SPAR Opposes Ordinance Changes Associated with the Ability Housing Settlement

[JaxUnicorn]

It should not stop.  These changes NEED to be made.  Full City Council will hold a Public Hearing tonight on the issue.  Then next week it's back to LUZ for a final Public Hearing and their vote. 

[pwhitford]

Sorry, should have been more clear.  I meant the opposition to the settlement, and therefore the resolution of the lawsuit, is not stopping any time soon.  From the article:

"Gaffney said he wanted the meeting to share with other council members a groundswell of discontent from his constituents about the impact of the settlement agreement on Springfield and other impacts it could have on zoning across the city."

Groundswell?  Really?

"Christina Parrish Stone, executive president of SPAR, told the City Council members she believed the settlement agreement would gut the zoning overlay designed for the historic neighborhood."

"Jack Meeks, a Springfield resident and long-time CPA in the community, said he believed the city shouldn't settle, calling the lawsuit a winnable case."

"Gaffney said while he understands both sides, if he had to vote on Tuesday, he would likely not support the settlement agreement. "

[Bill Hoff]

I attended the City Council meeting earlier this evening where public comment was heard on this issue. Thought I'd provide an update free of conjecture.

Council is granting more time for subject matter experts and COJ staff to discuss possible improvements to the proposed Overlay settlement, as requested by SPAR and the community. That's great news and will likely result in a better outcome than what was originally proposed.

However, it continues to be concerning that some are still conflating SPAR wanting a more thorough process for possible zoning changes, per usual, and SPAR being anti-any particular person. One does not equal the other, and it's not difficult to differentiate between the two issues.

Heck, even Mr. Hays, who runs a current "special use" facility in Springfield, the Alco House, spoke in agreement with SPAR's position.

[strider]

Here's the issue I personally have with Mr Hoff's statement above.  Most people only have the information about this settlement as presented by SPAR Council and SIAA.  Neither organization is giving out the complete and truthful facts of this issue.  In fact, the primary leader of the charge that got us (the City of Jacksonville) into this mess and is costing us tax payers millions is also the primary one giving out the misinformation.  That would be DIA member and CPA, Jack Meeks. Along with long time Springfield resident and developer, Michael Trautman.  While both of these men and several of the others have promoted and done good things for the community in the past, they have traditionally failed as true leaders in that they have this habit of siding with the negative and discriminatory rather than the positive and the inclusive.

The truth here is that the only language that is being changed is the discriminatory language and I cannot nor can others, who are reading the original overlay and the settlement version with an open mind,  find anything that is being changed that will harm the community nor the city of Jacksonville in any way. In fact,  a summary, prepared by AB's attorney, has only one issue that is about what rather than who (and the assessment in that summary is wrong.  That is the concept that a low density residential community home can have any fence it wishes.  That is not what happens; fences are still under the purview of the HPC. )

The changes talk about who can live in Historic Springfield primarily and it only addresses the discriminatory issues caused by the overlay.   It talks about the actions of both the City and the residents of Historic Springfield over the Ability Housing issues.  Therefore, it appears the only possible changes to  settlement version of the overlay would be to increase the possibility of discrimination.  With the talk about past sins of old long gone and now illegal facilities, with the assertion that we have too many now, how can anyone looking in on this not start to think it is still about WHO rather than WHAT? The WHAT is still covered in the settlement.  The WHAT is brought in line such that it is now equal to the rest of Jacksonville.  The WHO will now be guaranteed the civil rights they deserve.  How can anyone reasonable not think that in itself is a good thing?

There is a lot of talk about the changes being not properly done and needing more thoughtful input.  I would agree that this is a legitimate concern of the opposition (and not about WHO) if I was hearing a desire to not block the changes, but rather add in some much needed changes to the overlay.  There is a time limitation on this settlement so that could be used to leverage things like more friendly signage or easier mixed use applications.  Instead, all I read in the emails sent to City Council is how badly Springfield is being treated and how much damage this is going to do to the community.  Some even go as far as spelling out the fact that it is indeed the WHO that they fear. All I really hear from the opposition is Springfield needs protected from THOSE people.

We seem to find ourselves in a world where alternative news and deflection from the truth is OK and acceptable to some.  I hope that the residents of Historic Springfield and the members of City Council are above that and that they embrace the honest and truthful facts and do not give in to the unfounded fears being broadcast by the opposition.

[sheclown]

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2017/03/01/changes-to-zoning-laws-historic-springfield-draws.html

[JaxUnicorn]

I attended the City Council meeting earlier this evening where public comment was heard on this issue. Thought I'd provide an update free of conjecture.

Council is granting more time for subject matter experts and COJ staff to discuss possible improvements to the proposed Overlay settlement, as requested by SPAR and the community. That's great news and will likely result in a better outcome than what was originally proposed.

However, it continues to be concerning that some are still conflating SPAR wanting a more thorough process for possible zoning changes, per usual, and SPAR being anti-any particular person. One does not equal the other, and it's not difficult to differentiate between the two issues.

Heck, even Mr. Hays, who runs a current "special use" facility in Springfield, the Alco House, spoke in agreement with SPAR's position.

MEETING WITH CITY, ABILITY HOUSING AND SPAR TO DISCUSS OVERLAY CHANGES

At SPAR's request, CM Gaffney arranged a meeting between SPAR, Ability Housing and their attorney, and the City attorney in order to provide input into the Overlay changes being proposed.  That meeting was held on Monday, 03/13/17; I was the only Springfield resident in attendance and I took notes and provided a recap. 

Before reading the recap, let's go back to SPAR's official statement and refresh our memory:

On Monday evening the Board of Directors of Springfield Preservation and Revitalization Council, Inc. (SPAR) held a special meeting to review proposed City of Jacksonville Ordinances 2017-36, 2017-68 and 2017-69. The board members in attendance voted unanimously to oppose this legislation, on the grounds that the recommended changes to the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations were drafted without appropriate community input; are unnecessary; are unfairly applied; and are potentially harmful to future development of the historic district. Further, the proposed changes do not accomplish the stated goal of the settlement agreement, which is to protect the rights of disabled citizens to live wherever they choose in Jacksonville. Instead, the effect of the agreement is to single out Springfield to be the default and de facto area in Jacksonville for disabled housing.

After hearing of SPAR's issues, in my opinion, none of the issues brought up equate to "gutting the overlay" and causing severe damage to Springfield.  I did not hear anything that would lead me to believe SPAR is concerned about the changes being "deeply flawed, including leaving out basic protections/structure included in other overlays around Jacksonville."  In fact, the ONLY part of the Springfield Overlay that was mentioned was parking.  The other issues brought up were related to changes in OTHER parts of the ordinance.   

The recap is below:

The meeting SPAR requested between CM Gaffney, the City attorney Jason Teal, Ability Housing and SPAR to discuss the overlay concerns was held yesterday.  Attendees:  CM Gaffney, Jason Teal (city atty), Shannon Nazworth and Tonya Adams (Ability Housing), Thomas Ingram (Ability Housing atty), Paul Harden (attorney for Jack Meeks/JoAnn Tredennick, although he said he was not present to represent them) and myself.  Although Christina Parrish was out of the country, she had met with Jason the previous week and shared SPAR's concerns.  I'll try to recap them here:

• Parking requirements:  SPAR wants to be sure Springfield is consistent with other multi-family use requirements. The current overlay has no parking requirements for multi-family. Are there any parking requirements that can be put into place, consistent with what other neighborhoods have in place? (This was a long discussion – almost 25 minutes)
  
  
  • Kim – mentioned we are talking about multi-family properties that do not have anything to do with the settlement.
  • Tom – mentioned there are other parking stipulations in the overall zoning code and suggested SPAR go back and review the existing code.
  • Paul – the issue is not really multi-family, but now you'll have multi-family properties that provide supportive services, which means there will be more people coming to the area causes parking issues.
  • Shannon – brought up anyone in Springfield can have anyone come visit them at any time now.  This is not related to the settlement at all.  She encouraged the City to look at the other zoning overlay issues once the settlement is complete.
  • Paul – tried to compare the parking issue to a complex at 44th/Pearl.  Kim asked Paul to confirm the project he was talking about was new construction – yes.  Well, you cannot compare that project to a Springfield residence when it comes to parking.  Paul then stated if you had one room/occupant who had someone come visit every day would not cause a parking issue; however, if you had 12 rooms with each having someone visit every day, that would cause a parking issue.  (Kim after thought:  that could potentially happen now)
  • Tom – Bottom line is you can't have something different for those with disabilities than you do for someone who does not have a disability.


• Administrative deviations for request reasonable accommodations:   SPAR's concern is the zoning administrator would be making that determination in a vacuum.  The suggestion was to modify the ordinance to require a recommendation by the Fair Housing Compliance Officer regarding all requests for reasonable accommodations that do not go through a public hearing.  Another set of eyes on the request by someone who is familiar with fair housing because Zoning are not 'experts'. 
  
  
  • Kim – doesn't see an issue with making that change.
  • Tom – does not necessarily agree with the change at this time; if changed, agreement would have to be obtained from all plaintiffs; the City is expected to comply with Fair Housing laws; concerned about the bureaucracy and delaying any decision.
  • Jason – decisions would still be required to meet all required timeframes
  • Shannon – requested that the requested verbiage be presented to them so that they can see what will be changed; concerned the settlement deadline is fast approaching.
  • Jason – ideally they would propose an amendment at the next committee meeting to modify the language; he will make the change and submit to the parties for review.
  • Shannon – ideally what they are looking for is to make sure people with disabilities get reasonable accommodations they need in a timely manner; if this change facilitates that, she does not foresee a problem with it.
  • Paul – to put it in context, all he wants is for people who want to run a liquor to get their waiver of distance in a timely manner, so he'd like to not have to have a public hearing on that request. He doesn't think it's as simple as what Shannon was suggesting.
  • Jason – explained a lot of these requests are based on medical conditions which are protected by HIPPA, etc.; he fought this provision but the DOJ came back and said there's embarrassment and HIPPA issues which was the motivation for not requiring a public hearing.
  • Paul – don't make this a zoning issue; make it a civil rights issue.
  • Jason – explained this must be handled by someone who is familiar with zoning issues; that person must also be familiar with fair housing.


• SPAR requested a commitment from CM Gaffney to re-visit and perform a complete review of the Springfield overlay.
  
  
  • CM Gaffney said he can do that.


• Wants to make sure that Springfield is treated the same as any other historic district.  656.109(i) specifically calls out Riverside/Avondale. 
  
  
  
  • Kim – there are at least three historic districts; if we add Springfield, we need to also add Ortega and possibly Downtown.
  • Gaffney – asked if SPAR was asking for this to go into the settlement or could it be addressed after the settlement.
  • Jason – that's up to you guys.
  • Paul – this would fall into the category of an addition to, not an objection to the current zoning proposal.  This issue is unrelated to the issues that sparked the lawsuit.
  • Kim – pointed out this section of the ordinance was not modified with the settlement agreement.


• Definition of Multiple Dwelling uses – SPAR is concerned about a portion of the verbiage added.  They are requesting "Ancillary services whose primary purpose is to support tenants may be located onsite, including but not limited to laundry facilities, day care and after-school programs for children, gymnasiums, swimming pools, concierge services, and coordination of care for disabled persons which are within the scope of supportive services."  Be modified to state "Ancillary services whose primary purpose is to support tenants and which shall not be open to the public may be located onsite, including but not limited to laundry facilities, day care and after-school programs for children, gymnasiums, swimming pools, concierge services, and coordination of care for disabled persons which are within the scope of supportive services." 
  
  
  
  • Paul – if we could agree on the definition of this it may solve all the other issues with parking, etc.
  • Tom – suggested SPAR work quickly to provide verbiage; concerns were brought up that this change will affect all areas of Jacksonville, not just Springfield and this change may not be valid.
  • Shannon – she understands why the verbiage change is being requested, however doesn't want to create a problem that doesn't currently exist.
  • Tom – believes the current language addresses that now by stating "primary purpose".
  • Jason – asked if we could do anything with that sentence?  Stated SPAR is not absolutely opposed to this ordinance; they would like to see some changes made if for no other reason than to allow the residents of Springfield and the members of SPAR to achieve something so they can feel they were a participant in this process.  That said, is there any way we can amend the sentence?
  • Shannon – asked if there had ever been an issue
  • Tom – reiterated the current language is sufficient and shared concerns that making the requested change could have unintended consequences on all of Jacksonville.
  • Jason – asked again if there was anything we could add to this sentence so that it gave the people of Springfield something?
  • Tom – you'd need to run the language by the other plaintiffs and the Planning Department
  • Kim – suggested if Jason was looking for something to change...seems the easiest one would be to add Springfield and Ortega to the 656.109(i) section, especially since that part of the ordinance was not touched as a result of the settlement agreement.


• Definition of Dwelling Unit – SPAR is concerned with the following sentence: "A dwelling unit is not considered a rooming house, substance abuse treatment facility, group care home or community residential home by virtue of the residents receiving supportive services on a less than 24 hour per day basis."  Technically that means supportive services could be given for 23 hours and 59 minutes.  Is there any way to put a limitation on that to reduce the intensity? 
  
  
  
  • Shannon – gave an example of someone with a very sick elderly person living at home and someone was there 24 hours/day.  That is allowed by right.
  • Paul – suggested supportive services can be 24 hours/day or 365 days/year, but not both.
  • Kim – suggested moving that sentence from the Dwelling Unit definition and placing it in the Rooming House definition; in other words, rather than trying to define what a Dwelling Unit is not, define what a Rooming House is.
  • Jason – the overall intent is to say that just because someone receives supportive services in a Dwelling does not make the Dwelling a Rooming House.
  • Kim – if a residential dwelling had supportive services 24/7/365, does that change the use?
  • Jason – that's what we're trying to accommodate here; the expectation is that the services are for a limited duration.
  • Shannon – we have to be careful to not create more unintended consequences.
  • Tom – suggests SPAR go back to the definitions; an effort was made to not expand the definition of dwelling unit so broadly as to encompass assisted living, nursing homes, etc.  Offered to review specific verbiage.
  • Kim – brought up the supportive services listed in the ordinance change are not those that could really be provided on a 24/7/365 day basis; based on that, perhaps changes to this section are not warranted; need to be very careful that we don't cause harm to anyone else either.
  • Jason – suggested making a small change to the supportive services definition to include the term 'incidental' to in some way try to clarify it a bit.
  • Tom – willing to review verbiage changes.


• $1.5M Grant for Permanent Supportive Housing – SPAR asked if a condition could be placed on the grant funding that it was for areas of Jacksonville that are outside of Downtown or areas immediately outside of Downtown, or incentivize them to locate in an area without existing permanent supportive housing or other similar uses. 
  
  
  • Tom – asked if the concern was SPAR did not want this grant project to go into the Springfield area
  • Jason – said if he read between the lines, yes.  But there is some merit to allowing incentivizing the location to be mixed in with communities that don't have an over-abundance of these.
  • Shannon – Jacksonville does not have any permanent supportive housing projects in Springfield
  • Jason – agreed
  • Tom – none of the plaintiffs would agree to that
  • Kim – the current settlement does not preclude the City to incentivize the location
  • Shannon – permanent supportive housing always needs to go where there is the greatest need
  • Tom – clarified the grant does not require the project to go into Springfield; it can go anywhere in the City

[remc86007]

This is worth reading: The latter part of the article addresses the Ability Housing situation: http://folioweekly.com/not-in-my-backyard,17165

[strider]

A nice and informative write up frpom Ability Housing on the settlement:

https://abilityhousing.org/settlement-agreement/

[strider]

From Jacksonville.com:

From the start, the opposition to allowing disabled veterans into a 12-unit apartment complex in Springfield has been extreme.

And now that City Council is considering a $2 million settlement over a discrimination lawsuit, the opponents have shown they still don't get it.

Take for example, the admission of Springfield resident Jack Meeks last year in a deposition that he had spent over $100,000 fighting the complex. He's not done.

And now elite zoning lawyer Paul Harden has turned up to advocate for the Springfield residents.

This isn't normal.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-03-22/thursday-s-editorial-city-council-needs-approve-ability-housing

[Bill Hoff]

You would think the TU would go to greater pains to be accurate. They appear to have been given the PR spin kool-aid.

[JaxNole]

You would think the TU would go to greater pains to be accurate. They appear to have been given the PR spin kool-aid.

What specific details of the editorial qualifies as "PR spin kool-aid"?

[Bill Hoff]

^
First, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.

The issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.

But, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:

"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"

- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.

"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."

- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.

"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."

- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.

"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."

- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.

"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."

- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.

"nimbyism on steroids"

- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.

Anyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.

[strider]

Bill Hoff's obviously the one who can do great with the "PR spin Koolaid".  So much of what you posted, Bill, is very wrong, but you know that.  When work gives me a chance, Bill, I'll explain the facts to you and correct your very misleading post.

^
First, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.

The issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.

But, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:

"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"

- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.

"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."

- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.

"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."

- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.

"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."

- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.

"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."

- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.

"nimbyism on steroids"

- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.

Anyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.

[strider]

Let's take a look at your claims here, bill.

First, the editorial is focused on a dead project. The community is focused on future zoning details. The details of that specific dead project don't particularly matter anymore. The TU appears to think the only thing preventing it from moving forward is delay the settlement agreement. It's not.

Yes, the project is dead.  However, it is one of the most relevant things to this settlement as its demise is the reason for the settlement.  As to the Times Union  believing that the settlement is going to allow that particular project to move forward, that is something being expressed only in your mind., not in this article.

The issue is how zoning is implemented moving forward. And since that's the issue at hand, the community would like zoning changes to go through the usual thorough process - including addressing Fair Housing flaws in the current zoning law.

This settlement and the settlement changes to the overlay has indeed gone through the proper process. It has been properly written and reviewed by experts  It has been introduced and discussed.  Public comments have been taken. And now, if common sense prevails, it will be voted on and passed.  Exactly what part of this has not been proper? That the public outcry by a few in Springfield has not been allowed to rewrite the code back to a discriminatory stance?

But, since the TU piece is focused on the past dead project, here's a few nuggets of bewilderment from it:

Again, just a reminder here, this dead project is exact why we have this settlement, or rather it was the discrimination against this project, the very discrimination that caused its demise, that is costing us tax payers this 2 million dollars and requiring the changes to the overlay.

"But the fact that residents would be disabled set off a firestorm in Springfield. Every possible dysfunction was projected on these residents. They might be out-of-control alcoholics or even a threat to elementary students, the opponents contended"

- the grant application stated clearly that people with severe substance abuse and mental health issues are whom the project would house. There's no ambiguity about it. And, of course, there were no requirements for treatment with those issues. Also, violent criminal offenses, even such as homicide, wouldn't have prevented someone from living there. Housing first is a low barrier approach by design, and the barriers are indeed low. And that's why location and the surrounding environment are so important to consider. Anyway, that passage by the TU shows they've taken the PR bait - yes, "every possible dysfunction" was expected, not a hypothetical, and yes, that with the lax criminal history criteria were a concern for children.

Yes, of course, what about the children!  Well, what about the children?  They were there in the area when the drug dealers were there.  They were close by when a double murder happened at this apartment building; without Ability Housing owning it, I might add.  So where was this concern for the children before and after Ability Housings project died?

Now a few other facts.  Housing first is exactly that.  Get them housed and then see to their other needs.  And the now "dead project" was not "place and forget" or did you forget the basis of why the use was declared to be "akin" to special uses like group care homes.  It was because while the services were not on site nor provided directly by Ability Housing, those needed services were indeed being offered to the disabled residents. In addition, the data from the housing first model says it is pretty successful. 100%?  No, but then the neighborhood isn't exactly 100 % problem or crime free without Ability Housing and the 12 formerly homeless, disabled, possibly veterans there,  now is it?

Oh, and did you also forget or decide to ignore that fact that Ability Housing actually has improved the crime rates around their other Jacksonville projects?  And "including homicide"?  Wow, digging deep into the unfounded BS with that one.

"The city is getting off cheaply by promising to build about 12 housing units. New Orleans in a similar case had to add 350 housing units on top of making good on 40 units that were first denied."

- the New Orleans case is different in many ways. NO was trying to limit such housing in a 350 sq mile area, virtually the entire city. COJ was limiting it in a 1 sq mile area - where there is already such housing available. There are other substantive differences as well. It's lazy to compare the 2 cases because they are superficially similar. But, when you're spoon fed PR taking points, I guess you use them, if your the TU.

No spoon feeding needed when real facts are used rather than innuendo and alternative interpretation.  The bottom line with NOLA was this:  The actions taken were to grossly discriminate against the disabled (please remember, to discriminate against a provider of "reasonable accommodations" and the needs of the disabled is the same as discriminating against the disabled individually) therefore, legal action was taken and a settlement worked out that fit the crime.  The bottom line with the Ability Housing issue and Jacksonville: The actions taken by the community and the City were to grossly discriminate against the disabled and so legal action was taken and a settlement was worked out that fit the crime.  So, in a way, you are right.  They are different.  We are getting off far, far easier than NOLA.  Bringing in the size of the city and calling it lazy to compare the two cases is disingenuous. None of the matters; only the act of discrimination does and it was done in basically the same way and definitively for the same reasons in both cases.  To put it in a more simple fashion.  Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the size of the city in which it occurs.

"A few Springfield advocates warn that this settlement would affect the rest of the Duval County and the rest of the country. News flash: The rest of the country is already covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act."

- newsflash: you're missing the point completely. Definitions and COJ zoning processes would change, which would 100% affect the entire city/county. That's why other respected community groups are concerned as well, and have been expressing those concerns with their Council reps. It especially impacts neighborhoods with RMD and CRO zoning. What? You didn't know that other groups outside of Springfield are working against the current version of the settlement? Because the TU hasn't reported on it, I guess.

Newsflash: The vast majority of the changes to zoning has to do with eliminating the term "special use".  It is a discriminatory term created for and only used in the Historic Springfield overlay.  The other changes that do indeed effect the rest of Jacksonville are a few changes to definitions and the language the now guarantees the rights of the disabled will not be ignored like it was over the Ability Housing issue.  It simply insures that an service provider like Ability Housing can buy an apartment building and rent it to the formerly homeless and the disabled and veterans and not have it called illegal.  Can anyone guess where that has happened to date, the calling of a apartment being rented to a disabled person illegal? The answer is: Only Historic Springfield.  Ability Housing has opened several facilities in several other areas of Jacksonville so it appears that the changes being made will not have this terrible effect some seem to be claiming. Most who have read the changes with an open mind see that there is no danger here.  Here's another fact for you.  If there are concerns from other areas of Jacksonville over this settlement, they have only Jack Meeks and others of like mind, like you, to blame.  I hope they realize that.

"The fact is the settlement would not destroy the zoning overlay for the historic district. Housing developments still would be covered by all the usual restrictions, such as height and intensity."

- le sigh. Who has used the term 'destroy', by the way? I'm not aware of any credible public statements that have claimed that. But, there are multiple domino effect issues totally not related to ADA/fair housing that would be impacted, because changes are being sought in an unusually unthorough process.

Let's see, not "destroy" but SPAR Council has said it will "gut" the overlay.  SIAA has used the terms "how devastating the outcome could be " "potentially harmful to future development of the historic district " has also been used.  Hard to justify a complaint about using the word "destroy" when comparing it to "devastating" and "gut", is it not?  And I'm glad that you have admitted to us that folks like Michael Trautmann, Jacks Meeks, and Christina Parrish  are not being credible when they talk about how this settlement will "gut" or be "devastating to " (destroy) the overlay.

And as can be easily seen by all who bother to read the list of changes, nothing is being done that is not ADA/ Fair Housing related. And if you bother to check with the actual people who have been working on this, it has not bee an unthoughtful process. 

"So much time and money was been wasted fighting this worthy cause, housing for homeless veterans."

- the program description in the grant did not include veterans at all. It wasn't a requirement. Zero ambiguity.

This was explained and Ability Housing never said it was only Veterans.  So what?  Are you now saying if it was, it would have been alright? The community never would have had that floor stomping, all but a lynch mob meeting?

"nimbyism on steroids"

- this is hilarious/ridiculous, and shows how out of touch the TU editorial board with reality. You don't choose to live in Springfield if you're a NIMBYist. The irony of calling Springfielders NIMBYs is g-i-g-a-n-t-i-c. It's sort of impossible to say not in my back yard, if your back yard already has a dozen examples of X.

You may wish to refresh you memory as to what nimbyism is.  Apparently you have no idea. After you look up that definition, you may wish to read the overlay, review the ordinance 2007-1046 public comment minutes and the outcry over that, review a few SPAR Council meeting notes , like the one that the then President of SPAR Council said that if you rent an illegal rooming house to the right people, it is just fine.

Anyway, again, the issue has moved on from the past, dead project and now about how the proposed zoning changes in the settlement, as is, would impact the city and Springfield overlay. This is a technical land use issue - that's the concern. It's not the PR heart strings narrative that appears to have romanced the TU. Heck, that angle had better work. Otherwise the PR professionals they're using aren't worth much.

Sigh.  After Jack Meeks has spent over $100,000.00 fighting this, you would think he would have the Times Union eating out of his hand.  Instead he has you.  And the knowledge that regardless of how much money you spend, sometimes the truth wins out.  In this case, the Times Union has it right. 

For all your talk about the technical stuff, all the attempts at deflecting away from why you really do not want this settlement, the real reason for the opposition to the settlement is found in a few simple statements.

Here's one from the ED of SPAR Council  - 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."

As you can see, nothing learned here.  Ability Housing was buying an apartment building, nothing more.

Or this from a recent meeting summary:
$1.5M Grant for Permanent Supportive Housing – SPAR asked if a condition could be placed on the grant funding that it was for areas of Jacksonville that are outside of Downtown or areas immediately outside of Downtown, or incentivize them to locate in an area without existing permanent supportive housing or other similar uses. 
Tom – asked if the concern was SPAR did not want this grant project to go into the Springfield area
Jason – said if he read between the lines, yes.


This settlement is our best hope to avoid far worse. And to reaffirm that our City, that we, the residents, will not allow the discrimination by a few define our city; to define us.

[lastdaysoffla]

anybody have a TL;DR