SPAR Opposes Ordinance Changes Associated with the Ability Housing Settlement

[remc86007]

I think there is a misunderstanding among some of those opposed to the settlement and overlay changes about how settlement negotiations with DOJ work. The city, as far as I can tell, has no leverage here. I don't understand what rejecting this settlement offer would achieve other than add to the city's already unnecessary expenditure on this mess.

[sheclown]

I think there is a misunderstanding among some of those opposed to the settlement and overlay changes about how settlement negotiations with DOJ work. The city, as far as I can tell, has no leverage here. I don't understand what rejecting this settlement offer would achieve other than add to the city's already unnecessary expenditure on this mess.

It's very poor leadership since the beginning and all the way down.

1st -- should the leadership in Springfield have risked the loss of any part of the overlay over a losing battle with discriminatory actions?  Anyone with the ability to read and research would have seen this as a fool-hardy action

2nd -- should the city have had a Come To Jesus talk with the leaders in the neighborhood and educated them as to federal law versus local ordinance?  Again, it isn't rocket-science.

3rd -- when the feds came back with the lawsuit and a settlement, the leaders in the city should have explained it more clearly to the leaders in the neighborhood.  CM Gaffney tried for a few minutes, but then caved to the neighborhood and said he would help them. Help them, I might add, discriminate against the disabled -- oh and what does CM Gaffney do when he isn't a councilman?  That's right.  Runs the Community Rehabilitation Center

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-05-16/story/state-reggie-gaffneys-nonprofit-overbilled-medicaid-nearly-14-million



4th -- faced with the TOTAL loss of the overlay (Gaffney's words), the neighborhood leaders should have realized their position was taking the neighborhood to a place it didn't want to go, and calmed and assuaged fears.  Instead it is participating in fear-mongering which will only lead to further marginalizing the disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood.  (Just as an aside here, had a conversation with someone who once again said "but we really do have too many of them in the neighborhood" --  imagine for a moment if you had heard that the world had too many of you in it?  How can you even express the injury caused by such a statement?  And the arrogance of thinking in this manner?  The presumption is that the neighborhood can handle as many prejudiced people as it desires, but there is a saturation point of others. CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK BEFORE SPEAKING?)

Meanwhile Main Street sits vacant and sad.  Little neighborhood action since the infamous car wash war of 2010:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,7174.0.html

[strider]

Everyone from Historic Springfield who reads this forum and thread and is concerned about the settlement simply needs to google: Do sober houses or halfway houses hurt housing values? I'd do that for you but then I'd be accused of somehow biasing the results.  You can also substitute other words in there like formerly homeless, housing first, ETC. Also try "Real estate values and sober house issues" or simply "sober houses issues".  What you will see is a pretty varied list of pro and con articles.

What I see when I actually read these is the actual studies, the ones that do real interviews and ask real questions, end up saying that there are no or very few issues. There does not seem to be any correlation between values, time on the market and the existence of these kinds of facilities. During my 19 to 20 years of living and/or having businesses here in Historic Springfield, I have seen property values go up and down with the rest of the City and even the rest of the country but not because there may or may not be some kind of facility near by. Of course, there are a few who take exception to having those kinds of facilities near by no matter what, but then the same people often worry about things like culture and religion as well.

We can also look at the history of Springfield and see why the Overlay was enacted the way it was.  Yes, there was an abundance of high density rooming houses and halfway houses, some of which were an problem.  Most, if not all, of the problematic ones are gone.  In fact, they were going on their own even before the overlay was passed.  Property values rising is as effective as a deterrent to "flop houses" as anything.  In fact, one long time and still licensed rooming house in Historic Springfield was remodeled with granite counter tops and stainless appliances.  Not exactly what you would think of in a rooming house, now is it?

Of course, to be fair, we also have to look at the articles that are against having this type of facility in your community.  Reading them I soon realized that the complaints were fear based, not fact based and when there was truly a real issue, it was a neighbor to neighbor kind of issue, not really the ones everyone was initially afraid of but still not issues you want.  From anyone.  Not the couple renting next store, not the family of 6 with 2 teenagers who bought around the corner.  You simply have no real control over who may or may not live close to you.  It is always the luck of the draw.  Most people, thankfully, just want good neighbors so try to be good neighbors themselves.  That is the best you can hope for.

In fact, if you are dealing with a sober house, for instance, there is going to be a better chance that if they are not being good neighbors, then the owner, organization, etc will listen and act to correct the issues. Why?  They can google too.

Here's a real world story from one of our sober houses.  This was a freshly rehabbed house that was so messed up by previous owners that it was not even considered contributing.  We removed all the stucco and brought back the exterior to it's former glory. The market had crashed so we elected not to sell and to make it a sober living house; a house shared by a few guys working on their continued recovery.  The community was not exactly happy.  People put up cameras and posted various complaints on the forums.  We had a wake there and that hit the forums as a terrible AA meeting, how dare we!  After awhile, things calmed down.  The neighbors with the cameras took cookies to the guys and the folks who moved in next door still ask how some of the guys are doing.  Why the change?  The guys just want the same thing you do and will do their best to be good neighbors. Were there ever issues?  Yes, but the neighbors knew who to call and when they did, things were addressed.  From reading the forums and Facebook, that is more than often happens with rentals and even other homeowners sometimes.  FYI, we did sell the house years later and it is today owner occupied so if you figure out which house it is, please don't go up to the door and ask to see a sober house! Though it might be nice to meet the neighbors! You can find stories like this all over the country as sober houses, houses for the disabled, etc are all over the City and the Country, not just in Historic Springfield as some seem to imply.

So, what are we talking about with this change to the overlay? Due to the fact that the City and the leadership of Historic Springfield caused federal laws to be broken, the overlay and it's discriminatory language got noticed and the City is being forced to spent part of it's budget on additional housing for the disabled and pay various legal fees and remove the discriminatory language. The dollar cost we can estimate at 3 to 4 million dollars. 

The actual changes do not change anything to do with what you can or can not do with the physical house.  You still can't put up a new chain link fence, everyone still has to get that all important Certificate of Appropriateness, the historic guidelines are all still safe and secure. Now if only we could get the City itself to always follow them.  But that's a different discussion.

As to uses, new rooming houses are still not allowed, low density group care homes are still allowed by right, just like they always have been.  Higher density group homes and the like are now allowed by exception in Historic Springfield, just like in the rest of the city.  By exception, hmmm, that means it's zoning impact will be considered before it is given an exception, just like it has always been in the rest of Jacksonville.  Yes, certain requests for accommodation and therefore some zoning deviations can be done by the City directly and without a public hearing, but  that does not mean the City has to approve everything asked for.  There are guidelines and the City is now required to have qualified people to make those kinds of decisions.  So overall, there does not seem to be anything really to be afraid of. Certainly nothing "devastating" to Historic Springfield or anywhere else in Jacksonville.

Oh, what about that original issue?  The facility that Ability Housing was going to bring to Springfield that caused all this?  First, to be informed, you need to go read the threads about that issue.  And then read the settlement.  See, the problem was that Ability Housing was not going to bring a facility here but rather was going to own apartments that they held for formerly homeless, disabled persons who may or may not have been veterans.  Fear of those 12 possibly disabled Veterans caused this issue, nothing reality based. Today, if Ability Housing were to buy that same apartment building, yes, the City would simply say OK and given the required Certificate of Use for the multi family dwelling just like it was going to do way back when before Jack Meeks got involved.  And no one who lived near by would care.  Many would not even know.  Unless you think no one should receive help in arranging things like wheel chair transport, meals on wheel , ETC, an apartment building reserved for the formerly homeless disabled vets is no different from any other multifamily dwelling anywhere.

For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume you and the City really does believe that there are too many of a certain kind of facility in one area of the City.  What can you do about it?  Well, you can't say there are too many now and so you can't come here.  You truly never legally could say that.  With the settlement, it is also more officially written.  But, and yes there is a but, you can offer an incentive for the facility to go somewhere else.  No, no,  you can not use fear and intimidation to do it.  Think of the grants.  Offer something that makes it beneficial to be say, in Arlington or Mandarin rather than Historic Springfield.  It will need to be something that truly benefits the people who would live there.  A new bus route, a new bus stop, a new something that makes their living there easier.  Money, by the way, probably won't work as Historic Springfield has a financial penalty already - the Historic Designation.  What makes Historic Springfield attractive to these types of facilities are the same things that makes you want to move there.  The houses, affordability, the walk-ability.

Sorry for the long post. But let's recap.  The overlay will continue to do it's job in the same way it has been but will now do so without being discriminatory.  Seems like a good thing.  There will not be this huge wave of terrible facilities coming in; partly because they are not terrible and partly because they are needed all over and so most will indeed continue to go elsewhere.  Those that are here are, as said by the very opponents of this settlement, well run and there is a natural vested interest that any new facility, if one comes, will also be well run.  Unless convinced by the opponents that Springfield will indeed be laid to waste by this settlement, the progress of Historic Springfield will simply continue as it has been.

What's the famous Quote?  "You have nothing to fear but fear itself. " That applies here and as a resident of Historic Springfield, you should be doing your best to make sure the proclaimed "leaders" of Springfield, SPAR Council and SIAA,  understand that.

[JaxUnicorn]

Again I ask....WHAT IS EVERYONE AFRAID OF?? 

The City of Jacksonville is required by the Department of Justice to remove the discriminatory language; there is no appealing that truth. And the current modifications do in fact remove the special use language currently included in the Springfield Zoning Overlay.  The changes do NOT remove any historic protections that are currently in place.  That claim is simply not true and only fuels the fear-mongering.

What about that R/UDAT study (here's a link: https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/dat_aiab080330_jacksonville_1985.pdf) that Michael Trautmann and others keep referring to and how it states Springfield has 48% of all the congregate living facilities in the entire city. Well, that study is over 30 YEARS OLD, published in 1985.  And it doesn't actually say Springfield has 48% of all the congregate living facilities in the City.  The below can be found on page 32:

Congregate care facilities (ACLF's, group homes, halfway houses, etc.) are clearly over-concentrated in the Springfield neighborhood. Including the Job Corps Training Center and unlicensed shelter programs, thirty-four (34) such facilities have been identified in this one square mile area.

Approximately 50% of the congregate care facilities licensed and utilized by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for the five county district are reported to be in the Springfield neighborhood.

There are two separate facts stated: (1) Including licensed and unlicensed, there were 34 facilities in Springfield, (2) 50% of the licensed facilities used by HRS were located in Springfield (we don't have any numbers to tell us what that 50% was).  Even if all 34 of the facilities identified in Springfield were licensed and used by HRS, that was 30 years ago...Things have changed a lot since this study was published. 

I would venture to guess that the problem facilities were unlicensed rooming houses, which are now banned, and will continue to be banned after the ordinance changes.  Springfield's leadership needs to stop skewing the numbers of a 30+ year old study in an effort to fuel the fear. 


In response to the apparent discrimination, a FB neighbor and friend posted the following status update:

Another married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield.  Jeez don't we already have enough of them here?  Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco

I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous.  It does to me.  Replace "married couple" with "disabled couple" and it should still sound silly or stupid or ridiculous.

I am proud that so many of my Springfield neighbors are STRONG and VOCAL advocates for the Human Rights Ordinance which affords equal rights to all regardless of sexual orientation.  What if Ability Housing had wanted to open a facility for LGBTQ in Springfield?  Would my neighbors have stood up and shouted, "NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD! WE HAVE OUR FAIR SHARE OF LGBTQ PEOPLE HERE!"?  I doubt it....  So why are so many of the people fighting for LGBTQ equality also appear to be against fair housing?  You cannot choose who buys and lives in the property next door to you. Every person, no matter what, deserves a place to live and should be allowed to choose where.  It's not only the right thing, it's the law.

[Gunnar]

A FB friend posted the following status update:

Another married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield.  Jeez don't we already have enough of them here?  Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco

I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous.  It does to me. 

Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?

[remc86007]

A FB friend posted the following status update:

Another married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield.  Jeez don't we already have enough of them here?  Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco

I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous.  It does to me. 

Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?

Sarcasm? Or am I missing your sarcasm?

[JaxUnicorn]

A FB friend posted the following status update:

Another married couple is trying to buy a house in Springfield.  Jeez don't we already have enough of them here?  Why can't they go look for places in riverside or San Marco

I shared this along with a comment asking if that sounded silly or stupid or ridiculous.  It does to me. 

Huh ? I don't get the issue your FB friend was having wrt the married couple - too old, too mainstream, too 'not single' ... ?

Sarcasm? Or am I missing your sarcasm?

Definitely sarcasm.....

[Gunnar]

No, actually a naive question 

[strider]

Pulled from a summary of a recent SPAR Council sponsored community meeting:

Proposed changes to the Springfield zoning overlay and Historic District regulations. Councilman Gaffney reported that he supports protecting the Springfield zoning overlay, and will advocate for City Council to not approve the proposed settlement agreement as is, which includes language that would dramatically impact the Springfield zoning overlay without due process. Instead, Councilman Gaffney and SPAR urge City Council to require changes to the Springfield zoning overlay to go through a thorough and thoughtful process, including the city's Planning Department and community input, which is typical in making zoning changes such as this.

The new schedule for public meetings where people can provide their input in-person on this issue is:

    February 22nd @ 5pm - the City Council's Land Use & Zoning committee meeting.

    February 23rd, time unknown - Councilman Gaffney has requested a public meeting with the At-Large City Council representatives so that people can provide input about this issue and Council reps can learn about the issue, prior to the full City Council meeting. Will update time once available.

    February 28th @ 5pm - the full City Council meeting.

Councilman Gaffney mentioned that those who attend public meetings to provide their input are often the most persuasive.

They have toned down the public rhetoric from their earlier comments where they stated that it would be disastrous for the community. It now appears that they have realized it is not a good idea to state that and so now the overlay is just being "dramatically impact[ed}".  It is.  The grossly discriminatory language is being removed.  Not much else is happening.  Stopping this settlement is not the smart move, but then again, we are here with this lawsuit and settlement because people failed to make the smart moves. The current leadership of Springfield can't seem to learn from their past mistakes.  There are smart people there, why have they not figured this out? We have potentially good leaders here, where are they?

[Bill Hoff]

Think you may be confusing SPAR's words with someone else's or another entity. There has been no language that has either referenced a disaster or has been discriminatory coming from SPAR.

The position hasn't changed: community zoning overlays shouldn't be dramatically changed, without expertise, via settlement.

[strider]

Think you may be confusing SPAR's words with someone else's or another entity. There has been no language that has either referenced a disaster or has been discriminatory coming from SPAR.

The position hasn't changed: community zoning overlays shouldn't be dramatically changed, without expertise, via settlement.

   

COJ May Gut Springfield's Zoning Overlay
A special notice from SPAR Council

...drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district

From a Facebook post by SPAR Council's ED:

"We can work with the City to ensure that the grant application includes requirements that will prevent a developer like Ability from trying to sneak something into a neighborhood like they did with Cottage."

So while the actual word "disastrous"" was not used by SPAR Council, the use of the word "gut" does seem to agree with the stance of SIAA below:

It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!

Plus considering that the only change being done to the overlay is the removal of the entire "Special Use" category, except of course for Rooming Houses, and making Springfield on par with the rest of the city, including the other overlays, to the possibility of a high density (7 plus) group care home opening at all, it is difficult to see how the resistance to this settle and the changes can be anything but . . . discriminatory . . .  to the potential disabled who could now live among you in an apartment building like Ability Housing wanted to do.

You need to stop the posturing and the false rhetoric that this resistance to the settlement is all about how it was done and try to explain how you see the changes are "gutting" the overlay and how SPAR Council ED's comment is in any way different from the position SPAR Council took when Ability Housing first came to buy the Cottage Ave property and were so badly discriminated against that it is going to cost us tax payers 3 to 4 million dollars.

[chris farley]

Quote ....   holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA" unquote

This is an unkind and untrue statement. SIAA has not benefitted from Federal funding grants - Springfield has.  Every penny received from "ISTEA" grants has been poured back into our neighborhood.  "Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency  Act of 1991, public law 102-240 ISTEA pronounced ICETEA".  Without Lisa Neary and Melissa Miller's incredible grant writing, after this act was established our parks would not look the same as they do today, Phil Neary will attest to that.  ISTEA grants were available to Springfield since our Main Street is also a federal highway, so our park touching Main Street qualified.  Lisa and Melissa were recognized by the city for their work.  They achieved two ISTEA grants totaling over $600,000.  The first changed Confederate park from a wasteland.  The lake was cleared of garbage (and shopping carts), huge trees were planted around the perimeter and the fence was erected (costing in the area of $85,000 alone).  Lisa at one time was actually in the lake!!  By the time the second grant came through it was not able to be used as in the original request (pollution supposedly), so we got our Dog Park.  You may check our books.  We also helped SPAR achieve the first part of the Rose Arbor, they got the Mayor's $5,000 grant and we contributed money, getting permits and the required architect's drawing of the site. The second part of the arbor cost $7,000 which SIAA funded totally.  We spent $25,000 restoring the statues in Confederate Park.
We did get a Mayor's grant of $5,000 towards the restoration of the Dillon fountain.  We funded the rest by selling 6 lots that had been given to the club (we could not afford the taxes anyway), selling bricks, and a couple of generous donations from Mack Bissette and Shands.  The total cost of the fountain including the second lot of work, done recently,  was $143,500.  All the moneys we received, from Rentals and Home Tours, are slated to be used to help the neighborhood.  We are also planning to place pieces of the old trolley rails and its actual old bricks, in the median as a historic presentation of how the Main Street rail system looked.  We even will place the bricks in the original pattern. The materials to be used were uncovered during the current work on the bridge.  We now have to work hard on getting permissions and permits.
We spent hours and money scanning the 1985 survey, in order to make it available on our web, thousands of scans, to help the neighborhood!
Witness the recent placing of the Jewish Center Corner Stone in Klutho park, at a cost of $6,500, we were fortunate to get a donation of $1,500 from the Shorstein family to help us.
We are donating $2,000 towards the beautification of Main Street, ready for the Great Race, it is going to take about $10,000, most of this is going towards adding hundreds of plants to the median, and putting special banners on the lamp posts (if you wish to donate, Michael will be happy).
Go check our latest project - a window in the south facing wall of City Hall, displaying pieces of the very earliest tracks - it shows Springfield  as the earliest suburb to get the trolleys. It is a beauty!

We are all volunteers.  SIA (original name) is 113 years old in May, all time spent serving our beloved neighborhood.


It seems popular words these days are "Fake news" or Alternative Facts, please stop maligning SIAA in this way.   

Christine Farley


 

[strider]

Yes, it is popular to use "fake" news and you have often in the past, Ms Farley.

Here's the entire quote you pulled one line from:

I'm quite sure that by:

(1) holding the meeting at the Women's Club building, a building which has received the benefit of federal funding grants through the years and is a headquarters of a non-profit community organization -- a 501 (3) 3 "SIAA"

(2) targeting a group of disabled people who currently live in the neighborhood, "sober houses" "recovery houses", in a disparaging way --  stating that the neighborhood has too many of them, handing out inflammatory, inaccurate and irrelevant information about sober houses,

(3) and calling the neighborhood to action "speak out against the disabled rights at city council, urge city council to vote against Fair Housing",

violates Fair Housing.

A neighborhood group is inciting its residents to violate the civil rights of their neighbors.

I personal know for a fact that the organization now known as SIAA, formerly the Woman's Club and Springfield Improvement Association, has indeed "received the benefit of federal funding grants" and has done so for decades.  How?  SIAA benefited from Federal grants when funds were passed through from the city to HSCC who in turn passed it through to SIAA by paying rent and helping with the building.  It used either direct or passed through federal funds to do all those things you mentioned and even more.  The benefit was being able to do those things at all, was it not? And I do not believe anyone will argue that the SIAA in it's previous and current form has done some nice things for the community.

However, your post and complaint is a bit disingenuous as you took a small nothing and made it larger than it is and defended your position by stating all the THINGS you have helped make better without commenting on why the same organization is doing it's best to continue to insure the community discriminates against PEOPLE.

SIAA is the one putting out their "Fake news" and "Alternative facts" in how they are presenting this setlement and with the false implications of what it is doing to the overlay and therefore the community.

I will stop "maligning" the leaders of the organization when they realize that they do not have the right to tell anyone they can not live where they wish to live regardless of how privileged they, the leaders of SIAA, may feel.

[chris farley]

HSCC was funded by a federal grant it was  a local city one as was SPAR at the time.   I think CCDC, but am not sure of that name.  One of the reasons they merged was that the city said "get together we are not funding two"  they would only fund  one SPR organization.   As for SIA benefitting from something from HSCC,  (decades  Wow) they paid 350 per month, the 50 being for electricity, it did not really help SIA, when I took over the books in 2002 - it was essentially broke.
They had sold a couple of pieces of land just to help survive, one on E 5th Street and one on W 5th, this one to Hionides .  It was very difficult to rent the building then, there was dereliction all around.  Different from today.

Also it was not SIAA's meeting, our place was  made available for a community meeting which we always do.

[strider]

Nothing inflammatory here!!!

from SIAA website:

Historic Springfield Community Meeting
Regarding possible settlement of lawsuits pertaining to Ability Housing's previously proposed project at 139 Cottage Avenue.
Tuesday, January 31st at 7pm
210 West 7th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206

The City of Jacksonville is moving towards a settlement with Ability Housing. The Settlement Agreement and Release has already been signed by Sam Mousa, Chief Administrative Officer and this was introduced to City Council by the request of the Office of General Council at last Tuesday's meeting in the form of three Bills. (2017-0036, 2017-0068, 2017-0069).

It's important everyone understand how devastating the outcome could be for Historic Springfield and the severe impact on all other neighborhoods in Jacksonville!

Each bill will go to several committees prior to being voted on by City Council. There will be time for public comment. It's extremely important that we show how much we care about our neighborhood and urge City Council oppose all three.

There will be a community meeting at 7pm on Tuesday, January 31st explaining the process, what this means for the community, and what you can do.

Unable to make the meeting? We will be sending out updates as they become available.

Hmmm, maybe I'm confused, but this notice sure seems like it was from SIAA. And that they will be sending out updates.

You still are trivializing the discriminatory actions of the organization by your posts.