Oak Park is very interested in exploring a velodrome and skate park in and around McClatchy Park. You should check in with neighborhood leaders as well as SHRA about funding options and neighbor progress. Start with Tom Sumpter at the Oak Park Neighborhood Association as well as the OPNA Land Use Committee. OPNA meets 1st Thursday of the month at the Food Bank.

Hi Jennifer, That's a fair personal experience. I have had great experiences consistently at Old Soul Co in all of its locations, but especially Oak Park. And as a resident of Oak Park, I very much appreciate that the place isn't an empty, blighted storefront the way that Starbucks left it intentionally and then proceeded to try to prevent a similar business from occupying the space. Only a local company endeavored to accept the risk. More than that though, the staff in Oak Park has been rather remarkable, really participating and facilitating community needs, whereas Starbucks made it difficult for us to use the establishment to have community meetings, promote exchange, and advertise local events, like the Farmer's Market. As a contrast, Old Soul and staff have actually sought to participate and fuel our walkable nutrition initiatives and set up first at the Urban Farmstand before they were even physically located in the neighborhood and then at the Oak Park Farmer's Market on Saturdays when it evolved across the street on Broadway. I appreciate the design differences and investment Old Soul Co made after Starbucks left, hiring a local architect that the neighborhood already trusted and opening the space to make it more social for neighbors and students to spend more time there. They also outreach to neighborhood landscape architects and residents. Nonetheless, I frequently patronize most of our Central City's coffee houses depending on the business of the day and cravings: both Midtown Old Souls, both Temple locations, Butch N Nellie's, Coffee Works in East Sac, and when I get down there, Chocolate Fish on 4th & Q. I seek out local options in every city I travel to and want people to have that option starting from the moment that they get off the plane. Years ago in its original location, one of the owners, created a coffee tasting with a wheel very similar to wine tasting and spent a lot of time teaching people coming through about the characteristics of coffee from cherry to cupping. A whole world of coffee tasting opened up to me and I have continued to explore it ever since. I think that Old Soul Co. will do an excellent job at the airport and much more engagingly than either Starbucks or Peets which they will be competing with, but I hope you come try out the Old Soul Co at 40 Acres again sometime soon. You might find that it continues to evolve. My whole family and many of my friends and neighbors congregate at the Oak Park location quite often for the free music and other activities that it supports. We enjoy the coffee, local beer on tap (Rubicon), and primarily healthful, but affordable food. In our neighborhood, such options are very limited. Plus, we can actually see them making our food and they've started hiring more people from the neighborhood as well as shifting employees who already live here. Either way, I appreciate your honest and sincere feedback about your actual coffee experiences. What's your favorite coffee space? What would you like to see at the airport?

I have no problem with the whole story. Tell it, but be specific and inclusive of all facts and ask don't assume what people's intentions were. I have a problem with exaggeration, hyperbole, and exasperation rather than cogent, specific descriptions of problems. As I mentioned to you in person when facilitating the 4th Wednesday Design Dialogue the other week, I think you may have very valid points to improve the future process, something I'd like to hear. Instead of general and quite personal attacks, you need to list them out 1 by 1 for the sake of improving both your situation and preventing future disagreements not only between a potential business and a resident, but also between residents and residents. When you make inflammatory statements, such as implying that Old Soul "burn[ed] through every possible regulation under every possible jurisdiction," you employ unfortunate exaggeration and hyperbole and lose the audience that you seek to influence rather than rally the people who already agree with you. Change my mind by reaching out to it openly and not argumentatively. Remember that almost none of us out here actually know anything about your personal experience or situation with Old Soul on the Alley, but if your approach in disagreement with them at origin was similar to how you handled yourself at the Dialogue in public and in these comments, it makes it difficult to find common ground or even hear what's wrong. How can anyone seek to help or mediate or prevent new problems when they can't identify what actually happened? Good will is a two-way street about how individuals approach one another in terms of tone, content, and objective. I cannot speak to the tactics or intentions of the founders of Old Soul when they started up the wholesale operation in the alley and I certainly think it's fair and necessary to exact standards of operation. I only remember that they weren't sure if something retail would even succeed on an alley, as in would there be enough demand to support such an endeavor, therefore the "honesty jar" was actually more like taking a poll rather than some intentional avoidance of obligations. I also recognize the inherent differences between legal and ethical. Many things are legal, but not ethical. Many things are illegal, but ethical. In most city and county codes and processes (as well as other levels of government), most citizens find laws left on the books that are archaic, confusing, unhelpful, and counterproductive. Many new businesses violate city or county codes unknowingly but seek to correct or to comply with them in common sense ways once they do understand both their obligations as well as the reasoning underpinning an ordinance's objective. On the other hand, many businesses and residents who experience unfair or archaic leftovers from a bygone era seek to change them for the next business or person. Rightly so.

I thought that the point of this space was to foster community discussion, but simply because Zen presented a difference of opinion, one which I actually don't fully conform to without more information, shouldn't open the door to an unfortunate and unethical personal attack. Again, it seems that argument for the sake of argument is at hand, which is not necessary nor productive at a community level. When you say "one of the invested," are you trying to imply ownership or payment? Or are you implying invested in having a local option at our own airport? If you are implying the second option, what is wrong with being invested in having a local option? Please lay out the logic here.

You and your friends have put a thumbs down on this particular comment which generally asks about what government's role is in the development of a locally driven economy among small or micro-businesses. It also pointed to cities that can be used to inspire us. I fail to understand where this comment specifically referred to Old Soul rather than the process. You seem to fail to distinguish between ideas and your specific beef with the company at stake. That does not seem wise or conscious, but simply attacking for the sake of attacking. Are you suggesting that every business that applied to be an airport concession and was rejected was established illegally? No one is asking for Old Soul to be favored over another coffeehouse. No other locally owned roasters applied to serve coffee, which as I have pointed out numerous times in my comments, seems to point to a systemic failure in outreach, process, and objective. However, since this decision will be made likely on Tuesday, the one local roaster that did apply should be included among a Starbucks and a Peets. If you wish for the process to be delayed to include more applicants, then argue for that (which many of us would have no problem with) instead of simply against a specific business of which you have problems stemming from one location.