Hemming Park Problem

[BridgeTroll]

BT, I hope you aren’t going to assassinate these people.  The “weak consensus” is the image produced by the fact that during the recent meetings, the persuasion has flipped flopped between keeping the tables, simply dispersing them so that there might be a reduced “commandeering” appearance, and the complete removal of the tables and chairs.  The mood has frustratingly wavered back and forth.

It appears the committee may be stocked with people who mean well and want better but lack the professional background and experience in this particular urban arena.  I don't mean that in disrespect but as a society, we specialize at certain things and when there is not enough diversity (how many actual park users are on the committee), small groups can quickly settle on concepts that do more harm than good.

I agree with Lake...  I think it is important to identify those who think removing furniture will help solve the problem.  These people need to be convinced that there are better methods to achieve the goals they seek.... the same way we should convince some who might think vilification and character assassination might change their minds.

You mention the word frustration and I think this is a key word.  These people are business people who have taken a huge risk having businesses in an admittedly tenuous downtown.  They do not feel like their concerns are being addressed and are now grasping at drastic measures.  This is what happens when concerns seem to fall on deaf ears.

JSO actively walking the park has seemed to show some results.  It does not have to be confrontational... but simply a presence...

[Bridges]

You mention the word frustration and I think this is a key word.  These people are business people who have taken a huge risk having businesses in an admittedly tenuous downtown.  They do not feel like their concerns are being addressed and are now grasping at drastic measures.  This is what happens when concerns seem to fall on deaf ears.

Great point.

[thelakelander]

It's unfortunate that the removal of benches is even being discussed.  No where has that worked in attracting more people to a public space like Hemming.  I really don't understand how solutions that have never worked can be seriously considered within a large group of people.

This is clearly a product of the committee not truly understand (or maybe they do) what their main goal is.  If it's making the park an attraction, destination, relaxing communal space, pleasing pass through, interactive with the surrounding space in such a way that it encourages positive activity, then yes it's a horrible idea. 

However, if the main goal is to remove a certain segment of the park population, they're moving in the right direction.  Of course, this also means eliminating all other segments of the population, and the destruction of the park.  But if the end goal is no unwanted segments, then it seems this would be a logical step.

The committee makeup is determining this.  A certain member has waged a well known personal war on the current people in the park for years.  His goals couldn't seem more clear: rid the park of them at all costs, even if it means destroying the park.

Except removing benches and chairs to reduce vagrant population density in a space no one else doesn't want to spend time in fails as well.  I'd challenge someone to name one space like Hemming Plaza where removing amenities has stopped the homeless from congregating.    Even in this thread, an example (San Francisco) has been given where this exact strategy has failed.  What thread of reality does the committee have to suggest that it would be different for Jax?  It's not even different a block away.  The Main Street pocket park (one we said right here should have never been built..) has very few amenities and people are still comfortably hanging out on the planters.

Btw, if the goal is trying to attract yuppies and suburbanites to hang out in Hemming, they'll never make it that far if the Main Street pocket park becomes the new hangout.  After all, its in a more high profile location (in terms of  vehicular traffic).

[tufsu1]

well Mr. Dare....I just had a nice conversation with Ron Chamblin, while buying some stuff at his store.....and we talked a bit about Hemming....while I have not been to one of the meetings, I do know some of the players involved.

But didnt you just a few days ago describe the same things that Ron Chamblin just posted as 'overly dramatic'?

Or have you changed you mind about what is going on in the committee meetings that you havent attended once?

Mr. Dare...to clarify, in the post you are referring to, I thanked Ron Chamblin for bringing levity to the situation.

[Jaxson]

I believe that once Jacksonville truly embraces Hemming Plaza for its historic role as the heart of our city, we will find the right role for Hemming Plaza in our future.  Take a look at Times Square in New York.  It went through some rough times that would make our troubles look tame.  New Yorkers, however, understood that Times Square was an internationally known symbol of their city.  I believe that the same, to a smaller extent, applies to Hemming Park in our city.  We have had numerous gatherings, events, speeches in Hemming Park/Plaza over the years.  This same energy can return if we can, in addition to the downtown advocates who will always speak out, enlist the support of the suburbanites who most likely have never even been downtown, much less visited Hemming Park...

On a side note, I think that Hemming Plaza could stand to use more promotion in our city.  I would wager that most folks in Jacksonville do not have the same warm sentiments about Hemming Plaza.  Relative to our population, precious few people   have knowledge of May-Cohen, Woolworth, Penney's, Morrison's or have memories of the glory days of downtown.  These people, when they think of a downtown gathering place will immediately think to the Jacksonville Landing.  Imagine if there was an event in Hemming Plaza of the same caliber of the televised lighting of the Christmas tree at the Landing.  Right now, all we have are memories of the past and dreams for the future, but we struggle to connect the two with a strong vision for this under-appreciated public place.

[ronchamblin]

(I plan today to present via email to Denise Lee the below material)

I read the opinion piece in the TU today; a repeat of words expressed by most of us over many months.  The next meeting about the park, to which everyone is invited, is tomorrow at city hall at 10:00 a.m.

I was disappointed at the last meeting when the vote approved the removal of all table/chair sets.  In my view, this is a move of frustration, a move to do something, even if it is wrong.   Although it is probable that removal of all table/chair sets will reduce somewhat the problem of the appearance of an unwanted group occupying the park, it is radical, and results in fewer amenities for other citizens.  The idea of having temporary tables and chairs might be tolerable, but the overall impact cannot be as good as having fixed table/chair sets.  Feeling a solid table/chair set is much better than sitting upon the lightweight sets.  The cost of the temporary sets, and the cost of installation, removal, and storage is a factor to consider.   

I’ve eaten in the park several times since the last meeting.  I’ve enjoyed the beauty of the park, the trees, the calm, the reality as portrayed by all who were there; the individuals playing chess, cards, and dominoes; the retirees, the unemployed, the homeless, all sitting, standing, chatting, relaxing on benches.  A lunch break in the park now provides an honest image of a city, a reality which few should wish to avoid, as it is truth, and therefore it is beautiful.  Admittedly, the number of individuals occupying the tables is excessive, as it leaves fewer tables for use by locals.  However, there are always tables available, as I observed several tables being used by what appeared to be local workers.   

It is apparent that the increased police presence has already significantly reduced the unwanted elements, those who argue loudly, who openly consume alcohol or deal drugs, who gamble, who break the rules of the park.  Continued police presence, and continued banning of troublemakers when necessary, will reduce even further the number of troublemakers and those participating in illegal activities; and this, over time will reduce the overall “occupation” crowd significantly.  A dynamic police presence, even if only one or two officers, is critical to continued improvement of the park. 

Any gradual destruction of the park by the removal of its most attractive and useful attributes and amenities will not only cost money, but it will be the subject of regret in the future, as these actions will not alone solve the “problem”.  Real progress toward ultimate solutions can be made by enforcing the park rules, banning deserving individuals from the park when rules are broken, by engaging certain occupiers with assistance so that they might get employment, by removing some of the distressed trees, replacing with young live oaks, by promoting and programming events and activities, and by encouraging locals to eat in the park.   If local workers and residents can be encouraged to visit the park more often, we can begin to encroach upon the spaces frequently occupied by the so-called problem element.   

We should keep the park attractive and functional to the maximum so that as we decrease the number of individuals who excessively occupy the park, the park will be continually inviting, and ready to entice future visitors and locals who wish to enjoy it. 

The idea of installing cameras in the park would be wasteful, not gaining enough benefit to warrant the initial cost, or the cost of monitoring.

If money is to be spent on the park, let it be on improvements, on enhancements, and not on its destruction by gradual removal of amenities.  Doing the latter will only ensure continued mediocrity, and will have only minimal effect on the continued occupation by the so-called unwanted elements.   

[ronchamblin]

Stephen.  I heard from the underground that you were at the meeting today.  I was unable to attend.  Can you relay the significant developments so that more of us can see which way the wind is blowing on this thing?  Thanks.   

[ronchamblin]

Just have to convey this Hemming incident.  Yesterday, about two o’clock I purchased two hotdogs from the N/E vendor, taking the first cooked dog to one of the only tables available, intending to get the other when it was ready. 

It was crowded, perhaps 100 occupier types in the park.  I sat down at a table, and within less than a minute, an older fellow, of white hair, began to walk toward my table.  He had no teeth.  I thought… well, this might be interesting…. a real live homeless wants to have a talk…. perhaps about life in the wild, which I always enjoy.

The fellow sat down across the table.  I waited for him to say something, but he only stared at my hotdog, his eyes only on the dog for the longest time.  In an effort to break the stare, I said “What are you up to today?”  Not taking his eyes off of the dog, he said “I’d like some of what you have there.”

At that point, a fellow about fifteen feet away said, “Jimmy…. let that man alone… he’s trying to eat lunch.”  When I’m hungry, I’m like most other animals, best left to alone to eat.  So I got up with my dog and drink, and walked to the stand to get my other dog.  I laughingly informed the dog man what had happened.  The fellow was still at the table, staring off into the distance.  The dog man said....”Yea… we have a problem with that kind of thing all the time.”   

I wondered if the situation would have been different if the tables had been removed according to the proposed plan, and if I had been sitting on a ledge, or if the table had been one of the planned temporary tables.  Would the hungry, gazing, toothless fellow, still come to me with the attempt to panhandle food, or money for food? 

In any case, this incident reminded why local workers do not have lunch in the park.  Then I began to wonder if it would make sense to aggressively encourage local workers to eat in the park so that the ratio of occupier-to-local workers sitting around would be more favorable to the local workers.  In this way, there would be fewer scenarios where a lone worker, by his or her single appearance, would be an attractive target for the panhandlers.  The confidence of the panhandler would have been less if there were twenty or so local workers eating in the park.  This attempt to improve the ratio in the park is the goal of the park programming we've been talking about.   

There were no officers nearby at the time.  On another day, I will attempt to determine if this fellow’s behavior could have been cause for banning him from the park.  In my opinion, he should be banned from the park, as continued banning of these types would eventually reduce the problem to a tolerable level.

Of course, I could have simply told him to leave my table, which would have solved the immediate problem, but not the long term problem.  Next time, I will take Jerry Moran with me, being prepared however, to protect my dog from the chemical warfare.       
       

[buckethead]

A man asked for a hot dog?

He was hungry. I have a really soft spot for a person who is hungry.

A person wanting money? Not so much. But hungry?

I think it would have been one dog for me and one dog for him.

Yes, I do realize that feeding seagulls attracts more seagulls, but I'm weak that way.

*runs to library restroom to wash bird poop out of hair*

[ronchamblin]

A man asked for a hot dog?

He was hungry. I have a really soft spot for a person who is hungry.

A person wanting money? Not so much. But hungry?

I think it would have been one dog for me and one dog for him.

Yes, I do realize that feeding seagulls attracts more seagulls, but I'm weak that way.

*runs to library restroom to wash bird poop out of hair*

Yes BH, he was indeed hungry, and although his hunger is somewhat a result of his own doing, some would argue that it is perhaps more a result of our society’s doing.  Hunger, a fundamental and powerful pressure within all animals, becomes at times painful, some gaining relief from it by killing and eating other animals.  Therefore, I feel fortunate at having escaped the possible occasion of being eaten in the park.

But yes, the hungry individual in the park is a problem, as we all wish to offer relief to those having it.  Too bad our objective for the park cannot be achieved by giving food or money to those who need or want these things.

[thelakelander]

I wondered if the situation would have been different if the tables had been removed according to the proposed plan, and if I had been sitting on a ledge, or if the table had been one of the planned temporary tables.  Would the hungry, gazing, toothless fellow, still come to me with the attempt to panhandle food, or money for food? 

In any case, this incident reminded why local workers do not have lunch in the park.  Then I began to wonder if it would make sense to aggressively encourage local workers to eat in the park so that the ratio of occupier-to-local workers sitting around would be more favorable to the local workers.  In this way, there would be fewer scenarios where a lone worker, by his or her single appearance, would be an attractive target for the panhandlers.  The confidence of the panhandler would have been less if there were twenty or so local workers eating in the park.  This attempt to improve the ratio in the park is the goal of the park programming we've been talking about.

I think this is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation.  If there were no tables, there would be less opportunity for anyone to want to spend time eating lunch in the park.  If tables are shifted to non-shaded spots, it creates a negative situation for anyone wanting to sit in them when temperatures rise.  Plus, as long as the ledges are still there and there's nothing there to attract a larger segment of the population, the situation you encountered will still happen.  The individual will either sit next to you or stand over you. 

Btw, I'd fit into the category of people the committee would like to eat lunch in the park.  My office is a block away.  I simply don't go because there is no logical reason for me to do so.   I can order take out at any of the places around and spend the entire hour at my desk playing on Metro Jacksonville in privacy.  Or I can choose to skip lunch altogether and head home early.  A space like Hemming is going to have to include built in activities that attract people.  It's also needs adjacent land uses spilling out into it.  Removing the few amenitites it does has (like benches) makes the possibility of people visiting it even less.  Doing something as simple as allowing food trucks to surround it at lunch or placing children's playground equipment in it creates a condition that attracts more diversified usage of the space.

Once again, I'd suggest to any committee member that whatever solution you're considered, attempt to find case studies in other communities because every major city in this country has dealt with a Hemming Plaza situation.  There's lots of examples where smart programming works but very few where removing amenities does.  If that's the case, why continue to do things that simply don't work?

[thelakelander]

Also, has any consideration been given to why no one utilizes the outdoor plaza in front of the courthouse across the street?  It has ledges and benches yet no one hangs out there.

[thelakelander]

But yes, the hungry individual in the park is a problem, as we all wish to offer relief to those having it.  Too bad our objective for the park cannot be achieved by giving food or money to those who need or want these things.

Unfortunately, for the group, their objective can not be accomplished without addressing the environmental factors that have created the atmosphere the group desires to change.  One of the special characteristics of an urban environment that Jacksonville has failed to consider is that no one issue lives in isolation.  At some point, if the city doesn't want the park and  library serving these roles, we're going to need a day center.  Even with programming, you still have the problem, it's just going to shift to the Main Street pocket park.

[ronchamblin]

Partial quote from Lake:

"I think this is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation."  

If by this you mean "I think that removing the tables and chairs from the park is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation.", I agree with you.

Again, the more successful we are at getting "regular" people into the park, by whatever means, we will begin to change the ratio of "occupiers-to-regulars" to a ratio giving the panhandlers less confidence to bother others, causing the "occupiers" to be less comfortable in the park, removing from them the feeling that the park is "their" turf.  The goal of a "ratio change" is critical, and is the main reason for the planned "programming" efforts.  I like the idea of energetic encouragement of local workers to frequent the park for lunches and breaks, as this action would always be a "ratio changing" success, one which over time will bring good long term results.   

[thelakelander]

It's unrealistic in terms of believing that removing  benches will result in reducing the ratio of "occupiers-to-regulars" or "giving panhandlers less confidence to bother others."   If this has been successfully done (meaning the space becomes vibrant) and that example can be brought to the table, then I'll be the first to admit I'm off base.  The bench configuration or layout of the park isn't the cause of the problem and shuffling them around won't change it because the urban environmental conditions (little programming, limited amenities inside of it, a lack of complementing land uses opening up to it, etc.) are still the same.

I honestly don't see why the average downtown worker is going to want to frequent the space on limited lunch breaks when there's simply no reason or incentive to do so.  The only thing possibly drawing anyone to the space on a regular basis is the hot dog vendor but there are hot dog vendors on every major downtown street corner.