Self-storage fight could come to a head this week

[Jax_Developer]

WOW! 9-9 - denied.

[thelakelander]

Wow!

[Charles Hunter]

If I remember city rules (law?) correctly because it was "denied" they cannot bring back this rezoning for a year.

[Jax_Developer]

Yes that's correct. Really hoping we can ultimately see a mixed-use residential product.

[marcuscnelson]

Well that's that. Great work to everyone who was part of this. Definitely hope we get some useful mixed use out of this site. The developer is welcome to pick any one of the many parcels just outside of downtown to build this in.

[thelakelander]

^That's not how the deal works! The developer is welcome but the property owner loses out on whatever cash they were in line to receive. I would not be surprised if they appeal, based off the comments at the end of the article.

San Marco Preservation Society President Lauren Carlucci said June 20 the developer was not willing to meet the organization's compromise of 50% residential.

Council members received more than 400 emails in opposition to the project.

After the vote during public comment, Diebenow objected to the city attorney's opinion that the tie vote equaled a denial.

He said should Simpson appeal the decision, he wanted it on the record that he sees the ruling as against past Council practice and state statute.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2023/jun/27/in-a-tie-vote-city-council-denies-rezoning-for-southbank-self-storage-facility/

[Jax_Developer]

^That's not how the deal works! The developer is welcome but the property owner loses out on whatever cash they were in line to receive. I would not be surprised if they appeal, based off the comments at the end of the article.

San Marco Preservation Society President Lauren Carlucci said June 20 the developer was not willing to meet the organization's compromise of 50% residential.

Council members received more than 400 emails in opposition to the project.

After the vote during public comment, Diebenow objected to the city attorney's opinion that the tie vote equaled a denial.

He said should Simpson appeal the decision, he wanted it on the record that he sees the ruling as against past Council practice and state statute.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2023/jun/27/in-a-tie-vote-city-council-denies-rezoning-for-southbank-self-storage-facility/

I've never heard of a LUZ ordinance being overturned due to the landowners not getting top dollar for the sale. Usually you pursue a PUD to 'increase' the value of the land.. so it should be somewhat obvious to lawmakers that the top dollar sale here is not apart of the conversation. There is some doubt of a backup offer, but regardless there is an end user here that will pay a lot for that land for an alternate use even in this economy... above $15k per residential door. (Yay, more incentives!) These parcels never hit the open market.

What occurred was OGC ruled the tie as an act of no motion and ultimately they were about to go back at the vote again. They took a recess, came back and OGC flipped their decision. I have to imagine that OGC saw something to make that change. The break was only supposed to be 5 or so mins but ended up being 20 mins. I respect the wishes for an appeal but I wonder if they will find any language that the OGC didn't. Frankly, everyone was shocked when it happened. We shall see!

[thelakelander]

I've never heard of a LUZ ordinance being overturned due to the landowners not getting top dollar for the sale.

Yeah, I wasn't implying this.

After the vote during public comment, Diebenow objected to the city attorney's opinion that the tie vote equaled a denial.

He said should Simpson appeal the decision, he wanted it on the record that he sees the ruling as against past Council practice and state statute.

This is what I was looking at. OGC may have an opinion. However, like with the council redistricting issue, opinions are always up for debate.

[Charles Hunter]

I am not a lawyer or a zoning expert, but my guess is an appeal could be based on whether a tie vote "denies" a rezoning, or merely "does not approve" the request. In other words, is "failure to approve" by majority "yes" vote the same as "denial" from a majority "no" vote?

[Ken_FSU]

Drink every time Rory Diamond misses a Council meeting.

[thelakelander]

I am not a lawyer or a zoning expert, but my guess is an appeal could be based on whether a tie vote "denies" a rezoning, or merely "does not approve" the request. In other words, is "failure to approve" by majority "yes" vote the same as "denial" from a majority "no" vote?

Bingo. It depends on if they are willing to spend more of their money to chase approval or not. That likely depends on the percentage of getting it overturned and the financial viability of the project (is it worth them taking the risk and spending the extra money necessary).

[Jax_Developer]

I've never heard of a LUZ ordinance being overturned due to the landowners not getting top dollar for the sale.

Yeah, I wasn't implying this.

After the vote during public comment, Diebenow objected to the city attorney's opinion that the tie vote equaled a denial.

He said should Simpson appeal the decision, he wanted it on the record that he sees the ruling as against past Council practice and state statute.

This is what I was looking at. OGC may have an opinion. However, like with the council redistricting issue, opinions are always up for debate.

Ah gotcha. Yeah on that second point it was interesting is what I am saying. OGC originally "agreed" that the 9-9 vote did not deny the legislation, but ultimately changed their opinion on that. Diebenow will more than likely be pursuing the appeal on the same state statue that OGC ultimately reversed their decision on.

[Steve]

Drink every time Rory Diamond misses a Council meeting.

Yea, so this one is interesting and I watched someone get roaster on Twitter for raising the issue. He's in the Reserves and is serving a commitment with them.

TO BE CLEAR HERE: I AM IN NO WAY QUESTIONING RORY DIAMOND'S PATRIOTISM AND I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL THAT HE HAS CHOSEN TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY. HE SHOULD BE APPLAUDED FOR THAT.

Now....in the private sector the law says that you can't lose your job because are serving. They don't have to pay you, but they have to give you your job (or an equivalent job with same responsibilities and same pay) back once you return. Additionally, the employer is free to move the work to another person or put a person in that role while you're gone as the work can't just pile up.

There really isn't an equivalent way to substitute his role as an elected official when he's away and I think that creates an interesting question. What would be the SOP if he was a member of the House or Senate in Washington?

Not to get off topic here but it's relevant given the vote was 9-9 and he was not in attendance.

[jaxlongtimer]

What is most telling about the vote is who voted for and against.  DeFoor and Cumber will be coming off and they were both no votes.

Meanwhile, Bowman, Carrico, Newby, Howland, Freeman, White and Gaffney are a reliable pro-developer voting block, the public input be damned.  Only one I am a little surprised about is Pittman.  Diamond would have been part of the pro-developer block had he been there and this would have passed.

So frustrating, that about half or so of the council just votes knee-jerk for developers a la Justice Thomas voting to the extreme far right no matter the issue before the Supreme Court.  As a quasi-judicial process, people in these positions are supposed to be "open minded" and once-in-awhile vote the "other way" when there is appropriate support for so doing.

[Jax_Developer]

Drink every time Rory Diamond misses a Council meeting.

There really isn't an equivalent way to substitute his role as an elected official when he's away and I think that creates an interesting question. What would be the SOP if he was a member of the House or Senate in Washington?

Not to get off topic here but it's relevant given the vote was 9-9 and he was not in attendance.

Heavily agree. It was odd to witness really.