Avondale Property Owners Attempt to Close Public River Access

[Ralph W]

So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.

[Noone]

Anyone else feeling sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412? They wanted to expand and showcase these waterfront Public Access street ends. So look at this outrage on this issue that was introduced by Clark Dist. 3 and being represented by Paul Hardin. Contrast that with our new super duper restricted 4.8 miles rivers edge zone according to a CRA consultant. And that boundary is from the Fuller Warren Bridge to the Mathews Bridge. WOW! Dozens of examples to pick from.

Let us all hope that Capt. Lenny and the NEW First Mates will correct this crushing of the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.

Visit Jacksonville!

[urbanlibertarian]

So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.

No one is being suckered.  If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY.  The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.

[Adam White]

So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.

No one is being suckered.  If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY.  The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.

Apparently this is not entirely the case - because two homeowners have decided that they want to take this land from the public because they are not pleased with the level of service provided by the city.

So it's not just raise taxes or DYI. It's raise taxes or DYI or convince the city to gift you public land.

[Overstreet]

Having watched the goings on at County Dock in the dark for years I can sympathize with the homeowners.  And as a home owner it is just not what I'd want high school kids drinking and getting high next door. I suspect the trash is impressive too.  I think the city should maintain it like they are supposed to or give it to the HOA.  Not all HOAs are evil. Or perhaps give it to the Neighborhood watch group. I suspect they have one.

The problem is as a home owner maintaining city property is you expose yourself to the goodness of city bureaucrats, lawyers, and the public. All  are known to turn on you for no good reason.

Take out some bushes............somebody complains.  The bureaucrats will support you unless the wind blows the other way. Then the lawyers get involved and before you know it you're paying damages for making improvements.  The city has a bad habit of breaking promises. 

[edjax]

How long have these two homeowners lived there?

[MEGATRON]

So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.

No one is being suckered.  If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY.  The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.

Apparently this is not entirely the case - because two homeowners have decided that they want to take this land from the public because they are not pleased with the level of service provided by the city.

So it's not just raise taxes or DYI. It's raise taxes or DYI or convince the city to gift you public land.

To be fair, it's not just these two homeowners who are not satisfied, but rather many folks in the neighborhood.  If the folks in our neighborhood are being honest, very very few residents utilize that access at all.  In my eight years of living very close by, I can recall only seeing one of my neighbors walking to and from this access point.  That does not mean others don't use it, I'm not all knowing, but any claims that the neighborhood residents frequent this area are simply not true.  Now, if it stays cleaned up, I could see it being utilized more.

And we should not pretend that it's just trash and overgrown vegetation.  I've been yelled at by large groups of non-neighborhood folks on late night walks at least twice.  I quickly turned around and walked the other way but no one wants an area attracting that sort of crowd late at night.  The only way to deter that is keeping it clean and ensuring that JSO makes regular runs by the area.  Neither of those action items is all that difficult.  However, unless that occurs, I'd prefer the area is closed.  The fact that it would be given to adjacent landowners is inconsequential.

[SunKing]

If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not.  It is an abandoned sewage ROW.  So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.

[Steve]

How long have these two homeowners lived there?

One of them for a while, the other does not. The second lot is vacant and the landowner wants to build a house.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I said it once and I think it bears repeating, especially in light of some of the commentary:  If the 'park' is unused (mostly) and unkept (mostly) and the homeowners are willing to pay the city fair market value for the property, then I'm all for them getting it as long as there is sufficient public input to make a fair decision.

Otherwise, their 2 options are to maintain the land themselves to prevent shenanigans from happening.  (Broken Window Theory) Or just deal with it and continue to file complaints to the city.

IMO, the land being gifted to them is a non-starter and shouldn't even be part of the discussion, no matter the paperwork they filed.

[Steve]

Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.

Just speculation.

[Noone]

It needs to be a waterfront Public access street end with active recreational opportunities made available for everyone. Pocket Parks, Pocket Piers. Why not? Did a site inspection the other day and the area is cleared out. 3 people were fishing. The surveyor guys were putting out the surveying stakes. And some people were up talking near the street next to the parking area. Jump in to a community organized opportunity. Public, Private, Partnership?

[Adam White]

IMO, the land being gifted to them is a non-starter and shouldn't even be part of the discussion, no matter the paperwork they filed.

I agree. If the city is struggling to do things like cut the grass, etc because of budgetary issues, the last thing it should be doing is giving away prime public land for free. That's ludicrous.

[Kay]

Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.

Just speculation.

I think you are spot on.  The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time.  By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan.  Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public.  And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect.  Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property. 

[RattlerGator]

If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not.  It is an abandoned sewage ROW.  So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.

This strikes me as the rather conveniently overlooked essential point. But I would say the question isn't that which is posed by SunKing. The question, to me, is this: Even if the City has the legal authority to maintain control of this space . . . should it? And my answer is no, it most definitely should not.

Most of the folks who frequent this board are all into city planning, etc. Can't we at least be honest and admit this space was NEVER contemplated as a city park? And, it was never contemplated as a river-access space, was it? When the need for the sewage right of way vanished, the use of the property SHOULD have gone back to the adjacent property owners . . . shouldn't it ? ? ?

Most of y'all are getting to a question that should never be reached, or, at least, is a question that is secondary in nature.

We're talking about the power of government to command use of space for a need, and then that need subsequently going away. But the vibe on this board seems to be all for government conveniently commanding some other utility for this space, a utility that wasn't originally contemplated when the right of way was asserted -- which is all well and good, I suppose -- presuming that the CURRENT adjacent property owners are cool with that utility and sign off on it.

It doesn't sound as though they are cool with, and it doesn't matter to me that one of those property owners wants to build on the adjacent land -- so what? Right is right. The City's need for the sewage right of way is completely gone. Back away, City of Jacksonville, and leave these people be.

This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell. Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.

Isn't that right ? ? ?

To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.

I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.