Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[Know Growth]

Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.

But is still polluting:

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm

Very well then! Earth First ("Gainesville Chapter" ) will soon appear,thirteen dump trucks (fill from St Johns County  )

Kevin Kunzel phone messages overloaded

Worldwide Headlines to soon Flow

[RattlerGator]

I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?

As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!

This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.

[cline]

I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?

As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!

This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.

Actually the ROW for Little Van Wert does in fact go all the way to the river. No matter how small it is, it allows for public access. Go look at COJPA. That's the entire point of why people are upset. Yes, this particular bit of land may be small, but what about the next piece of land. We don't want to set precedents of closing these off. What happens when the adjacent property owners decide they want to close off the end of Edgewood- which is public access the same way that LVW is public access.

[Live_Oak]

I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?

As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!

This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.

That spit of land should definitely be a park. It's no different than the end of Challen, Seminole, Elizabeth, Donald, Cherry, Mallory. Edgewood, being a wider road has a larger river access area. These are all areas that are open to the public. The one at the end of Cherry Street is even called Cherry Street Park and is no wider than Little Van Wert.

It'll will be bad news for all of Avondale if they allow this closing. The small river access parks definitely add to Avondale's charm and I would hate to see them go.

[Steve]

Lots of pages...apologies if this was covered and I missed it.
Has anyone determined what the designation of the property actually is?
It does not appear to be a "park"? There has been talk of easement? And access? Is it designated public access or is it just city property?

There is all sorts of city owned property that citizens can't just use as their own. If this is an easement do residents actually have the right to hang out and fish and whatnot on this parcel?

Another question just came to me...if it is not considered a "Park" what is the city's liability if someone gets hurt there. I wonder if the city will end up fencing this place off. That was mentioned in article in this months Resident.

According to the Property Appraiser, it is City Right of Way (just like any street). It's no different than the ends of most streets in Riverside or Avondale.

[Steve]

Website. The specifics on that block are no different than any other road. Now, if you click on a park (Memorial Park as an example), it is listed differently.

[Live_Oak]

JaxGIS lists all these river access points just as a road right of way.  No park designation.  The end of Cherry street is the same Little Van wert and almost all the other streets in avondale that end at the river.  But there is an actual Cherry Street Park. http://www.coj.net/departments/parks-and-recreation/recreation-and-community-programming/parks/cherry-street-park.aspx

[cline]

It is the exact same type of land as the end of Edgewood- city-owned ROW. They're not designated as a park. In the case of Edgewood it is mowed and has a bench and swing and functions like an actual park.

[Live_Oak]

The end of Elizabeth place is officially a park as well.  http://www.coj.net/departments/parks-and-recreation/recreation-and-community-programming/parks/elizabeth-park.aspx  So there really isn't any reason why the end of Little Van Wert couldn't be a park.

[funguy]

I suspect a personal interest somehow. No matter how you look at it,the property is the People's property.
Seems to me I recall a ploy a few years back to try for a land grab..
I have faith that honest council people will not let it be stolen from the people..

[thelakelander]

Ideally, the city should maintain everything it owns.

Ennis, are you speaking here with respect to keeping it, or the upkeep of it? Or both? The former, I seriously question. The latter, agreed.

I was speaking in general of proper upkeep and maintenance for it and everything else the city owns.

With that said, in this case (and in general), I'm not a fan of "giving" away public property. Especially if most of the neighborhood is against the idea of setting a bad precedent. This isn't an easement or a strip of land that was taken from the adjacent lots.  It was a street to the river, when originally platted, along with the adjacent lots, in the early 20th century.  It seems the simple answer here is for the city to maintain this piece of public property and move on to addressing more important issues.

[Live_Oak]

It says no parking 7pm to 7am.

[Noone]

2015-360 is on the agenda for the 6/10/15 Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting in council chambers at 9am. Open to the Public. Will the Chair allow Public comment? Didn't happen at the RCDPHS 6/2/15 RCDPHS committee meeting chaired by Don Redman when 360 was called. Scott Wilson feel free to jump in here.

Visit Jacksonville!

2015-397 is also on the agenda. Be transported from one Illegal side of the RIO St. Johns to the other illegal side of the RIO St. Johns the most un American River in the country.

[Noone]

um  no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others.  George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.

Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.

The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.

I think some of this story line is inaccurate. Parts of Riverside were platted as far back as the 1860s and Avondale was developed around 1920. Riverside/Avondale would have already been largely developed by the 1929 plan. Also, Brooklyn and Riverside were carved out from the Dell's Bluff Plantation. Avondale sits on the former Magnolia Plantation. The Honeymoon Plantation was slightly north of both.

In any event, it is correct that the developers for both Riverside and Avondale included publicly owned riverfront access in the form the street ROW. So Rattler is incorrect with the abandoned sewage access concept and the idea that property should go back to the adjacent land owners. The property was never their's or even their predecessors.

2015-360 will be in Rules in about 9 hours. Anyone going? So this is in District 14. Councilman Love is also the Chair of Waterways. Will this be sent or maybe it already has to the 6/10/15 Waterways meeting. Don Redman a member of Waterways made that request at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360.

Councilman Clark Dist.14 and Paul Hardin doesn't anyone else now appreciate Shipyards even more. This gives greater understanding to the Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel 26' Berkman Floating dock compromise (Shipyards III) misrepresented by OGC to Waterways and the Jacksonville city council during the 2013 FIND grant application process and then positively reinforced by then member of Waterways Dist.5 city councilwoman Lori Boyer and the OGC opinion on Catherine St.

I'm stoked with the new IG Thomas Cline who should restore the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.

Plan on doing a RICO loop.

I am Downtown and why you aren't.

Visit Jacksonville!

Help me with this. Redman at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360 with the full Jacksonville city council requests that 360 be sent to the Jacksonville Waterways Commission for the 6/10/15 meeting and it has. But then when 360 is on the agenda for the 6/2/15 RCDPHS committee meeting which councilman Don Redman Dist. 4 Chairs, he has Scott Wilson working the audience that he is not going to allow Public Comment. Scott, Don, feel free to jump in here. There was 20 minutes left in the meeting.

This legislation is a microcosm of a larger issue where Public Access and Economic Opportunity is being crushed in this community.

Visit Jacksonville!

[Kay]

My information is that Redman originally was in support of keeping river access open but may now be in favor of closing this particular access point.