JAX RCDPHS COMMITTEE OKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BILL, LEAP $, RIVERSIDE DOG PARK

[mtraininjax]

JAX RCDPHS COMMITTEE OKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BILL, LEAP $, RIVERSIDE DOG PARK FUNDS

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/193775-jax-rcdphs-committee-oks-capital-improvement-bill-leap-riverside-dog-park-funds

On Tuesday morning, the Jacksonville Recreation, Community Development, Public Health and Safety Committee handled a number of bills.

One such: 2015-428, a bill from the Capital Improvement Project committee, which Councilwoman Lori Boyer discussed.
"The real reason this particular bill was referred to RCDPHS," said Boyer, was that it "provides that the administration in the CIP" process is forced to provide rationales for its capital improvement processes, including explanation of variation from suggested minimum amounts.

Capital improvements, obviously, encompass parks, sidewalks, and other essentials to this committee.

Boyer and the CIP committee worked closely with the Lenny Curry administration in developing this legislation, which was deferred until the end of the just-concluded budget process. It will eliminate many of the communication gaps between the executive and legislative branches, which was a constant grouse of Council in recent years related to budgeting.

"The concern I have lots of times is we're making more things to read," said Chairman Doyle Carter, who wanted to know if this was creating "more dog tails to chase."

Carter was advised that the "quality of the content" would make for better decisions from Council.

The bill passed committee unanimously, as it did Finance on Monday.

From there, the committee moved to 2015-693, a bill that seeks to address the public plague of roof tarps left on their houses for too long. Many issues with this bill were worked out in Finance Committee the previous day.

Tarps can remain on roofs for up to six months in case of emergency or natural disaster, with another six month permissible with an active permit. Without an emergency, tarps are permitted for just 30 days under this bill.

The committee was satisfied; the bill passed unanimously. However, this is the kind of bill which, like the infamous controversy over backing cars into driveways, can lead to interesting discussions in front of the full Council.

From there, the attention turned to the  proposed John Gorrie Dog Park in Riverside. On hand to advocate for the measure: Carmen Godwin from Riverside Avondale Preservation.
The bill, which many in the community have wanted for 2 1/2 years, allocates $100,000 for a dog park at Riverside Park, which is a frequent gathering place for people throughout the urban core neighborhoods. This money is matched by private fundraising, including $50,000 from Delores Barr Weaver, and as Councilman Jim Love related, the funds are district-specific.

This bill also passed without objection. As did another measure approved by Finance: $266K to the Jacksonville Public Library for the Library Enhancement Access Program. The monies will be allocated via the Jax Journey program.

Finally, an emergency bill, reauthorizing the St. Johns River Ferry Joint Participation Agreement with FDOT, passed without objection. Recall that the JPA had lapsed, related to Federal lands Access Program money, with FDOT closing the contract, and imperiling at least a portion of the $450,000 due the city.

Now, it seems, FDOT can reopen the previous agreement... which means that this legislation can be seen as a supplement or a CYA move to provide more security for the city's position.

Councilman Matt Schellenberg raised concerns over the money that was expected to be reimbursed under the terms of the previous agreement.

"We're going to be out $225 [thousand] no matter what the first four months," he observed.

Discussion heated up between Schellenberg and Paige Johnston of the General Counsel Office, with Schellenberg questioning assertions that the Ferry was generating money or turning a profit.

Schellenberg was the 1 in a 5 to 1 vote to authorize the funds.

Finally, the meeting wrapped with a presentation from Barbara Gubbin of the Jacksonville Public Library, related to the LEAP funds.
"I think you know that the Jax Journey is about fighting crime," Gubbin said, who linked crime with "low-levels of literacy" among "community members."

To that end, she says, "those who commit crimes are frequently people who are unable to function as literate members of our society."

"The people we're trying to reach with our literacy efforts," Gubbin added, are "least likely to take advantage of our literacy services."

The bet Council is making: using the library as a means of community outreach will renew its purpose, and perhaps help to quell crime in high-incidence areas.

Roof tarps, are they that much of an issue that they need to become an issue?

Congrats to RAP on the funds for the dog park, long time coming and great to see for all of Riverside Avondale.

[Crabernacle]

"Public Plague." Strong language for those roof tarps. It's good to see the committee tackling these hard hitting issues...

[Kay]

Does anyone else think it excessive that a tarp can remain on a roof for a year?

[strider]

The concerns over this bill is not the length of time a tarp may remain, it is the fact that it will impact the same areas of town and the same social economic groups all the other "blight" bills impact.  In the vast majority of the time, those tarps are not remaining in place for more than 6 months to a year because the owner is tying to make a fashion statement but rather because they can not afford that new roof.  Fining the owner because the tarp is in place too long is going to solve that issue how exactly?

Temporary tarps, admittedly not the typical blue ones, have been approved to protect a historic designated house being mothballed. That is for 3 years and could be up to 6.  A bit of a conflict if they pass a law that says one year maximum, or perhaps in this case, no more than 30 days as it seems to indicate 6 months only in the event of a declared emergency.

This will also be under section 518 of the ordinance code putting in the jurisdiction of Municipal Code Compliance.  This department has a  documented history of doing their best to make it harder to comply than trying  to help in any way. 

What is far worse than the talk about tarps is the sections below:

It shall be unlawful and a Class E offense, as defined in Addendum B to this Chapter, for any person to refuse, impede, inhibit, interfere with, restrict or obstruct lawful entry or access to any part of a property or premises where an inspection or action authorized by this Chapter is sought.

By law today, a MCCD officer can only go to the front door. The city is now trying hard to find a way to enforce the up to now unenforceable right for them to enter a house whenever they wish. It is still most likely an empty threat in the end but it will work for many, many people and that is very unfortunate because MCCD leadership is anything but fair, honest or qualified to do the job they are charged to do. Of course, that is only my opinion based on a decade or more of dealing with them and documenting the misinformation they most often give people. 

Nuisance vegetation which exceeds a height of 15 inches over the majority of the parcel or untended growth or weeds, grass, underbrush or undergrowth, or other noxious vegetation (but not including trees, plants or other vegetation protected by state law) which fully or partially obstructs the parcel or any public right-of-way, sidewalk or other type of passage.

Remember the sweeps MCCD do sometimes? And how often they wrote up intended vegetation?  Note the to be removed word and see where this is heading and how easily it will be for them to interpret your garden as anything they want and maybe make it stick this time.

Sec. 518.304.  Abatement by city.
In the event the unsafe structure is not demolished or the repair or other work is not performed within the time and as required by the Chief or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, the Chief shall cause the demolition or minor repair or other minor work, including but not limited to, boarding to be performed by independent contractors, city employees, or such other qualified means as available.

Some of us have been pointing out for years that the ordinances not only give the right to MCCD to fine, harass owners and ultimately demolish  a house but also to fix the issue that caused the fining to start with.  Which in the case of a historic house always made sense because it preserved  part of a valuable tax base.  In the case of Mr House Average, it gave the option to the city of finding a way to help the owner by fixing an issue they could not afford to fix and also persevered the tax base and helped the community as a whole.  Of course, the MCCD leadership has always made a point of saying that was untrue and stating they do not fix houses. Now, with the addition of the word "minor", the city has made themselves a bit closer to being right and insuring that MCCD can continue to hinder rather than help in any way.

Overall, this is a bad law change if for no other reason than it attempts at giving more power to a group of city employees who are known to abuse what power they already have.  Eliminating blue tarps on a roof longer than you like is the least of what can come from 2015-693.

[JaxUnicorn]

Today, Code Enforcement has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to the interior of your property, nor can they step foot onto your property other than walking to your front door.

Three years ago a Code Enforcement officer and his supervisor stood on my front porch and asked me to allow them inside my properties. I politely declined. A couple of weeks later they issued a letter that DEMANDED I provide access within 10 days. My attorney wrote a letter that was one of the best I've even seen stating,

Unless MCCD has developed some new X-Ray device of which I am unaware, then I would question how, by looking at the exterior of the properties, your department could possibly that code violations exist inside the properties. Where your letter fails to describe these alleged violations, which were evidently discovered by X-Ray, I must request that you identify which violations you are referring to, and exactly which violations give rise to reasonable suspicion and/or probably cause to conduct a forced search of the interior of my client's property.

MCCD closed the case.

I will be vehemently fighting this bill as it is a direct violation of my 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[RattlerGator]

Good points, Strider and JaxUnicorn.