Live blog: Ability Housing Springfield meeting

[sheclown]

something stinks.

[Bill Hoff]

Bill, I may be wrong on this but wasn't the original intent of Ability in line with the overlay? I was under the impression it was the community that was demanding changes that would make it illegal with the current overlay.

I can't speak to the intent of the organization proposing the project, but the grant application clearly spells out the proposed use and target population. If you read it, it's not surprising that after COJ took a look at it, it was deemed a special use and thus prohibited via the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Prior to residents asking COJ to look at grant, and thus appropriateness of the zoning, some suggestions on how to make the project more palatable to the community were casually discussed with the org. However, they quickly were dismissed by org. And looking back on it, they wouldn't have impacted the zoning conflict anyways.

Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.

The org proposing the project does good work, but this was handled poorly from the start.

[AuditoreEnterprise]

I had better not raise discussion here then lest I be seen as not interested in facts and opinions.

[strider]

Bill, I may be wrong on this but wasn't the original intent of Ability in line with the overlay? I was under the impression it was the community that was demanding changes that would make it illegal with the current overlay.

I can't speak to the intent of the organization proposing the project, but the grant application clearly spells out the proposed use and target population. If you read it, it's not surprising that after COJ took a look at it, it was deemed a special use and thus prohibited via the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Prior to residents asking COJ to look at grant, and thus appropriateness of the zoning, some suggestions on how to make the project more palatable to the community were casually discussed with the org. However, they quickly were dismissed by org. And looking back on it, they wouldn't have impacted the zoning conflict anyways.

Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.

The org proposing the project does good work, but this was handled poorly from the start.

Bill, you are wrong on several counts here. And, as usual, I find a lack of factual content in your posts both here and elsewhere.

One of the  intents of the overlay has always been to limit the number of what are called Special Uses.  Those uses, which in the opinion of the writers of the overlay, were harmful to a healthy community if there were too many of those particular uses.  Therefore, the overlay prevent new "special uses".  In the case of Ability Housing, nowhere in their grant do they say they are opening a rooming or boarding house nor do they state that they are opening an ACLF (Group Care Home).  Those "special uses" are well defined in the overlay as well as in the municipal code definitions and everyone, including Mr. Burney in his written opinion, sees that the purchase and renting out of an apartment building by Ability Housing is not a Special Use.

So this brings us to the issue at hand.  Mr. Burney, at the request of Mr. Meeks, was tasked to determine if there was any way the purchase and renting out of an apartment building could be made illegal.  By looking at the grant application, Mr. Burney decided that some of the wordage made the use of the apartment building by Ability Housing with the intent to rent to a targeted clientele and the offer to help those tenants keep a roof over their heads and to help them find outside help if they needed it was "akin" to a special use and therefore illegal.  In fact, Mr. Burney said it was "akin" to a rooming house and a group care home. 

The written decision would make sense to me if the overlay made things like a Bed and Breakfast a special use as it is certainly akin to a rooming house, but the overlay does not do that.  In fact, in every legal sense, as long as the apartment building remains an apartment building and the tenants have annual leases (actually 7 months would do it) then it can't be even considered akin to a rooming house past the obvious fact that they rent housing.

Next, we look at the fact that Mr. Burney also said it was akin to a Group Care Home.  This seems like it might have a chance to stick.  Until you realize that group care homes are legal by right in RMD-S zoning under the overlay.  Yep, anyone can open a group care home in Historic Springfield anytime that want.  It simply has to be low density, 6 and under.  The only group care homes that are "special uses" are 7 and higher residents.  To me this means that his idea that the Ability Housing owning and renting an apartment building is a special use because it has a couple of similar characteristics to an ACLF doesn't legally work either.  For this use to be illegal because it is akin to a group care home, all group care homes would have to be illegal under the overlay.

Mr. Burney's written interpretation is very discriminatory in nature.  If allowed to stand, it will enable SPAR Council and Mr Meeks to discriminate against anyone who is doing something or is someone he doesn't like if he can show that it "akin" to a special use.  Anytime a non-profit buys a structure to rent it will be a special use, anyone who doesn't measure up to some artificial standard they wish to set will be unable to open their bed and breakfast.

Just another example of how bad our city can be. And how much influence a special interest group can have with this administration.

[JayBird]

Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.

Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?

Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.

**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish.  And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**

[sheclown]

Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.

Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?

Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.

**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish.  And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**

Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) .  He has said so in public meetings.

Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings.  His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.

[AuditoreEnterprise]

Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.

Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?

Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.

Well said.

**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish.  And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**

Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) .  He has said so in public meetings.

Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings.  His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.

[JayBird]

Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?

Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) .  He has said so in public meetings.

Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings.  His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.

Thank you SheClown, between this and the school board letter trail the picture is much clearer.

[JaxUnicorn]

Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.

EXACTLY!!

JayBird, I wrote almost the exact same thing on the Historic Springfield Community FB thread on Ability Housing (AH) and the responses were nothing short of a personal attack on me by those against AH, complete with accusations that my opinion was the result of some personal agenda.  HA!  Do I want to attract/encourage people that have mental or criminal issues into my neighborhood?  No I do not..... 

The bottomline is that what AH plans to do with the building on Cottage Avenue - rent apartments to people - is perfectly legal.  They can rent to whomever they choose as it will be THEIR property. 

If AH was a 'for-profit' business instead of a non-profit, we would not even be having this discussion/debate. Why?  Because no one is required to tell the anyone what he/she/they/it plans to do with the property once purchased.

[sheclown]

In a fairly perfidious development, apparently the email from Paula Wright (running for re election to the school board, btw) apparently wasn't ever actually sent to Ability Housing, but to Jack Meeks and JoAnne Tredinnick instead.  Neither of them are with Ability Housing, but Joanne is on the SPAR board, and Jack is on the Downtown Improvement Authority.

This seems very similar to the Calvin Burney debacle, in which a letter from Jack's attorney was published as though it had been the result of a hearing before the Planning Commission.

Why not send it? 

[strider]

SPAR's latest on Ability Housing from Facebook:

Springfield Preservation and Revitalization (SPAR)
about an hour ago · Edited
This is the historic building nestled in on Cottage Avenue that may be transformed into a homeless facility if special interests outside our community have their way on September 4th.

These homeless individuals are expected, by the special interest's own words, to have significant substance abuse, mental health, and criminal histories. The building is good shape, occupied, and for sale. There have been buyers interested in upgrading the building to nicer apartments, but unfortunately, an organization placed a contract on the building to use as a homeless facility before those other offers were made. This organization did not discuss their intentions with the community they planned to use for their project - the Springfield Historic District. Thankfully, COJ has ruled that the project project is prohibited in our community, due to our neighborhood's Zoning Overlay. But that is being challenged.

One week from today, the public hearing is set (no more postponements!) to determine if the COJ Planning Commission will allow this new homeless facility to be established in our neighborhood. This is a public meeting, and having a LARGE showing of Springfield residents & stakeholders attend is very important to ensure that our Springfield Zoning Overlay, which prohibits new "special uses" such as this from opening here, is kept intact.

The hearing is Thursday, September 4th @ 1pm at the Ed Ball Building in Downtown Jax, (214 Hogan Street, 1st floor Training Room) and open to the public. Our Zoning Overlay was established in 2000 to prevent new "special uses" from opening in our neighborhood, as the City of Jacksonville and Springfield community determined that concentration of such special uses was hurting the health and viability of the area. You see, supporting the Springfield Zoning Overlay is supporting the continued revitalization of our unique and diverse community, plain and simple.

Hope to see you there.

Our neighborhood has received support from notable planning experts, Duval County Public Schools, Riverside Avondale Preservation, the City of Jacksonville, and many other entities on this issue. It's fantastic to see the larger Jacksonville community supporting one of Jacksonville's original communities.

And to address the spin that is being disseminated by the paid PR staff on the other side of this issue: No, this project would not be specifically for Veterans.

[fsquid]

NIMBYs?

[strider]

There have been buyers interested in upgrading the building to nicer apartments, but unfortunately, an organization placed a contract on the building to use as a homeless facility before those other offers were made.

The above I find very interesting.  Here SPAR sort of indicates that the "bad" Ability Housing snatched up this apartment building from the "good" people who wanted it.  I know there have been offers in the past and in one case I was involved with as a contractor, the deal did not go through due to the various issues with the building.  Here also SPAR sort of admits that the talk of what happens to the poor current residents who will be forced to move out was just that, talk.  They obviously would not matter to SPAR if the right person was buying this building.

That comment also made me wonder if there was indeed someone, someone like Mr. Meeks perhaps, who decided he wanted the building, played a waiting game to get a lower price and got there a bit too late.  Maybe all this is more about someone wanting the apartment building and being pissed Ability Housing beat them to it? 

What SPAR keeps hoping with this issue is that no one understands that this is not about supporting the overlay or not.  It is about one man's interpretation of one small part of the overlay done for a special interest group lead by Mr. Meeks.  If the Planning Commission finds for Ability Housing and throws out the interpretation, the overlay still remains intact.  A few will find out that for the most part, the formerly homeless are not bad neighbors. Certainly no worse than any other resident of any apartment in Springfield can be.

If the decision  goes for SPAR and Mr Meeks and the interpretation is upheld?  That is when the overlay will actually be put at risk. The federal lawsuits the non-profits will be forced to file will radically change the overlay if not take entire sections out completely.

[strider]

To help understand how SPAR and those opposing the Ability Housing project are getting their following, let's look at one of the more vocal opponent's Facebook posts on the Ability Housing page:

AH will not be making my neighborhood a safe place by continuing to force the 139 cottage homeless shelter/factility. Ability housing has repeatedly gone against the wishes of hundreds of Springfield residents by wanting to further their agenda. What a great organization AH is by sacrificing one group for another ... 

Ability housing is willing to sacrifice a federally recognized historic district (FYI JAX doesn't have many) and the residents who live there. All so they can further their agenda. the VAST MAJORITY of springfield residents do not want Ability Housing in our neighborhood. Ask yourself how you can continue to pat ability housing on the back and say they are a fabulous organization when they are terrorizing a neighborhood by threatening the lives of others. Ability is not fabulous by any means

https://www.facebook.com/AbilityHousing?sk=reviews

As you can see, the opponents of Ability Housing are using implied threats and fear to convince others they are right.  That Ability Housing is evil and the homeless are something to be feared.

In the not too distant past, SPAR converted a Community Meeting to a meeting about their perceived rooming house issue and used a petition against rooming houses as a sign in sheet (without disclosing that fact) and the then President of SPAR, Claude Moulton, stated for the public record that if you illegally rented rooms to the right kind of person, it would be OK.  That meeting cost SPAR a lot of their support from the community. Unfortunately, things have not changed much since that meeting with the attitudes of the leadership of SPAR.

Eventually, the average newer Springfield resident will come to realize that this fight against the Cottage Ave apartments has the potential of doing far more harm to the community than an apartment buildings filled with the formerly homeless ever would.

[sheclown]

http://www.youtube.com/v/CNtdpIjlLjg?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"

 

Ability Housing, executive director, Shannon Nazworth