Live blog: Ability Housing Springfield meeting

[JaxUnicorn]

Wow.  Several of us have said that an owner of a property can rent that property to whomever he/she chooses and that the fight against the AH project was a property rights issue.  Looks like we will be seeing this fight continue in court.

[JaxUnicorn]

Wow.  Several of us have said that an owner of a property can rent that property to whomever he/she chooses and that the fight against the AH project was a property rights issue.  Looks like we will be seeing this fight continue in court.

It seems like, given the history of this issue that Jack Meeks, the mayor's appointee to the Downtown Investment Authority would be on the hook personally.

As I am sure you can imagine, I would have no problem whatsoever if he were "on the hook personally".  He can be a nasty pompous ass at times...believe me...I have personal experience being on the receiving end.

[jaxbuilder]

The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !

[AuditoreEnterprise]

[sheclown]

The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !

Yes, it will be interesting to see how a local ordinance faces off against a federal law.

And if you think this action PROTECTED the overlay, that's a laugh.  This action endangered the overlay way more than any 12 unit apartment building ever could.

[strider]

The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !

The last decade in Springfield has shown that the actions like those of Jack Meeks have done more harm than good in the long term.  Since the economic crash, it has been the very non-profits that the so-called leadership of Springfield have often criticized which brought the most positive press to the community. And before anyone makes the ridiculous statement that non-profits like Ability Housing (and the terrible "Special Uses" already in Springfield) hurt property values and development, let's review history and remember that those same "Special Uses" and non-profits were here before the last boom.  In fact, they survived the crash and are still here while property values work their way back up.  It can be proven that values follow something other than the number or types of non-profits the area may or may not have. 

The rest of Jacksonville has always viewed Springfield as this crime-filled-wasteland.  Ironically,  fights like this --against Ability Housing-- give the press the foot-stomping declarations of an overload of terrible non-profits reaffirming those mistaken opinions rather than dismissing them. What do you think will be remembered more, the headline of "Springfield Hates Veterans" or that Springfield residents fought down a "terrible" non-profit? In fact, I think you will find that most within the city are wondering why a community that needs good development turned away a $ 750,000.00 investment of an apartment building.

This recent interpretation, which was paid for by Mr Meeks and written by Mr Burney and, yes, reaffirmed by the Planning Commission, was not touted as this great interpretation by Mr Teal.   Rather it was Mr Burney's right to give an interpretation which Teal was defending.  If you read what he said, you will see that Mr Teal knows where this is heading, and he was already taking steps to lesson the impact of a Federal lawsuit.  Lest we forget, the Feds have already declared the city incapable of handling the federal funds properly, does anyone really think that the Feds will hesitate to find this city which lacks the capacity to follow federal guidelines, guilty of discrimination?

The most amazing thing to me is how many people -- in not just Springfield but working for the city -- seem to need constant reminders of why the anti-discrimination laws exist. 

[chris farley]

What amazes me is the terribly unkind rhetoric and accusations.  It does not help a cause, we have been through that with "Federal Funds" and demolition. What also is amazing is that out of 12808 views (currently) there are 204 answers, more than 50% (118 I believe), from the same two people.  I believe the answers in relation to the views are only .0013%, my math is not always great so the figure may change, but the percentage of  people replying, other than the main two,  is almost negligible.
It is also possible that a previously wounded single Mom veteran (or Dad for that matter) could live easily in a studio apartment with a small child, but that will not be allowed under AH conditions.  Remember we used to have whole families living in one room during Springfield's dark days.
The unkind name calling and posting of photos/pictures did not help in the "code" issue.  Can we please give it a break and let any legal matters take their course. 

[sheclown]

Uh huh. Those who are speaking up for the rights of the disabled are the ones being mean?

Not the ones teaching their children to fear the poor and the sick

I guess hatred is in the eye of the beholder

[chris farley]

I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts.    I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?

Discrimination Against Families


While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair 
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the 
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).

Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,

Also the money figures being used are incredibly high.  For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12. 


[sheclown]

I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts.    I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?

Discrimination Against Families


While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair 
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the 
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).

Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,

Also the money figures being used are incredibly high.  For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12. 


For the past 8 years you personally have been one of the meanest, and most slanderous people in that neighborhood, Chris.  Its just amusing to hear you decry 'mean ness' considering some of the truly awful, and mostly untrue narratives that you have spread.  Some of them have been the kind of zombie lies that got repeated long after they had been disproven.

And spare me the lecture on how you like rules except the ones that apply to you.

You have lectured long and hard about the rules of the Zoning Overlay (which Im not sure you ever really understood, to be honest, and I don't remember you from any of the actual committee meetings which created the overlay either, to be frank)  And now that it turns out that there is an even more powerful rule: you know....a Federal one regarding non discrimination for disabled people, you would like to pretend that it doesn't actually exist.

It is no one's fault but Jack Meeks that the argument has painted the supporters of the overlay into this unfortunate corner.  Perhaps if people hadn't acted like such uppity swine in the first place, it wouldn't have come down to undermining the very amazing tool that so many people worked on so hard simply for the fact that it has been used as a weapon (and at times a bludgeon) to further the financial interests of a handful of developers.

Right on.

[strider]

I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts.    I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?

Discrimination Against Families


While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair 
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the 
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).

Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,

Also the money figures being used are incredibly high.  For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12. 


OK, let's try this:

The phrase you were looking for to explain the cottage ave tenant/ landlord situation is that it will function just like a regular tenant/landlord situation.  What makes it different is the reasonable accommodations the tenants require.

What 2 million? The cottage avenue one is only $750K. There is another project attached to the grant the $750K is coming from but I thought the total amount for both was higher than 2 million.

The "infamous 100SF rule" was only for existing Special Uses and no longer appears in the Overlay.  That means it has no validity anywhere in this argument. In this case, one person or maybe sometimes two in each studio apartment is all that is being talked about.

The idea of no families or just the disabled is the same as deciding that a complex is only for 55 and older.  It can be done.  Part of the issue is how it is or isn't advertised to the public.  Besides, this is not a fair housing issue in so much as it is a ADA issue. The Disabled are a protected class of individual and as such are entitled to various "reasonable accommodations". It is because of those reasonable accommodations that businesses must put in wheel chair ramps and doors must be a certain width.  Ability Housing helping a disabled person find help from an outside service agency is also a reasonable accommodation.  Denying Ability Housing or any entity the ability to provide the needed reasonable accommodations is the same as denying those reasonable accommodations to the individual needing them.

[strider]

I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts.    I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?

Discrimination Against Families


While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair 
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the 
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).

Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,

Also the money figures being used are incredibly high.  For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12. 


For the past 8 years you personally have been one of the meanest, and most slanderous people in that neighborhood, Chris.  Its just amusing to hear you decry 'mean ness' considering some of the truly awful, and mostly untrue narratives that you have spread.  Some of them have been the kind of zombie lies that got repeated long after they had been disproven.

And spare me the lecture on how you like rules except the ones that apply to you.

You have lectured long and hard about the rules of the Zoning Overlay (which Im not sure you ever really understood, to be honest, and I don't remember you from any of the actual committee meetings which created the overlay either, to be frank)  And now that it turns out that there is an even more powerful rule: you know....a Federal one regarding non discrimination for disabled people, you would like to pretend that it doesn't actually exist.

It is no one's fault but Jack Meeks that the argument has painted the supporters of the overlay into this unfortunate corner.  Perhaps if people hadn't acted like such uppity swine in the first place, it wouldn't have come down to undermining the very amazing tool that so many people worked on so hard simply for the fact that it has been used as a weapon (and at times a bludgeon) to further the financial interests of a handful of developers.

Right on.

Love the picture.  The city does seem to be doing exactly that.

[jaxbuilder]

Those developers pay the taxes that allow Ability to get funding in the first place . Did anyone ask how many housing vouchers could be provided by recycling the capital ($1.2 million) in Ability's Grant . I suspect housing could be provided for a lot more than 12 souls in Springfield . But then again , there's no profit in that ! Is there ?

[strider]

Those developers pay the taxes that allow Ability to get funding in the first place . Did anyone ask how many housing vouchers could be provided by recycling the capital ($1.2 million) in Ability's Grant . I suspect housing could be provided for a lot more than 12 souls in Springfield . But then again , there's no profit in that ! Is there ?

Again with the overstated amounts.  The Cottage Ave is 750K.  Which developers are you talking about here?  They all pay taxes, or at least are supposed to and they (developers) are not the only ones paying them so they are not the only ones "supporting" Ability Housing.

But let's call your bluff.  If Ability Housing were to be able to take that 1.2 million and do rent vouchers for housing for their disabled homeless folks that they are targeting for Cottage Ave and spread them out in all the quadrants of Springfield, you would support the effort fully, right?

Good news, the coming lawsuit may bring lots more than just 12 to Springfield so in a way, you might get your wish.  And profit?  Yes, I think everyone profits when a homeless person is able to get off the street and back into "normal" society. Don't you?

[jaxbuilder]

Federal Housing Voucher Guidelines for Veterans . And yes I would be happy to rent to a qualified homeless veteran with a voucher and have in the past in Riverside , Neptune Beach as well as Springfield : HUD has issued over 58,000 housing vouchers for veterans . Seems to work :The Federal Government thinks so anyway : http://www.va.gov/homeless/housing.asp#one .