reality that Carr Mill owns the lawn. While they overreacted about Bruce's dancing, they do have a right to put some reasonable parameters on the use of the lawn. Don't demonize Carr Mill. They are willing to provide more access to the lawn than other shopping centers.

3. Support steps that will both extend the use of the lawn and respect the needs of Carr Mill. I've told you three things that Weaver Street is trying to do to in this regard. Please support these measures, and help identify other solutions that will move us forward.

4. Let us know what you think about the steps we have taken so far, and what else you think we should do, in order to maximize community use of the lawn. Send us your ideas to feedback@weaverstreetmarket.coop.

Thank you,

Ruffin Slater,
General Manager

Too little to late Ruffin and WSM board. Why didn't we get this letter two weeks ago? I understand your desire to work with your landlords but your CoOp "owners" expect more. I believe you have the good intentions. I believe you are decent and loving people. But I've spoken with several CoOp "owners" who are tired of your unfair control of the WSM board. Expect your "owners" to get more involved and change that.

Ruffin would be making some good points in a different situation and time. They may have secured more flexibility for scheduling events, but scheduled events aren't the point.

They didn't target Bruce for loitering, being disruptive, threatening, or in any way causing damage to Carr Mill, they are targeting him for moving a certain way-- something I would actually consider meditation or mindful movement rather than "performing" or "dancing". At what point is something dancing and who decides? This is not a rhetorical question. It's answer affects me as I move around Carr Mill mall. Can Carr Mill management control everyone's actions, if they so desire? Can they require anyone or everyone to goosestep, removing those who refuse? Perhaps if I twitch too much it may bother someone and I will be "asked" to leave or threatened with arrest. Can they require me to perform sexual favors or be "asked" to leave and not be allowed to enjoy my WSM membership? Maybe that is going to far, maybe they can only require that I walk in a stiff, unnatural, unrhythmic way if I want to enjoy my WSM membership...

Perhaps I was being a little facetious with the eminent domain question( although its been used far more frivolously), but I find it more than a little ironic and disturbing that as a society we don't want to let government control "private property" while ceding the right to a company to control an individuals body. Once again, we are talking about one person's movement, not a general activity like loitering that can pretty much be applied evenly across the board. "Okay folks, lets move it along, this isn't a park", is not the same thing as "Hey you, quit moving like that, it's too rhythmic!", or "Hey, we're going to have to ask you to leave because your ugly, warty face bothers a customer." The whole thing is absurd but scary in its implications.

By the way, in the last couple of days, I've sent two reasonable and surprisingly short emails to WSM asking at what point I will know when my daughter's and my actions will require us to sign up for Live on the Lawn, and haven't received an answer. At what point is something "dancing" and/or "performance"? Is the answer so obvious I just don't see it?

"At what point is something “dancing” and/or “performance”?"

That's the question that should have been asked when all this started. The other obvious question is how they intend to enforce the permit requirement and what the penalty for performing without a permit will be. Let's face it, all this does is ensure that no one will be dancing or playing drums when there is no sanctioned event going on. During an event, enforcement will be virtually impossible and would result in more egg-on-the face for mall management if they tried.

"From what I understand about the day in question, Bruce just happened to be dancing on the wrong day when an influential visitor to the Mall complained about the state of the lawn"

To me, this is the most interesting line in the letter. The fact that one Big Shot can set all this in motion shows the level of the complaint. Who is this person?

Obviously, WSM is the dream anchor tenant. From an economic standpoint, the mall management should be asking what WSM wants. It seems that there is something out-of-balance here. It may not be too much of a stretch to say that WSM leaving the mall would deal a crippling blow to the whole mall area.

Mark is right: Weaver Street Market seems to be the power player here. Could it be possible that Ruffin Slater's perception of WSM's weak bargaining position has seriously detracted his ability to effectively negotiate? Could it be possible that what he sees as brinkmanship is nothing more than CarrMill playing the hardball negotiator?

Weaver Street Market conducts its business as a responsible member of the community. The Carrboro community has long admired WSM for its awareness of social concerns, its sense of community, its perception of its role in ecological and environmental matters, and the way it treats its employees, customers, and owners.

Now WSM is being asked to play a much more active role in a matter of utmost importance: be a fearless advocate of the community's standards of free expression. This is an Atticus Finch moment, Ruffin. Don't let this chance in your life to do something bigger than yourself pass you by. This is your time, as well as it is ours, to put our most cherished values into action. Your community is behind you on this one.

Compromise is a wonderful and progressive concept. Yet, there's something repugnant in the mere mention of that word when community standards of free expression are at stake.

Are you sure WSM is the anchor tenant and not UNC? Last time I was up on the second floor, it was completely taken by the university.

"Obviously, WSM is the dream anchor tenant. From an economic standpoint, the mall management should be asking what WSM wants. It seems that there is something out-of-balance here. It may not be too much of a stretch to say that WSM leaving the mall would deal a crippling blow to the whole mall area."

This is exactly what I kept yelling to Ruffin's email as I read it. I don't think this would have happened had two business OWNERS been having this negotiation rather than two MANAGERS. Ruffin should be consulting with the WSM owners. South Points mall is doing what they can to copy the feel of such a business-- WSM is the real thing. Landlords would be falling all over themselves to get WSM and WSM might find (or build?) a space where they can expand without such a hassle. Obviously no one wants WSM to move, but it just may be neccessary.

Even though I feel this whole thing is absurd, as someone who's ultimate goal in life would be to have my every move be like the dancing of a leaf on the swirling autumn breeze of life, I feel that this is a civil rights issue-- that Bruce was being targeted for the WAY he was moving/meditating-- and that it is just too important to ignore even if I can't make it in to protest.

That's why I'm going to freak everyone out and take a little more serious look at the idea that eminent domain (which is also enshrined in the constitution and is the flip side of private property rights) could be used to get the lawn for the Carrboro community -- or at least to use it as a threat to the owners of Carr Mill Mall.

Upon further reflection, I actually think it that this idea may be less facetious than I originally thought. It certainly seems less objectionable to use eminent domain to get a piece of sod from a company that is disrupting a community's economic and civic well being in order to protect a vital/important community resource (the community's gathering place) as well as public safety concerns-- or as another example, to recover dark Wal-marts in order to help re-establish communities' economic vitality-- than it is to use eminent domain to take people homes and destroy neighborhoods to build roads and highways which then further drain a community of its life and vitality in the service of ever greater corporate profits. Or to flood whole communities with poison water to cool nuclear reactors, or to build another stinking dump (which somehow usually seem to end up in/on traditionally black neighborhoods/land). The use of eminent domain is ultimately more often than not a government subsidy for business... but it doesn't have to be. Just something to think about..

Still not shopping in Carr Mill Mall....

"Now WSM is being asked to play a much more active role in a matter of utmost importance: be a fearless advocate of the community's standards of free expression. This is an Atticus Finch moment, Ruffin. Don't let this chance in your life to do something bigger than yourself pass you by. This is your time, as well as it is ours, to put our most cherished values into action. Your community is behind you on this one.

Compromise is a wonderful and progressive concept. Yet, there's something repugnant in the mere mention of that word when community standards of free expression are at stake. "

Well said... Well said.

"Last time I was up on the second floor, it was completely taken by the university."

My wife used to work in Carr Mill. Didn't realize this had become the case... that could explain some of this. Who was the "infuential visitor" that complained???

"This is an Atticus Finch moment..." an inspiring challenge, David. It swept me away for a minute, but here's this: Atticus put his personal ass on the line. Ruffin doesn't have that luxury.

Ruffin's letter doesn't take much reading between the lines to get a sense of what we've all been saying. The property manager has the power to pull the rug (the lawn) out from under a scene that he finds disruptive. Ruffin tells us that the Grinch threatens to steal the equivalent of Christmas from Carrboro on a regular basis. Naturally Ruffin would decide to tip-toe through this latest minefield. He did a fine job of explaining and complaining at the same time.

hello everyone,

although i am new to this board, i have been living in and around carrboro for the last 12 years (almost half my life!).

there's not much left to say about the lawn issue that hasn't been said already. however, i would like to point out that this whole thing goes back way further than this summer when bruce was told not to dance anymore. countless friends of mine have been harrassed and told to leave the lawn by mall security over the last year or so. musicians hanging out jamming, fire dancers spinning fire, folks listening to music out of the back of a car....not to mention the countless "bums", "panhandlers", "drunks", and otherwise undesireables. i've personally witnessed cops take these guys away at least 5 times in the last year. do they have a right to be here too?

the difference is that bruce has some very vocal friends! he was the wrong guy to pick on. but this is nothing new.

it is definitely time for this to stop. let's keep up the pressure, and take the lawn back. after it being the de-facto public piazza of carrboro for the last decade, it's too late for carr mill to change their minds. private property gets seized all the time, so why not the weaver street lawn?

gabriel pelli
WSM #5115

I second Mark in that possibly the most telling line was:

“From what I understand about the day in question, Bruce just happened to be dancing on the wrong day when an influential visitor to the Mall complained about the state of the lawn”

Made me wonder if there's a change-of-control brewing for Carr Mill. Wonder what it's value would be as an upscale condo-hive?

A few quick points:

1) Ruffin did a good job walking a fine line with letter.

Downside? Wish it'd come out earlier.

2) The letter confirmed various known aspects of the problem: more than a Bruce issue, WSM's concern about expansion and further underlined nastier bits: Carr Mill's threats to reduce/remove lawn access, etc.

Upside? We've removed uncertainty on some disputed "facts".

3) Eminent domain is an atom bomb - frequently misused as tony a realizes.

It's a non-starter. Worse, if Carr Mill's owners have reacted so poorly to the token resistance, imagine what the threat of eminent domain would do...

4) Is WSM leaving credible leverage?

I've been pushing for an anchor tenant "like a WSM" for Chapel Hill's parking lot #5 redevelopment. As I understand it, strong protections for public access are being negotiated up-front with RAM. WSM, come on down ;-)

"I've been pushing for an anchor tenant “like a WSM” for Chapel Hill's parking lot #5 redevelopment. As I understand it, strong protections for public access are being negotiated up-front with RAM. WSM, come on down"

This is an intriguing statement that raises a lot of interesting questions. The first to come to mind is an episode where Chapel Hill lost an important asset in the form of a certain nightclub and its owner to Carrboro because CH lacked the will and foresight to work with that business. I haven't worked for the Town of CH for about ten years now, but I still know people who do and question whether the culture in CH gov't has changed enough to do the neccessary thing to support such a community involved enterprise.

It would really hurt Carrboro, but would probably seriously help boost West Rosemary and Franklin St. and the irony would be sort of funny-- WSM helps foster a community spirit in Carrboro that eventually leads to the Cradle relocation and then WSM ends up relocating a few yards from where the Cradle once stood. But it could solve some of WSM's ongoing challenges.

Ruffin should be consulting WSM leadership and owners.

Or could Weaver Street Market become the anchor for the new development right next door to the Cradle ? With a prenegotiated guaranteed lawn/park and control of it as part of the bargain.

Ruffin's letter to me only confirms that Influential People a)don't recognize that everything looks awful in July in NC and b) are uncomfortable with people who don't look or act like them.

So at what point is my child suddenly too funny-looking to play on Weaver Street lawn ? Or will she be asked to move along when she's 20 if she has dreadlocks or pink hair ?
Or rather when she looks like most the people in the invisible workforce that keeps the economy of restaurants and bars and hip grocery stores running in these towns. Many of whom are out lounging during the day because they are working afternoons and nights when everyone else is off work.

Yes, it's wonderful that Weaver Street Market is a community owned cooperative. But get rid of the lawn and there is no community in the community and it's just Whole Foods or Earth Fare with a discount program. And consumer loyalty declines. I don't price shop right now, I just go to Weaver Street, because it provides something of greater value that I want to invest in and support.
Carr Mill Mall needs to understand that their lawn-related threats are threats to undercut their most successful tenant and take away our strongest advantage in a three market competition.
And as responsible owners of Weaver Street Market, we have to make that as clear as that we like Dancing Bruce.

Thanks to Ruffin for his informative and clear letter. I totally agree with Catherine Devine. Ruffin knows how to negotiate with Carr Mill better than any of us ever will and the preponderance of evidence suggests he is doing a damn fine job of it. Could the letter have come earlier? Of course. Would it have helped any more if it had come earlier? Doubtful. Just one more example of why I love my coop. (now about that coffee price increase.... :)

I think WSM CoOp members should support the purchase of their own property. There are several bits of land/buildings available in Carrboro. I know its expensive, but a capital fund raising campaign for something so important is bound to be successful. When the CoOp members own their own lawn they can run it as they see fit. If WSM board isn't interested maybe another group can start such a project.

Does WSM have a lease? If so how long is it? Maybe WSM being booted by the owners of Carr Mill Mall ain't a bad thing.

"But get rid of the lawn and there is no community in the community and it's just Whole Foods or Earth Fare with a discount program."

Earthfare in CH is now open 24 hrs, they have the nice patio, music, WSM bread and their manager was about the nicest store manager we've ever met when we were in there the other day-- he definately knows customer service... maybe WSM could get him (although I don't think Ruffin is doing a "damn fine job" I do understand that he is doing a damn difficult one--You have to answer to a lot of different people when running a co-op and it takes a special kind of person. I don't think Ruffin is quite special enough).

I still haven't heard back from WSM on what exactly constitutes "dancing" or "performance" and at which point we'll need to sign up. Is it the amount of rhythm in your step, a certain fluidity to your movement? Is there a time element involved? How many spectators are required before its a "performance"? Is it just a matter of "we'll know it when we see it"? If I'm just hanging out and find myself swaying a bit too much, will I be able to run inside and sign up quick, or is their a waiting period like when buying a handgun? How many warnings before we are tresspassed or even arrested? Can more than one person or group sign up for the same hour, and can musical performers and dancers use the lawn at the same time? And perhaps the most important question-- who is the final arbiter of all this: WSM or Carr Mill Mall?

I hope I can get some answers before the biodynamic grapes come in.

Please join the discussion on public space today at 116 Old Pittsboro rd (7 p.m. community discussion, 8 p.m. 'Footloose' the movie). If you are unable to make it to the physical space meeting, then please consider collaborating towards a better understanding of our predicament via this wiki at http://grassroots.wikia.com/wiki/Carrboro_Public_Space .

Thanks.

I should be clear that the wiki is meant to be complimentary to the excellent forum and blog that orangepolitics.org is. Afterall, some of the ideas on the wiki page for 'Carrborro Public Space' have been synthesized from contributions to the orangepolitics blog. The hope in creating this wiki page is to consolidate and organize the ideas sorrounding the issue of public space in Carrboro and more specifically the Weaver Street lawn.
The wiki is open for all to edit when and where gaps may be found. Please try to sign-in when you edit.

Thanks.

Last week, after participating in the dance-in, I spoke with a business owner in Carr Mill Mall (after doing business with him). After expressing my concerns, he fell back on the private property argument (and his right to put restrictions on use of the property), and I deferred to that point. Then, I noted that ultimately this was just a business decision, and all decisions have consequences, for the good or the bad. If the decision to restrict use of the lawn in front of WSM results in poor community support, Carr Mill Mall may end up with less business. The person I was speaking with then said that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that probably only about *three* of his regular customers hang out on the WSM lawn or care if Bruce or anyone else dances. Surely not much of an incentive to change behavior, particularly if one of your customers made the original complaint.

This raises a question about the accuracy of his observation of not much overlap in the clients. My initial reaction was that he can't be right (though perhaps his business is an outlier). Assuming there is overlap, this would beg two possible approaches directed at businesses, one more positive than the other. The first is to encourage everyone to regularly use Carr Mill Mall AND to remind the business owners that you are also unhappy with the Mall's decision. Although one could argue that approach essentially is rewarding behavior we don't want, the flip side is that it might encourage the business owners to change their tune when talking to the Mall management (and would dispel any myths about there being no costs for making the community unhappy). An alternative approach of course would be to encourage folks not to do business with the Carr Mill businesses to demonstrate the power of the pocketbook. However, I have two major concerns about that. First is that from what I have read, the ownership of Carr Mill Mall has already demonstrated that they get refractory with pressure and this might make them less likely to consider negotiating further, or much worse. Second potential problem is the possibility that the owner might be right; in that case, what could be worse than calling for not going to the Carr Mill businesses, and nothing substantive happening (proving the business owner's point, and empowering them to enact further restrictions)?

Does anyone have an idea of whether there really is very little overlap in WSM and Carr Mill clients?

Sammy, I have edited only the spelling of the word "eminent" on the Carrboro Public Space site. I see upon returning that some surly person is twisting the intent of your wiki to suit their own agenda. How are these situations handled? Do you as the wiki creator have the ability to exert control to keep the wiki to its intended purpose?

The great things about wikis is that they can be edited by everyone. Plus a record of all changes is kept. You can easily roll back changes. Its best if you register as a user and publicly admit to your editing.

Also my personal opinion about wikis is that they are best when they contain dictionary like organized pages. Debate and discussion doesn't happen on these main pages. Most wikis, like Wikia, have a discussion section. If you disagree with content on a wiki put it in the discussion section. Don't edit the wiki page to throw a virtual monkey wrench in someone's work. Its so easy to have your own wiki and blog. Write your stuff there. Why mess up someone else's space?

Brian R, I see you have done your thang on the wiki. Yay! I can't understand why rude people such as the cowardly anonymous IP person can't start their *own* wiki/blog/whatever if they have so much input on a particular topic - anonymous rude person, are you listening? Since you obviously found the link here -

Anyhow. Am looking forward to tonight's discussion and screening of "Footloose" and am getting the word out as much as possible. Onward.

"Here's the CarrboroNews take on things."

Pretty funny and dead on except you can't equate dance/meditation which can be ignored simply by not looking, and can't really be defined; and listening to music out of the back of a car which can't be ignored-- even by the deaf if the music is very loud do to vibrations-- and is something which can be defined/regulated.

David--
"Does anyone have an idea of whether there really is very little overlap in WSM and Carr Mill clients?"

From observation there is some overlap-- Definately good overlap between WSM and HT. We ALWAYS see people at one that we just saw at the other.

On my last post where I use "you" I'm refering to Carrboro News, not Dan C... unless they are the same... I was too overtired to notice.