SPAR Opposes Ordinance Changes Associated with the Ability Housing Settlement

[chris farley]

Quote  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. End quote

Joe
Go back and read my posts, I have not said yea or nay to the type of meeting being held in the SIAA building or by whom - nothing at all.  My problem is the untruth being told that SIAA has accepted federal funds - we have not, nor as far as I know has SPAR.    It is a separate  issue.  Easy to avoid an issue by changing the point of discussion.    I did not even mention the other items in the post - just the federal funds!

[strider]

Quote  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. End quote

Joe
Go back and read my posts, I have not said yea or nay to the type of meeting being held in the SIAA building or by whom - nothing at all.  My problem is the untruth being told that SIAA has accepted federal funds - we have not, nor as far as I know has SPAR.    It is a separate  issue.  Easy to avoid an issue by changing the point of discussion.    I did not even mention the other items in the post - just the federal funds!

The vast majority if not all of the funds that came through the City were actually Federal funds.  Just a fact.  You can deny it all you want but won't change a thing.  Those grants that HSCC and then SPAR Council got were pass through Federal funds.  Any funds that came through LISC were most likely also Federal Funds. You may wish to google a few things.

And there is nothing wrong with that.  Until the organization benefiting in some fashion begins to convince it's membership and the City to break Federal Laws.

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

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.

Meanwhile, what you are doing is called deflection.  Hoping to change the narrative from the fact that SIAA is, along with SPAR Council,  urging the community and the City to discriminate against the disabled. It is disingenuous and you know it.

But thanks for helping to keep the subject on that front page!

[chris farley]

Irrespective of the source of monies, we do not get to keep one penny of it, we are completely honest.  We do not discriminate against the disabled, nor do we try to make money out of their misery.  If you still continue to push the fact that the disabled were well treated in Springfield, history says differently.

[chris farley]

I am getting out of this conversation now I am not feeling good about it.   It is just that I remember places like Madge's on Laura and the sad people housed there, just one instance of many, that is what I fear. The high fence with barbed wire - to keep people in, not out. There was so much of that.  That cannot return.  All people deserve to be treated with dignity.

[strider]

Irrespective of the source of monies, we do not get to keep one penny of it, we are completely honest.  We do not discriminate against the disabled, nor do we try to make money out of their misery.  If you still continue to push the fact that the disabled were well treated in Springfield, history says differently.

To begin with, no one said that the SIAA had done anything illegal with any funds it got in the past.  What is being said is that today it is promoting the discrimination against the disabled in it's stance against this settlement. So, yes, you are by default, discriminating against the disabled.  You are trying to hide that, but it is still a fact.  And who today is "trying to make money off their misery"? In your mind, is everyone who helps someone in need or even just provides something that meets their needs making money off their misery?  That is a sad way to view the world then. 

I am getting out of this conversation now I am not feeling good about it.   It is just that I remember places like Madge's on Laura and the sad people housed there, just one instance of many, that is what I fear. The high fence with barbed wire - to keep people in, not out. There was so much of that.  That cannot return.  All people deserve to be treated with dignity.

Like I said, deflection.  Let's talk about the past transgressions of a few places, let's talk about the evils of the past so that no one notices the evils of the present. 

There is nothing in the settlement that will allow places like Madge's with high barbed wire fences to come back to Springfield and yet, Ms Farley, that is what you talked about at the community meeting and what you just posted.  That is a passive way of fear mongering.  Look at what happened before when there was no overlay.  Look how badly these people were treated.  Look what the City and this settlement could do to us. That is the message SIAA and SPAR Council is trying to send to the residents of Springfield.  It is very much an incorrect message and I think you are smart enough to know that. So why the angst?  Unless of course it truly is the desire in insure "those people" can not live in "your" neighborhood.

Today, instead of Barb wire fences to "keep people in", SIAA and SPAR Council are trying to erect a legal fence to keep them out. And that is the evil of the present.  That is why the Federal Government brought suit. And that is why the tax payers of Jacksonville are going to pay out 3 to 4 million dollars or even more.  This is the reason it is so important to agree to this settlement and move on. 

Before the fear mongers can do any more damage to this City.

[BridgeTroll]

Hmmm...I would like to learn more about "Madges" and "places like Madges ".  What is the story?

[chris farley]

I will get blasted but;

Firstly I am not anti disabled people, I an anti abuse of sadly needy people.

Ronald Reagan certainly seemed to start a new "business" when he stopped funding and closed facilities for people disabled by mental illnesses etc."   It offered the chance for private establishment of replacement programs.  Group homes sprang up - especially in Springfield.  It seems that Springfield was the dumping ground for unfortunate people and other areas were not sorry to see this happen.
The R/UDAT report that led to the production of the overlay stated;
"Springfield is now occupied by a largely transient economically downscale population.  Its fine old housing stock has become prey to speculators and absentee landlords,  converting them into boarding houses and low rental units"
It went on further to say;
"location of 48% of all county group homes are in Springfield (for deinstitutionalized treatment and care of the mentally ill) dramatizing the complete breakdown of neighborhood integrity."

1303, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 (now demolished) and 1325 LAURA became such an enclave and as with most Springfield properties, totally fenced, as if one unit.  It was owned by Madge Luker Broward.   1303  a very large corner house,   it was the  kitchen, dining and meeting room facility , there may have been people living upstairs, I do not know,  but the other four, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 and 1325 were purely dormitories. These houses had no kitchen - one bathroom , just sleeping areas.  They were filled with human beings who needed professional help, not over crowding.  1303 is now privately owned, the rest of the properties are owned by Aries Medical Assn. LLC.   I do not know if this entity is still registered, I cannot find the name is Sunbiz.org.

This group home(s) was just one of many in the neighborhood, witness what R/UDAT stated, in this one square mile, in a city of over 850 square miles, contained almost 50% of such county homes.   Added this were the absentee landlords who packed poor souls in the other houses - to quote author Tim Gilmore, "like insects in cells".  They even built on rickety additions and closed previously open areas, in order to pack in more and more.  Fortunes were made off of this misery.  Springfield was a very sad place, (Madge's was also), I was told when I bought my house "You are living in a war zone".

The fear for me is that brutal  alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for  the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.

Chris Farley

[strider]

I will get blasted but;

Firstly I am not anti disabled people, I an anti abuse of sadly needy people.

Ronald Reagan certainly seemed to start a new "business" when he stopped funding and closed facilities for people disabled by mental illnesses etc."   It offered the chance for private establishment of replacement programs.  Group homes sprang up - especially in Springfield.  It seems that Springfield was the dumping ground for unfortunate people and other areas were not sorry to see this happen.
The R/UDAT report that led to the production of the overlay stated;
"Springfield is now occupied by a largely transient economically downscale population.  Its fine old housing stock has become prey to speculators and absentee landlords,  converting them into boarding houses and low rental units"
It went on further to say;
"location of 48% of all county group homes are in Springfield (for deinstitutionalized treatment and care of the mentally ill) dramatizing the complete breakdown of neighborhood integrity."

1303, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 (now demolished) and 1325 LAURA became such an enclave and as with most Springfield properties, totally fenced, as if one unit.  It was owned by Madge Luker Broward.   1303  a very large corner house,   it was the  kitchen, dining and meeting room facility , there may have been people living upstairs, I do not know,  but the other four, 1311, 1315, 1319/21 and 1325 were purely dormitories. These houses had no kitchen - one bathroom , just sleeping areas.  They were filled with human beings who needed professional help, not over crowding.  1303 is now privately owned, the rest of the properties are owned by Aries Medical Assn. LLC.   I do not know if this entity is still registered, I cannot find the name is Sunbiz.org.

This group home(s) was just one of many in the neighborhood, witness what R/UDAT stated, in this one square mile, in a city of over 850 square miles, contained almost 50% of such county homes.   Added this were the absentee landlords who packed poor souls in the other houses - to quote author Tim Gilmore, "like insects in cells".  They even built on rickety additions and closed previously open areas, in order to pack in more and more.  Fortunes were made off of this misery.  Springfield was a very sad place, (Madge's was also), I was told when I bought my house "You are living in a war zone".

The fear for me is that brutal  alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for  the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.

Chris Farley

It must be noted that the RUDAT study dates back to 1984 and 1985.  It was done under a grant to the University.  It did state in the end that there were too many of the high density group care homes and intensive uses AT THE TIME IT WAS DONE.

The Overlay was passed in 2000 after many years of work by organizations like HSCC (Historic Springfield Community Council).  By the way HSCC existed as it was determined it was needed by the RUDAT study even though at the time there were were two other long established community organizations, SPAR and WC/ SIA.  I'll let others tell why that determination was made and only HSCC actually got funded through the City/ Federal grants. By the then most of what was to be called "Special Uses" were long gone.  Two things should also be noted.  One is the simply fact that without theses "terrible" uses, many if not most of the houses would have sat empty and  been gone long ago and two, the percentages listed in the overlay at least included automotive "intensive" uses.  Within a few years of the passing of the overlay, primary because of increased land values in spite of those "terrible" uses being here, the majority of the remaining "special Uses" closed.

Your comment:

The fear for me is that brutal  alteration of the Overlay without neighborhood involvement, opens the door for  the return of the abuses of the past. It is also discriminatory. I am told that the Feds may step in if an area is found to be overburdened, who knows.

Is so very far from the truth, it makes me laugh at the severe stupidity of the comment.

I will address it later as the boat is calling, but for now, you need to go back and actually read and perhaps try to understand the settlement agreement because your last bit about the "overburdened" is very wrong and well explained in the settlement and in this tread.  Overall, Ms Farley, you are grossly showing your personal NIMBY-ism and it isn't very pretty.

Once again, it is not the fact that a few disabled may live in Springfield that is the real problem, it is the fear mongering by it's so-called leadership and a few of it's residents that is doing the harm.

[sheclown]

What a joke.  This demonizing of group care homes.  Sure. There were plenty back in the 80s.  But seriously?  This CAUSED the decline of this neighborhood in the urban core?  Come on.

Imagine what Springfield would have been like without this use?  Would any houses still have remained?  Who else wanted to occupy a neighborhood rich with prostitution, drugs, and the abject poverty that remained -- when all who could -- flew from the urban core?

To blame "intensive uses" for the decline in the urban core is like blaming the Churequeros.  They didn't cause the pile of trash.  Neither did group homes.

The middle class caused the decline when they beat their hasty retreat. 

Its all just a cycle.  White flight is the ping to gentrification's pong.

[strider]

In the Times Union (Jacksonville.com) by the editorial board:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/2017-02-17/sunday-s-editorial-settling-discrimination-suit-right-move


The right type of article that promotes common sense and the proper action. It is what the so called leadership, SPAR COuncil and SIAA, should be saying.

The article does give a nod to the resident's concerns by stating:

The opposition in Springfield was a mixture of justified concern and unjustified stereotypes.

The justified concern involves the fact that Springfield already contains more than its share of group facilities.

The unjustified stereotypes, as expressed by some residents in a public meeting in 2014, was imagining that these 12 residents were going to single-handedly ruin the neighborhood.

Here's why the "justifed" is not as far as the DOJ is concerned:

An important statement in the settlement revised Overlay language is...."in making the [reasonable accommodation] determination, it shall not be a factor whether there exist other neighborhoods or dwellings which could accommodate the disabled person."

This basically eliminates the entire "we have more than our fair share" argument many wish to use.

Meanwhile, yes, let's not risk folks like Jack Meeks and those of his ilk leading SPAR Council and the SIAA costing us tax payers potentially millions more by fighting this settlement.  Tell them instead that their fear mongering is not wanted, their leadership not accepted and that you know that this settlement will not harm this community but rather make it stronger in the end.

[JaxUnicorn]

The first public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes was held at last night's LUZ committee meeting.  Below is a link to the video and the discussion on Bill 2017-36 begins at approximately 1 hour, 25 minutes in.

http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n

Of the 23 people present, 22 were opposed to the ordinance changes (5 spoke on record) and 1 supported the changes (that 1 was me and I did speak on record).  Official statements were made by Chris Farley on behalf of herself and SIAA, and Bill Hoff on behalf of SPAR.

Councilman Gaffney announced there were over 300 residents who were opposed to the changes and he will be hosting a Noticed Meeting on Monday at 3:00, NOT for questions from Councilmembers, but for the experts and the Springfield to talk about this for one hour.  I found the information online here:  http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif

Notice is hereby given that Councilman Reggie Gaffney will meet to discuss legislation 2017 - 0036 on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. until 4:00pm; located at 117 West Duval Street, Lynwood Roberts Room, City Hall St. James Building.  The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Springfield Overlay

All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

I still do not understand why people keep saying the Overlay is being 'gutted' and by making these changes our neighborhood will be 'destroyed.'  The changes simply remove the language that prevents facilities that provide housing for the disabled to locate in Springfield. 

As it currently stands, the modified Overlay still refers to Chapter 656, Part 4 Supplementary Regulations, Subpart A Performance Standards and Development Criteria, Sec. 656.401. - Performance standards and development criteria of our Ordinance Code which places spacing requirements of 1,000 feet and 1,200 feet for Community Residential Homes and 1,000 feet for Group Care Homes.  It seems neither Ability Housing nor the DOJ noticed this part.... And according to the JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE LAWS AND PRACTICES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT published in November, 2016 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download), imposing a spacing requirement may also violate the Fair Housing Act.  See below for an excerpt of that section.

15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of group homes for persons with disabilities?
A "spacing" or "dispersal" requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas, any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.

I think Jacksonville is getting off easy.  And mark my words...if City Council does not pass the Ordinance changes, the DOJ will simply strip the ENTIRE Springfield Overlay, not just the part that restricts special uses.   

[sheclown]

Lose the discriminatory language in the overlay or lose the overlay.

[sheclown]

The first public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes was held at last night's LUZ committee meeting.  Below is a link to the video and the discussion on Bill 2017-36 begins at approximately 1 hour, 25 minutes in.

http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/aaCVv5f3zmCj/select/media/ytiHTgEAD99n

Of the 23 people present, 22 were opposed to the ordinance changes (5 spoke on record) and 1 supported the changes (that 1 was me and I did speak on record).  Official statements were made by Chris Farley on behalf of herself and SIAA, and Bill Hoff on behalf of SPAR.

Councilman Gaffney announced there were over 300 residents who were opposed to the changes and he will be hosting a Noticed Meeting on Monday at 3:00, NOT for questions from Councilmembers, but for the experts and the Springfield to talk about this for one hour.  I found the information online here:  http://apps.coj.net/CouncilPublicNotices/Images/icon_view.gif

Notice is hereby given that Councilman Reggie Gaffney will meet to discuss legislation 2017 - 0036 on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. until 4:00pm; located at 117 West Duval Street, Lynwood Roberts Room, City Hall St. James Building.  The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Springfield Overlay

All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

I still do not understand why people keep saying the Overlay is being 'gutted' and by making these changes our neighborhood will be 'destroyed.'  The changes simply remove the language that prevents facilities that provide housing for the disabled to locate in Springfield. 

As it currently stands, the modified Overlay still refers to Chapter 656, Part 4 Supplementary Regulations, Subpart A Performance Standards and Development Criteria, Sec. 656.401. - Performance standards and development criteria of our Ordinance Code which places spacing requirements of 1,000 feet and 1,200 feet for Community Residential Homes and 1,000 feet for Group Care Homes.  It seems neither Ability Housing nor the DOJ noticed this part.... And according to the JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE LAWS AND PRACTICES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT published in November, 2016 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download), imposing a spacing requirement may also violate the Fair Housing Act.  See below for an excerpt of that section.

15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of group homes for persons with disabilities?
A "spacing" or "dispersal" requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas, any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.

I think Jacksonville is getting off easy.  And mark my words...if City Council does not pass the Ordinance changes, the DOJ will simply strip the ENTIRE Springfield Overlay, not just the part that restricts special uses.   

So few people have the moral courage to speak their minds when they know it will cost them a good old neighborhood shun-fest.  She is that type of person. 

She made Springfield look good last night. 

[JaxUnicorn]

As many know, Bill 2017-36 contains the modified zoning code as a result of the Ability Housing and DOJ fair housing lawsuit.

FYI - At their 02/23/17 meeting, the staff recommended approval of the Bill and the Planning Commission voted to APPROVE the zoning changes associated with Bill 2017-36. 

Here's a link to the Results Agenda: 
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/current-planning-division/planning-commission-docs/2017/results-agenda/02-23-17-results-agenda.aspx

The item can be found under Section IV. Ordinances, #4: Ordinance 2017-36

[pwhitford]

They are not stopping any time soon, either:

Settlement agreement heads to council that will impact Jacksonville Zning
Jacksonville Business Journa, Feb 28, 2017, 8:11am EST; Updated Feb 28, 2017, 10:02am EST

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/02/28/settlement-agreement-heads-to-council-that-will.html