Email
From: Evan Riley, Chair, Juniper Estates Neighborhood Committee
Sent: December 12
To: Loretta Acosta, Zoning Commissioner
CC: Rudy Hartwell, Mayor
Subject: Proposed re-zoning for Brannick's Superstore adjacent to Juniper Estates
1. I represent the Juniper Estates Neighborhood Committee. Last night, community residents had a meeting in which they expressed views on the re-zoning request Brannick's Superstore proposed. Nearly 100% of the attendees were opposed to the Antrim Zoning Commission allowing a Brannick's to be built on the land adjacent to Juniper Estates. I have been asked to summarize neighborhood opposition.
2. A Brannick's Superstore is a wonderful place to shop. It provides groceries prescriptions and even auto repairs. However, it is not an appealing structure to have in one's backyard. This is especially true for residents of Juniper Estates. Situated on the northern edge of the Antrim city limits, Juniper Estates is more rural than urban. Many of our residents moved to the northern edge of Antrim to be near the woods and the wildlife. They wanted to be away from the city, not in the middle of a busy shopping mecca. Furthermore, construction of this superstore would remove a large portion of forest from the area adjoining Juniper Estates and uproot the wildlife that depends on it.
3. In place of deer, this superstore would bring in cars and chaos. With traffic congestion comes increased pollution and noise. In effect, a store the size of Brannick's would bring the city right to our doorsteps. While we live within the city limits of Antrim, we reside in the rural community of Juniper Estates, and we want to keep it rustic.
4. Even though most Juniper Estates residents commute to jobs downtown, about 15% of our residents work right here in the surrounding area. These folks are largely small- business owners and their employees. They depend on the purchases made by residents of the Antrim community for their livelihoods. These shopkeepers are happy to let members of the rest of the community spend their city earnings in our shops. Antrim shoppers know that our shops are unique and distinctive, offering original, often handmade products. These businesses are a source of both income and pride for their owners and employees.
5. Unfortunately, the shops near Juniper Estates could not compete with the prices of a nearby superstore. If Brannick's is right next door, most people will shop there. Brannick's can afford to sell for less. Its presence in the community could force many of our local businesses to close. Even people who are loyal customers of the small, specialized shops could eventually succumb to the lure of a superstore.
6. Additionally, the Property Trends website states that building a superstore typically drops home values by 10%. This is reason enough for members of our community to protest the proposed zoning adjustment.
7. Antrim already has two Brannick's Superstores. How many superstores do we need? If you change the zoning legislation, let it be for something that will enhance the beauty and uniqueness of our community. Juniper Estates has enough traffic and noise. We need to protect the businesses we have and the independent personality of our rural community. We strongly urge you to decline Brannick's re-zoning request.
Evan Riley
**********
Press Release
February 2
For Immediate Release
Brannick's Superstore Is Coming!
8. Thanks for being our new neighbor!
9. Brannick's application for the re-zoning of land adjacent to Juniper Estates has been approved with some revisions. We are now preparing to begin construction. Although our original plan was to build a full-sized store on this land, we have modified our plan to accommodate the community concerns that were presented to us by the Antrim Zoning Commission. People in the neighborhood were unhappy with our plan, and beginning a feud with potential customers is never an option for Brannick's. Therefore, we have made some concessions that we hope will please our customers in the area.
10. The first concern of our new neighbors is the noise and traffic the store could generate. Unfortunately, traffic and noise come with the territory of a superstore. Brannick's Superstores are popular, and this one will no doubt draw customers from nearby towns. However, we have worked with the Antrim City Council to find a way to minimize the noise and traffic and to limit our impact on Juniper Estates.
11. We have agreed to forgo our original plan to use the full 200,000 square feet possible under the original re-zoning request. Our store will instead occupy only 125,000 square feet. This size will allow for a buffer zone of wooded area between our store and Juniper Estates. Brannick's will maintain this wooded area; our landscaping team will scrupulously clean up any trash that winds blow into this area. This area will ensure that the store is not visible to nearby residents and will greatly reduce the traffic noise.
12. Furthermore, in the spirit of community involvement, we will place an 80-inch plasma
screen within the store for local ads and announcements. And this service will be free to
all local businesses! These ads could generate more business for local shops, because
Brannick's general merchandise and services. Aren’t competition for these more specialized shops.
13. We will soon have nearly 100 job openings. Applications for the new store are avallable
online. We are looking forward to being your new neighbor.
Which underlying premise is the main basis for the argument presented in the email to the zoning commissioner?
- A. Neighborhood committees are vital to protecting local businesses.
- B. Superstores upset the preferred lifestyle of certain communities.
- C. Small communities are threatened by the existence of large superstores.
- D. Local businesses are unable to adapt quickly to change.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The argument in the email centers on the impact of superstores on community lifestyles, making option B the strongest premise. It highlights concerns about how superstores disrupt the established way of life in certain neighborhoods, which is a key focus of the argument. Option A, while relevant to local business interests, does not directly address the core issue of lifestyle disruption. Option C suggests a threat to small communities, but it lacks the specificity regarding lifestyle preferences that option B provides. Option D implies a broader economic concern but does not capture the essence of community lifestyle preservation central to the argument.
The argument in the email centers on the impact of superstores on community lifestyles, making option B the strongest premise. It highlights concerns about how superstores disrupt the established way of life in certain neighborhoods, which is a key focus of the argument. Option A, while relevant to local business interests, does not directly address the core issue of lifestyle disruption. Option C suggests a threat to small communities, but it lacks the specificity regarding lifestyle preferences that option B provides. Option D implies a broader economic concern but does not capture the essence of community lifestyle preservation central to the argument.
Other Related Questions
Which sentence from the blog supports Rodriguez's claim that the Equal Protection Clause was too narrow in scope when first adopted?
- A. The Court even confirmed its prejudicial position in 1875 when it upheld state laws that extended the right to vote only to men.'
- B. Clearly, the Court was relegating as women to a second-class status.'
- C. The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, applied only to men.'
- D. This decision remained the law until ratification of the 19th Amendment, giving us women the right to vote, 45 years later.'
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A highlights the Court's 1875 decision to uphold laws that restricted voting rights to men, illustrating how the Equal Protection Clause initially failed to encompass all citizens, particularly women. This directly supports Rodriguez's argument about the clause's narrow scope. Option B, while indicating the second-class status of women, does not specifically reference the Equal Protection Clause or its limitations. Option C states that the 14th Amendment applied only to men, but it lacks context about the Court's decisions and their implications. Option D discusses the timeline of women's voting rights but does not address the initial constraints of the Equal Protection Clause.
Option A highlights the Court's 1875 decision to uphold laws that restricted voting rights to men, illustrating how the Equal Protection Clause initially failed to encompass all citizens, particularly women. This directly supports Rodriguez's argument about the clause's narrow scope. Option B, while indicating the second-class status of women, does not specifically reference the Equal Protection Clause or its limitations. Option C states that the 14th Amendment applied only to men, but it lacks context about the Court's decisions and their implications. Option D discusses the timeline of women's voting rights but does not address the initial constraints of the Equal Protection Clause.
This law amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that discriminatory intent is recognized even if the events of intention occur outside the statute of limitations. What can readers infer from this sentence?
- A. Ledbetter waited to file her claim.
- B. Ledbetter's lawsuit created significant change.
- C. Ledbetter's employer ignored the existing law.
- D. Ledbetter felt cheated by her employer
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The statement indicates that this law addresses discriminatory intent beyond the statute of limitations, suggesting that Ledbetter's case had a significant impact on civil rights legislation. This implies that her lawsuit led to important changes in how discrimination is addressed legally. Option A is incorrect because it focuses on the timing of Ledbetter's claim rather than the implications of the law. Option C suggests negligence on the employer's part, which is not directly inferred from the statement. Option D, while it may be true, does not reflect the broader legal implications highlighted in the sentence. Thus, the emphasis is on the transformative effect of Ledbetter's lawsuit.
The statement indicates that this law addresses discriminatory intent beyond the statute of limitations, suggesting that Ledbetter's case had a significant impact on civil rights legislation. This implies that her lawsuit led to important changes in how discrimination is addressed legally. Option A is incorrect because it focuses on the timing of Ledbetter's claim rather than the implications of the law. Option C suggests negligence on the employer's part, which is not directly inferred from the statement. Option D, while it may be true, does not reflect the broader legal implications highlighted in the sentence. Thus, the emphasis is on the transformative effect of Ledbetter's lawsuit.
…but as he drove his lance point into the sail the wind whirled it round with such force that it shivered the lance to pieces, sweeping with it horse and rider, who went rolling over on the plain, in a sorry condition.' Which definition matches the use of the word 'shivered' in the excerpt?
- A. splintered
- B. stuck
- C. swung
- D. surrendered
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
In the context of the excerpt, "shivered" refers to the action of breaking or splintering into pieces, which aligns with option A. The imagery of the lance being shattered by the force of the wind supports this interpretation. Option B, "stuck," does not fit, as the action described involves destruction, not adhesion. Option C, "swung," implies movement rather than breaking, which is not consistent with the context. Finally, option D, "surrendered," suggests giving up, which is unrelated to the physical destruction of the lance. Thus, only option A accurately captures the intended meaning of "shivered."
In the context of the excerpt, "shivered" refers to the action of breaking or splintering into pieces, which aligns with option A. The imagery of the lance being shattered by the force of the wind supports this interpretation. Option B, "stuck," does not fit, as the action described involves destruction, not adhesion. Option C, "swung," implies movement rather than breaking, which is not consistent with the context. Finally, option D, "surrendered," suggests giving up, which is unrelated to the physical destruction of the lance. Thus, only option A accurately captures the intended meaning of "shivered."
Which assumption does the author of 'Letter to the Editor: Local Foods' make?
- A. Consumers were not shopping at the market.
- B. Local authorities had something to do with the market closing.
- C. The market has moved to another location.
- D. Local farmers have stopped producing food for the market.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The assumption that local authorities had something to do with the market closing is supported by the author’s focus on community involvement and potential policy impacts. This suggests a belief that local governance plays a role in the market's viability. Option A is incorrect as it does not directly address the reasons for the market's closure. Option C is also inaccurate since the letter implies a definitive closure rather than relocation. Lastly, option D assumes a cessation of local farming, which is not indicated in the text; the focus is on the market's operation rather than production levels.
The assumption that local authorities had something to do with the market closing is supported by the author’s focus on community involvement and potential policy impacts. This suggests a belief that local governance plays a role in the market's viability. Option A is incorrect as it does not directly address the reasons for the market's closure. Option C is also inaccurate since the letter implies a definitive closure rather than relocation. Lastly, option D assumes a cessation of local farming, which is not indicated in the text; the focus is on the market's operation rather than production levels.