Coffee: On Quality and Sustainability

Dedicated to Ben Schultz, fellow coffee drinker, motivator, and friend.

'The powers of a man's mind are directly proportional to the quality of the coffee he drinks.'
- Sir James MacKintosh, 18th century philosopher

I will admit, without hestitation, reservation of guilt, that I am addicted to that delicious hot and dark beverage known as coffee. It starts every morning, whether by drip or press, without adulterations of milk or sugar, energizing my body, mind, and spirit.

But where do those precious grounds of life originate? Who are the people bringing happiness to my morning? I hope that my purchase supports the farmer who made the beans, but most commonly, this is barely the case.

Yesterday, I purchased some coffee at the grocery store. I bought organic free trade coffee, 12 ounces for $10. Looking down the aisle, there was a Kroger brand can, 34 ounces for $4.88. And probably 2/3 of the coffee section were shelves of the cheaper fare. How could a farmer possibly earn anything at that price?!

The problem here (as is the case with feed-quality corn) is the circular degeneration of price and production. With profits driven by quantity, farms produce more to gain more. But with more made, prices diminish, so even more is produced, and round and round we go. Sound sustainable? Not really. Furthermore, to produce bigger yields, farmers generally shift from (traditional) shade grown coffee to (agro-industrial) direct-sun methods, which demand fertilizers as well. But such practices come at cost: clearing land (sometimes rain forest), creating a monoculture, and reducing biodiversity. Frankly, a cheap cup of coffee is not worth the cost of a rainforest.

So change the game: improve the quality of the coffee to improve profits. This strategy is exactly what the specialty coffee culture (I hesitate to call it an industry) in the United States is attempting to do. A few months ago, I read God in a Cup by Michaele Weissman, an exploration into the culture being created by the 'Third Wave' coffee guys. Passionate about coffee, these businessmen are still about profit, but not just for themselves. They recognize that to ensure continued production of great coffee means farmers producing it must both survive and see value in improving their coffee. Not an easy task, but with Starbucks popularizing a more expensive cup of coffee, people, lots of people, are demanding better taste than bitter burnt diner coffee. I'll leave you to read 'God in a Cup' to learn the intricate details of the new emerging coffee culture, but here's the basic needs for a sustainable coffee industry:

• Buyers, middle-men, and farmers who care
• Consumers willing to pay more for quality
• Farmers see value in improving quality
• Stable financial situation for farmers

Now, at some point the average person will say, 'Woah, I'm not paying $12.50 for a cup of coffee.' (Apparently they exist.) This brings us to the uncomfortable situation of who gets to enjoy this quality coffee - if you have the money to afford quality, you can enjoy it. But if your situation puts you tight on cash, why are you stuck inside the unsustainable cheep coffee complex? And that carries the conversation right over to food dilemma in general, where separation between rich and poor can be determined simply by the quality of their respective diets, which may simply be an unavoidable symptom in our capitalist society. But with politics aside, my dollar is my vote, and at least I can buy what I believe in. While climate prevents local coffee growers here in the United States, we can demand better trade relationships and responsible business. We can purchase shade-grown coffee to promote biodiversity. We can buy organic to fight chemical fertilizers. And perhaps, as Sire James MacKintosh declares, the quality of our thoughts will increase with the quality of our coffee.

What's going around here? Urban Planners Know!

Wondering where all the strange rules about pink flamingos in front lawns and excessive showings of flags originate? Maybe these pesky details of town code irk you, but they’ve been put in place for a reason, or at least what someone called a reason. And you have your town urban planners to blame.

But on the other hand, if you’re looking to change your communities relationship with its land, its goals for development, industry, community, you’ll be headed to the same people: your town planners. If you wonder where your town sees itself in ten or twenty years, you can check out the master plans – it’s all about, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if…’ and frankly, that sounds like a cool place to be involved, which is why urban planning is interesting to me.

My rough idea of city or town planners related them to building codes, zoning, and permits, sort of the policemen of the built environment. On the details, I was pretty clueless. Fortunately, I know one of Breckenridge’s town planners, Chris Neubecker, so last week we sat down for a coffee and chatted about urban planning in Breckenridge, which we’ll soon find out, is somewhat unusual.

For those of you annoyed by seemingly strange rules and permit requirements, consider the overarching purpose of the planning department: enhance community value. And while this is really the goal for the entire municipal government, the planners make positive change determining how the town uses its land. So how do town planners achieve this vague but admirable goal? It starts with a town mission statement and master plan. This gets broken down into more concrete goals, according to different sections of the mission statement. In Breckenridge, town planners work on current and long term development, land use (zoning), historic district standards, arts district development, affordable housing, childcare, open space and trails (recreation areas and forest health). They develop and amend town policy and code, both for long and short term development. about the type of use (commercial, residential, etc.), architecture, site planning, landscaping, etc. (how the project looks and is used, and less to do with safety issues.)

Chris explained that he worked on current planning: developers approach the town with an idea, with anything from small things – a home owner installing solar panels – to huge developments – Vail Resorts building a massive hotel. With the smaller projects, the planning department may say, ‘Great, you’re good to go!’ if everything’s up to code. With the larger projects however, the long term planning department will work with the Home Owners Association, the Town Manager, and the development crew (architects, contractors, engineers) to ensure compliance with the town code and accordance with the town’s vision for development. In some cases, say affordable housing, where the town recognizes community improvement, allowances are made with developers to enable financial viability. Don’t go thinking such compromises are given out willy-nilly though: they all go through extended reviewing processes with the planning department, the town council, as well as discussion in open-to-public planning meetings, with the content to be discussed available before the meeting as well.

To some extent, this sort of give and take is built into the town code, which is what makes Breckenridge’s zoning methods nationally unusual. They use what’s called performance or flex zoning, where plans are awarded points for positive developments, and penalized for not-so-good stuff. The system allowed for easy integration of code promoting sustainability… which brought us to what really interested me: making change in the community.

One of the reasons Chris enjoys urban planning, and one which directed him towards the field in the first place, was the ability to make change in the community. It turns out this influence is mostly enacted through a constantly changing code. How does it change? Through the year, the department keeps tabs on issues, and continually updates a Top 10 list prioritizing developments. Planners can’t just introduce random code changes though, like all houses must be red. In lawyer speak, they must have a rational nexus: basically, there needs to be a reason for passing based on improving public good. Apparently planners will often have to find studies and examples from other towns to back up their decisions. And the performance point values will occasionally be reviewed and adjusted. The process is admittedly complex and requires constant attention, which is why it hasn’t been widely adopted, but Chris believes that it is succeeding quite well in Breckenridge, because of good staff on the planning department and overall community support. Apparently, bigger municipalities lead to more politically-driven decisions, as opposed to true commitment to bettering the city. When I meet more people in other cities, I’ll discover first-hand if this is true, but it certainly seems probable.

So the next time you find yourself wondering where the town is headed, or hoping the town would improve bike lanes, or keep some land free from development, or keep national chains off Main Street, head over to your planning department. They’re the ones designing the future of your town.