Social Justice and the Co-Op

This, an anonymous message from a community member subscribed to our listserv:

"In considering whether I want to be a member-- or recommend it to others-- I want to clarify the low-income policy.

The $100 membership fee itself is not waived or reduced for low-income members? What about discounts for low-income members? I want to know this co-op's approach to economic justice & equal access before I throw my support behind it."

And this, my response:

Good to hear from you. As you can imagine, the steering committee spent considerable time deliberating this issue. In the end, the desire for an equitable membership trumped the arguments in favor of setting up a multi-tiered membership. However, we did decide to waive the "processing fee" - which is being assessed on members that decide to use the payment plan option - for low-income and disabled members of our community. Unfortunately, the sign-up forms went to press without this important information. We will correct this in the next version that we print and make sure this is explicit in the online version of the member sign-up form.

I wish you had been present at the discussions around this issue which, at times, were very impassioned. Julio Quan (Board Member) had a strong argument against setting up a "second-class" membership level based on his experience working with disadvantaged populations. To paraphrase his argument, there is already so much institutionalized denigration of certain populations, we need not promote this inequality. Additionally, his experience is that low-income populations are very prideful when it comes to supporting something they believe in; their contribution to the co-op, because of its greater relative significance in their budgeting and financial calculations, will be more meaningful to them and it is more likely that they will be active and engaged members.

A bit of insight that I shared with those gathered at the July 19th event: it was recommended to us by the food co-op 500 folks that a share price of $200 would somehow ensure a greater likelihood of success. Their argument, as best as I can understand it, is that there is a "known" percentage of the population that is willing to be founding members of the co-op (investing before the store exists). Of course, we're talking about those are financially secure: those that are willing to invest at $100 or $200 equally, or so the argument goes. The SC ultimately dismissed this argument, believing instead that a $100 share price IS more accessible to a greater number of individuals and households. Yes, it is still a significant amount. And so is the capital needed to open the doors of the co-op.

Which brings me to two additional points that I'd like to address: location and pricing. One way to address the social justice issues that are intrinsic to the co-op's mission is to locate the store in a neighborhood where access to the products that the co-op will carry is limited to non-existent. As the Board has stated elsewhere, the decision of where to locate the store will ultimately be voted on by the membership. One member, one membership level, one vote.

On average, at food co-ops across the country, only 20% of the shoppers on any given day are members. In all of the development models that we reference for our own roadmap, we can expect membership to double within the first year of operation. Which means that our own financial projections are based roughly on an increase in membership from 2500 on the day that the doors open to 5000 one year later. What this tells us is that a large number of people will hold out until they see how well the co-op meets their needs and then make the decision whether to join or not.

This is important because the current Board of Directors is committed to making affordability the top priority for the co-op once its doors are opened. We will ensure that this objective remains intact throughout changes in leadership at the Board level, is an explicit directive given to the general manager and is communicated to the purchasers and those that set pricing across the entire store. Regardless of the share price for member-owners, this is the most direct and impactful way that the co-op can ensure "economic justice and equal access."

Again, thank you for expressing your concerns.

In Cooperation,

Dan Hulse