The Local restaurant and bar wants to open on Oak Street in Riverside

[simms3]

I meant it's silly for people to fight against the restaurant. It was a fit for the area and IMO the exemptions are reasonable.

Ah, ok gotcha.

You lived in California, you've seen NIMBYism at a much stronger level than here. There you've got cases where NIMBYs are empowered to use the local ordinances to fight any new housing, resulting in situations like environmental review law being used to keep housing from replacing a parking lot, a situation where residents of one apartment tower opposed a second apartment because it would block their view of a clock, and even a case where a city council member in Ojai fought new housing so hard that she was priced out of her own town. These aren't just anecdotal examples; it's a structural problem.

NIMBYism is bad in many large cities and small towns in many parts of the country, especially in areas seen as desirable or exclusive. There are NIMBYs in Jacksonville, but we don't have anything to that level. For every St. Johns County resident complaining about all the newcomers, there are 50 newcomers coming anyway. For every Ortega or Riverside, there's not only a San Marco that's actually building apartments, but also a LaVilla, Eastside and Downtown Northbank that are literally begging for new development. Sure, they don't want crap development, but that's not the same issue.

I'd go so far as to say that NIMBYism isn't a big factor in the housing crisis in Jax and much of Florida. It's far more a matter of not building enough housing to meet demand, which is mostly an issue of local zoning restricting what can be built, and long-standing neglect of the affordable housing fund, among other smaller issues.

I still disagree - BECAUSE I've seen NIMBYism in CA and other places, I have that as a reference!  It's *bad* in Jax and I have plenty of out of town developers tell me the same.

Watch St. Johns County grind to a halt for a while here.  Yes, there are still approved and entitled lots under construction and master-planned communities like RiverTown and Silverleaf under construction for years to come, however new housing approvals have relatively ground to a halt.  I'm very close to this.  Has even higher end builders glancing at western Duval County to build their pipelines as many of the suburban counties grind to a halt and become outright hostile.

Within Duval County, on the relative little bit of infill we historically have (compared to peer cities), you have pretty darn aggressive fights that have occurred on most of the projects.  I'm thinking the Hendricks apartments, RiverVue apartments, and others.  You have overlays that are very restrictive and fought over as if it's the Crusades.  Every restaurant proposal in commercial areas is met with intense backlash.  We have vacant lots in the most desirable commercial strips in the city (which to me is evidence enough).

The preservation districts, particularly RAP, are as aggressive as I've ever seen them - a deal I once asset managed was a portfolio of 20% of Newberry St in the Back Bay (and we did dig outs and renovations to expand and change uses within many of the buildings so I dealt, personally, with that preservation group).  I've seen what I've seen and Jax is a hell of a lot more challenging than most places.

Then it's a mentality that is cultivated here.  How else do you explain the animosity that Neptune Beach residents showed towards the TriBridge deal out there (they'd literally rather have a vacant Kmart than an extension of the Beaches Town Center if it included nice apartments above).  The obsession with height limits is also something pretty unique to Jax in the level we have it here.  It's actually not even just the beaches.  If you wanted to put up a 90' building at the corner of Hodges and JTB (now being developed by RISE and others), you'd have Glen Kernan HOA so far up your ass.  They actually came out strong against another proposal there that precedes the RISE deal.

I know of a waterfront restaurant proposal that was killed, as well, because some crabby patties in a neighboring condo hired an attorney to kill it.  I couldn't even list out all the cool things that I personally would LOVE to have in Jax that have been attempted and killed by angry mobs with lawyers and various preservation groups backing them.

There is a "super HOA" mentality around this town that is like no other.  I have even talked to people who you would think would want explosive growth and flashy real estate popping up around town and they actually like things the way they are.  One person in particular was a surprise.

So it's not so much the same exact type of NIMBYism as in CA or the same levers that are used, but it's a very similar *level* of NIMBYism with a uniquely Jax flavor and different levers to use.

Al Ferraro famously would not allow apartments anywhere in his district.  Then you have Mandarin...I could keep brainstorming areas that are *very* hostile to new growth all over town.

On all of the deals I worked on in my life, previously, I don't really recall much local controversy with any of them.  Here, rest assured just about any deal you do, anywhere, will be met with controversy.

As Ennis says, many Urban Core neighborhoods are actively pushing for new development, as by far the biggest cause of declining housing stock has *not* been preservation, it's been the demolition of houses. In fact, preservation could help that by preventing more homes, especially missing-middle housing, from being demolished for empty lots. I wrote an article a while about on this very topic: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-yimby-case-for-historic-preservation/

Wait, we've had a decline in housing stock in Jax?  There's a rampant problem of demolition?  Where are you talking about?  Also, I'm FOR preservation, certainly, but at this point more focused on downtown commercial (or our truly great structures like the recently demolished Ford Assemble Plant) than average 1930s vinyl siding homes in Avondale that are in total disrepair and also a dime a dozen.

In the Urban Core, we lost 50% of the population from 1950 to 2010 and are only now starting to recover. Much of that has been down to a loss of housing stock from Jim Crow-era infrastructure projects targeting Black neighborhoods, from later urban renewal projects, and from code enforcement condemning houses that could be saved.

Even in desirable older neighborhoods there's a loss of housing stock even if it's harder to see. In my hometown of Neptune Beach, for one example, old missing middle housing is being converted to single-family or outright demolished to make way for a single St. Johns County-style McMansion. Even though new housing has been built, there's no net gain of housing and the population hasn't increased (in fact it's down slightly from 2000). This trend has happened in other neighborhoods at different times.

Ok, well I don't think we have Detroit level widespread demolition happening.  Perhaps when we built highways some of that happened.  I'm sure there were some houses in Springfield that could have been saved.  I pick my battles...and all of the preservation groups in town take it too far so I'm not really "on their side".

But regarding population loss, another thing to consider is family sizes?  I live in a small 3/1.  Right now I'm just a guy, but when it was built I'm sure it was a working class family of 4+ living in there, all sharing a single bathroom.

To get our pre-consolidation limits population back, we will need to build much higher density.  We will need apartments, condos, townhouses, etc.  People aren't going to necessarily go back to living 6 folks in 1100 square feet sharing a bathroom.

Oh, and Jacksonville is doing just fine with corporate relocations, not that office jobs are any better than any other jobs. Not sure where that critique is coming from: https://jaxusa.org/news/florida-jacksonville-see-most-corporate-relocation-growth-of-states-large-u-s-cities-respectively/

My veiled point earlier was that JaxUSA doesn't seem to be doing as good of a job, but they have great talking points!  Maybe it's just because I know of what's happening in Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Nashville, Austin and the other cities in our own state, but we are not on the level.

JaxUSA also doubtfully played an important role in the only "big" news story office relos we had (Dunn & Bradstreet and Paysafe, both already firmly in the FIS ecosystem).

Look, I know office as a real estate category is really down right now.  But there are other cities, even lesser than the ones I just mentioned above, that are still getting nice new office developments to accommodate growth in their various sectors (the upper margins undoubtedly) and corporate relocations.  We are not getting crap compared to too many other cities we should be able to be comparing against.  I think there are plenty of people who would back me up on this.  All it takes is a quick weekend trip to some of these places to see the level of construction there to realize the quality of economic growth they are getting versus what we are getting.

My point is that (1) we're doing fine in corporate job growth, and that (2) office jobs aren't the only or the most important jobs.

Ok I disagree - we can do better than we are.  I'm tired of our local status quo.  That's what everyone seems to want to maintain (which plays into the mentality of fighting anything new coming into any neighborhood).

[Captain Zissou]

Driving through Murray Hill now I see the "Murray Hill Preservation Association" membership sticker on more and more houses.  Every house that has one of those, or RAP's, or SMPS's, or SPAR's is a house declaring "I have the mind virus" and am a NIMBY.

As the president of SMPS, I can confidently say that you are misinformed about many of our members.  I'd be happy to discuss the differences between the three organizations you mentioned as well.  SMPS is not a local historic district like SPAR or RAP.  The two guiding documents for SMPS are the San Marco Overlay (https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ZOSE_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPMSAMAOVZO) and San Marco By Design.

[Jax_Developer]

San Marco is the 'best' of all the urban areas. I think what Simms is getting at is that there was a ton of controversy for several of the rezonings along Phillips & Hendricks for example. Basically needed LeAnna to get it through, from my understanding.

I think that there is quite a bit of reluctance to build any intensity or NC (in spots), without a riot first. I do feel as though several projects have died early on due to this. I have a project now in a very residential area, surrounded by owner-occupied townhomes. I'm trying to build intensity that is standard in our market & 3-stories. The outcry when there were public documents made on it was actually insane. There is a very loud crowd here, that wants Jacksonville to remain quaint and how they remember it. This land has been zoned MD for over 50 years...

I personally wouldn't pursue any intense developments in RAP/Ortega, Mandarin, Beaches & St. Johns. Those places are Nimby. Been to enough LUZ & city council meetings in the last 3 years to confidently say that.

[Charles Hunter]

One thing that gets me is that many of the suburban NIMBYs is that they are the people in the development that 'ruined the area' for the previous generation of NIMBYs. In some cases, this can go back several iterations of NIMBYness.

[Florida Power And Light]

Lol folks shouldn't have moved to Riverside if they wanted no traffic. Like others have said, I feel like JAX actually has quite the NIMBY crowd in RAP particularly.

The problem for Developers is...... so many Back Yards! NIMBY. As if current residents mattered.....
Riverside Avondale Land Use and Zone 'Protective' " Overlay" notes that residential is the majority land use ....shucks, that's a lot of back yards and Households....
Many NIMBY have been in place long before such proposals materialized.
For some, it's not a matter of moving in to a supposed known but rather, moving the heck out of a new known.
( Ha!.... sellers desperate to move out selling to buyers desperate to move in..... the Charles Hunter Model. Now I know why it was a really good thing my parents moved out of Miami in the early  70's. At some point, we won't give up the current back yard..)

Politically,recently,  Riverside/Avondale city district has severed.
Perhaps Local should look to the recently shuttered Black Sheep location.
Reports are Five Points " Mob " activity, JSO road closures are disappearing in the recent past mirror.

[Charles Hunter]

Lol folks shouldn't have moved to Riverside if they wanted no traffic. Like others have said, I feel like JAX actually has quite the NIMBY crowd in RAP particularly.

The problem for Developers is...... so many Back Yards! NIMBY. As if current residents mattered.....
Riverside Avondale Land Use and Zone 'Protective' " Overlay" notes that residential is the majority land use ....shucks, that's a lot of back yards and Households....
Many NIMBY have been in place long before such proposals materialized.
For some, it's not a matter of moving in to a supposed known but rather, moving the heck out of a new known.
( Ha!.... sellers desperate to move out selling to buyers desperate to move in..... the Charles Hunter Model. Now I know why it was a really good thing my parents moved out of Miami in the early  70's. At some point, we won't give up the current back yard..)

Politically,recently,  Riverside/Avondale city district has severed.
Perhaps Local should look to the recently shuttered Black Sheep location.
Reports are Five Points " Mob " activity, JSO road closures are disappearing in the recent past mirror.

Care to explain my Model to me?

[simms3]

Driving through Murray Hill now I see the "Murray Hill Preservation Association" membership sticker on more and more houses.  Every house that has one of those, or RAP's, or SMPS's, or SPAR's is a house declaring "I have the mind virus" and am a NIMBY.

As the president of SMPS, I can confidently say that you are misinformed about many of our members.  I'd be happy to discuss the differences between the three organizations you mentioned as well.  SMPS is not a local historic district like SPAR or RAP.  The two guiding documents for SMPS are the San Marco Overlay (https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ZOSE_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPMSAMAOVZO) and San Marco By Design.

Captain, I hear you and I don't want to be overly critical.  I'm aware of the differences - and RAP members remind me all the time that they aren't even the enforcement arm (as if I haven't sat in on many JHPC meetings at Ed Ball (even made a small presentation to speak at one).

There's a specific HOA type mentality that comes with each that I don't prefer for our urban neighborhoods.  I think a strong sense of community is one thing, but my view of what's "reasonable" pushback or commentary on certain proposals is vastly different than what you get from basically any of these groups and their members at large.

To repond Jax_Developer above, I was searching for articles on the fairly epic battle against the Hendricks apartments.  I couldn't immediately find any of the many articles I read at the time as I followed what was going on, but I did find this:

"San Marco is Feeling Growing Pains", dated 3/13/2020
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/2020/03/13/san-marco-is-feeling-growing-pains/112274358/

Pushing against development

Livingston and several of his neighbors formed Right Size San Marco last October after rezoning notices were posted at South Jacksonville Presbyterian, which wants to sell 2.87 acres to Harbert Realty for a multifamily development. The church also gave the developers first right of refusal if the congregation decides to sell its sanctuary.

The neighbors around the church were caught off guard, and many said they weren't notified about the rezoning, something the city is required to do.

As originally proposed, Harbert offered the struggling church $2 million for the 2.87 acres to build 98 apartments and a three-floor parking garage. Then it sweetened the deal, offering $20,000 for each additional apartment, and the project grew to 143 units.

The development is contingent on a land use and zoning change, establishing a more flexible Planned Unit Development that would allow greater density.

Right Size San Marco mobilized on social media and signs popped up all over the neighborhood. Within weeks it had 650 members. San Marco Preservation hosted a town hall at the church that was standing room only.

Right Size San Marco had struck a nerve.

Neighbors in the immediate vicinity are worried about their privacy, property values being eroded and increased traffic. While others are concerned about how the project could change the character of one of the entry points to the Square and the potential loss of the church, which is considered a neighborhood landmark.

Several weeks of heated discussions ensued among the developer, Right Size San Marco and the Preservation Society.

The neighborhood had numerous objections to the density, the height, traffic, architecture, parking, landscaping, set-backs and transition from residential to commercial.

After the first of the year, the developer revised its PUD application to reduce the number of units by 10 and to take one level off the garage. Neither Right Size nor the Preservation Society was satisfied, and are seeking to have the rezoning delayed.

"People are really worried about this project," Livingston said. "We were never against it. It can co-exist in the neighborhood if done in the correct way.

These same issues have come up before in San Marco and prompted the development of the San Marco Overlay, which sets development standards, and San Marco by Design, San Marco Preservation's neighborhood action plan.

Livingston and others in the neighborhood are worried that the project sets a bad precedent by allowing Harbert to have deviations to the land use and zoning that could have repercussions throughout the city.

Robin Robinson has lived in San Marco since 1986 and serves on the board of San Marco Preservation Society. Robinson and George Foote have published two books about San Marco: "Southbank Sojourn: A Photographic Journey Through the Early Days of San Marco and South Jacksonville" and "San Marco: Celebrating 90 Years."

She said she has always loved living in San Marco because of the sense of community. "People know each other. We socialize with them in the Square," Robinson said. "It feels like a small town."

She's worried that's going to change.

"Traffic is going to be horrible, and we've always had parking issues," Robinson said. "And, we'll have more residents who are renting. They're temporary. They don't get involved and buy in. That bothers me."

Residents complain about people parking and cutting through residential streets.

Of special concern is the intersection of Atlantic and Hendricks, which already gets backed up mornings and late afternoons with rush hour and the traffic generated by three nearby schools: Landon Middle School, Assumption Catholic School and Bishop Kenny High School.

City Councilwoman LeAnna Cumber, who has a transportation background, said she hears a lot of complaints about traffic and parking but that just comes with growth.

"The Atlantic Boulevard corridor is only at 33 percent capacity and Hendricks is closer to 78 percent. There's still a lot of capacity. Based on traffic studies those streets can handle it. The new interchange [at I-95 and Philips Highway] has really helped."

Cumber doesn't foresee a day when Hendricks or Atlantic will be widened to accommodate additional traffic because the city will not want to sacrifice the walkability of the neighborhood.

Cumber favors traffic-calming measures like the traffic circles on San Marco Boulevard or the road diet just completed on Riverplace Boulevard and the bike lane the state established on Hendricks.

"It's important to provide alternative modes of transportation. More infrastructure will make it safer for everybody," Cumber said.

To be fair, further down the article it quotes the president of SMPS at the time, Linzee Ott:

Both Ott and Cumber said they are hopeful that new residents will provide more business for the Square and adjacent business district, which has been growing.
...
"From an urban planning perspective, we often forget we are an urban neighborhood. San Marco doesn't feel urban, but a lot of this infill and new development is going to make more us urban. There's a lot of new exciting stuff coming, but it makes a lot of residents uneasy," Ott said.

Which is a fair and balanced view to take, but often times these organizations that are more reasonable than others are still quite diplomatic with the strongest/worst NIMBYs, which gives them A LOT of oxygen and power in this town.

If I recall the neighborhood opposition delayed this project 2-3 years (which is LESS than the opposition created delay for RiverVue on St Johns)?  I seem to recall the battle culminated in a war of language about height limits, and the developer's attorneys found leeway in the language to use an "average" across an entire elevation.


I'm not super pumped about the architecture of this community, myself, or the townhomes next door.  But on principle I just wouldn't even join my voice into that fray.  If we can't put apartments there, literally IN the town commercial square, where will be able to put up infill anywhere in our city?  That's the concern.

[simms3]

From that same article further up (was a long article), it mentioned the northern border of San Marco being Cedar St.  Ok.  Well then it mentions MOSH and Baptist anchoring the neighborhood.  Which is it? 

In picking my battles and drawing my lines on my own principles, I stand in solidarity against the Daily's proposal.  But I can't for the life of me understand the level of pushback that the mixed-use storage facility on the SOUTHBANK got from San Marco residents (and activists joining in from around town).  This is what I don't understand  - besides the argument about destroying the beloved "overlay" (God I hate these stupid overlays here) and the *evil* PUD zoning category that *evil* developers use for many projects  , for a neighborhood who's big group seems to think Cedar St, south of 95, is the northern border of the district, that was a lot of animus for a project not even in their own neighborhood, technically.

Most of the residents of the Southbank are renters (those evil apartment dwellers).  Why would someone on Arbor Ln or Marco Pl care about this development on the other side of the highway in apartment land?  It just baffles me, that's all.

[simms3]

San Marco is the 'best' of all the urban areas. I think what Simms is getting at is that there was a ton of controversy for several of the rezonings along Phillips & Hendricks for example. Basically needed LeAnna to get it through, from my understanding.

Actually I was referring to the Hendricks apartments themselves at the Presbyterian church there in the square, but if there was another big battle I missed for the apartments along Philips, then that is even MORE ridiculous and just further goes to prove the point.

[Charles Hunter]

Putting on my cynical nit-picker hat. While also saying that HOAs and other organizations do sometimes* get full of themselves and over-reach. Similarly, some developers believe that every project they propose is a reincarnation of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and anyone who dares question any aspect is an uneducated rube opposing progress.

* "sometimes" subject to definition by the user

From that same article further up (was a long article), it mentioned the northern border of San Marco being Cedar St.  Ok.  Well then it mentions MOSH and Baptist anchoring the neighborhood.  Which is it? 

In picking my battles and drawing my lines on my own principles, I stand in solidarity against the Daily's proposal.  But I can't for the life of me understand the level of pushback that the mixed-use storage facility on the SOUTHBANK got from San Marco residents (and activists joining in from around town).  This is what I don't understand  ... that was a lot of animus for a project not even in their own neighborhood, technically.

Most of the residents of the Southbank are renters (those evil apartment dwellers).  Why would someone on Arbor Ln or Marco Pl care about this development on the other side of the highway in apartment land?  It just baffles me, that's all.

So, only immediate neighbors are worthy of opposing proposed projects? How far away is far enough?  The rather tiny area defined by the "notice letter" circle? It apparently extends to the "official boundaries" of neighborhoods. simms3 expresses his "solidarity against the Daily's proposal" - does simms3 live nearby?

[simms3]

Putting on my cynical nit-picker hat. While also saying that HOAs and other organizations do sometimes* get full of themselves and over-reach. Similarly, some developers believe that every project they propose is a reincarnation of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and anyone who dares question any aspect is an uneducated rube opposing progress.

* "sometimes" subject to definition by the user

From that same article further up (was a long article), it mentioned the northern border of San Marco being Cedar St.  Ok.  Well then it mentions MOSH and Baptist anchoring the neighborhood.  Which is it? 

In picking my battles and drawing my lines on my own principles, I stand in solidarity against the Daily's proposal.  But I can't for the life of me understand the level of pushback that the mixed-use storage facility on the SOUTHBANK got from San Marco residents (and activists joining in from around town).  This is what I don't understand  ... that was a lot of animus for a project not even in their own neighborhood, technically.

Most of the residents of the Southbank are renters (those evil apartment dwellers).  Why would someone on Arbor Ln or Marco Pl care about this development on the other side of the highway in apartment land?  It just baffles me, that's all.

So, only immediate neighbors are worthy of opposing proposed projects? How far away is far enough?  The rather tiny area defined by the "notice letter" circle? It apparently extends to the "official boundaries" of neighborhoods. simms3 expresses his "solidarity against the Daily's proposal" - does simms3 live nearby?

Well you're just adding to my whole thesis here.  I do agree though that developers tend to think of their projects as perfect when they often aren't (and in my opinion we just don't have many good local urban developers whereas many of our peer cities do).  But I err on side of developers because they are trying to create something whereas activists are not and the process is not easy and money is put at risk.

Also, EVERY city has crap projects.  I'm not advocating for crap projects, and Jacksonville's level of crap is a lot lower than many places, but we aren't a high dollar market yet, and to get there, you need more projects in general and so when we come against everything so strongly, big and small (hence the Local here), we are preventing the blossoming over time of our own city.  We want the Ritz Carlton before getting the Marriott Garden Inn, and some here don't want any new things.

That being said, there are high quality developers who could come in and do high quality infill in one of these neighborhoods, perhaps partnering with a local developer as is usually the case, but with their money often in a fund model with a set timeframe, and they just don't have the ability to spend years in battle and in courts in our market for what is probably overall a smaller equity check relative to their needs and to other deals.  It's just another widely acknowledged hurdle preventing quality deals from happening in our market.



On the Daily's -

I've never said people can't opine if they live elsewhere (though through balloting once you open that door, I've seen the result firsthand and I hope we never get there).  I wish more people *would* opine on downtown Jax, because lack of oversight there has led to things like all of the demolitions and neglect.  But see that's also two different things - in the urban core neighborhoods people are coming out against new construction, or new businesses, whereas I wish more people would come out against actual destruction and neglect downtown (and backroom deals that set everything back).

But taking the Southbank storage proposal, which didn't entail historic demolitions, only the creation of a new building separated from San Marco by a 14 lane highway, railway, etc, I simply just didn't understand the level of opposition or some of the reasons.  Not a real high quality project, but I didn't understand the level of controversy with it, especially by San Marco residents.

Again, I am not a huge proponent of the neighborhood overlays, and PUDs as a zoning category are something I am very much in favor of, but the opposition to the storage facility increased misleading characterization and hostility towards PUDs and so I think there was a political backstep there that we could see being fulfilled in the next fight against something.  To me it was another opportunity by activist types to rally against the PUD model and to "save the overlay" at all costs.  It's part of the whole point I'm making...

But the Daily's, while in LaVilla, a completely hollowed out district with almost no residents as a result, is also very much "downtown".  I'm actually on the record stating that the gas station use here is not terrible for the location and that I park across the street and drive by every day, so it would certainly be useful to me and plenty of others filing out of downtown on Bay St.

But I still find it a little unforgivable the way they demolished those brick structures (but what was done was already done now) and I agree with Lake and others closer to the planning and architecture fields that there are better ways to lay this thing out.  There was some political backroom dealing on this, as well, as others have laid out.  Typical Jax political connectedness...

You're not going to see me fight it too hard (I've done no emailing of the sort, so nothing besides my opinion on here).  I think what Lake has been doing has been super reasonable and is by definition accommodating and collaborative.  It's a far cry from the type of "opposition" we typically see for deals in Jax by incredibly misinformed and emotional people that misinform each other and get each other all riled up.


Anyway the whole point that I'm trying to make gets lost but we have very interesting mindsets here in Jacksonville that make sense to a lot of people here but make NO sense to ME, and in my opinion you can drive around and see the cityscape and see evidence of what I bicker and argue about.

[simms3]

Let me rephrase ALL of my thoughts and then I'm done bc I feel heated/"lectury" now.

You have a new project to build?  Great, approved, just build it.
You want to remodel or add on to your home?  Great, do it!
You want to open a small business, restaurant, some sort of establishment?  Great, how can we help you open it?
You want to demolish a Pre-War structure in the CCBD zoning boundary of downtown (or relatively substantial pre-war *commercial* buildings and warehouses elsewhere)?  No, you can no longer do that, but we can incentivize you to renovate it and incorporate it into what you're trying to accomplish.

That's literally where I'm at with anything in this city.  I've seen crappy developments completely overhauled and made cool not too many years later as other things caught up around them in other cities, so having some crappy thing built now to me is not even the worst thing.

I just want to see infill, and things get built.  Things that get proposed actually get built.  I think we've missed way too many cycles to be super hostile and picky now.

Keeping it relevant to the Local, it should not be this difficult.  If you're living on Oak St right there or on Riverside Ave, you don't get to pretend like you're living on some quiet backcountry road that shouldn't have commercial businesses that probably most people in the general area really want.

And IF we ever get to a point where we are building high-rise condos en masse downtown, then I will say this in advance - you don't own your views and someone is allowed to build something taller than your building right next to you.  Yes, I said it, you don't own your views, so buyer beware.  Nip that one in the bud, IF we ever get to that point in this city.

[thelakelander]

But the Daily's, while in LaVilla, a completely hollowed out district with almost no residents as a result, is also very much "downtown".  I'm actually on the record stating that the gas station use here is not terrible for the location and that I park across the street and drive by every day, so it would certainly be useful to me and plenty of others filing out of downtown on Bay St.

But I still find it a little unforgivable the way they demolished those brick structures (but what was done was already done now) and I agree with Lake and others closer to the planning and architecture fields that there are better ways to lay this thing out.  There was some political backroom dealing on this, as well, as others have laid out.  Typical Jax political connectedness...

You're not going to see me fight it too hard (I've done no emailing of the sort, so nothing besides my opinion on here).  I think what Lake has been doing has been super reasonable and is by definition accommodating and collaborative.  It's a far cry from the type of "opposition" we typically see for deals in Jax by incredibly misinformed and emotional people that misinform each other and get each other all riled up.

Yes, with LaVilla Daily's project, the issue isn't the proposed use. It's some specific aspects of the proposed site design and the negative impact that causes to the overall LaVilla goal of re-establishing Broad Street's walkability and vibrancy. Unlike Riverside, people would be more than happy to see a restaurant like Roost, take up some vacant space (rather have them, then Sandy Yawn giving us another dirt lot). There's no desire to continue the suburban Riverside Avenue experience.

[Captain Zissou]

To repond Jax_Developer above, I was searching for articles on the fairly epic battle against the Hendricks apartments.  I couldn't immediately find any of the many articles I read at the time as I followed what was going on, but I did find this:

The main opposition was from an outside group called "Right Size San Marco".  This was led predominantly by 2 people who owned homes that backed up to this development.  SMPS hosted town halls and worked with the developer to discuss the neighborhoods concerns.  RSSM has continually tried to piggy back off of the clout of SMPS, but the two have no affiliation beyond both having San Marco in the name. There is significant documentation of this debacle on this forum.

If I recall the neighborhood opposition delayed this project 2-3 years (which is LESS than the opposition created delay for RiverVue on St Johns)?  I seem to recall the battle culminated in a war of language about height limits, and the developer's attorneys found leeway in the language to use an "average" across an entire elevation.

This is not true.  Debate between the organizations and the developer took less than a year and there was still concurrent design development taking place.  After receiving approvals, the developer waited to commence construction in an effort to reduce costs because the supply chain issues had driven up the price of wood and concrete.

From that same article further up (was a long article), it mentioned the northern border of San Marco being Cedar St.  Ok.  Well then it mentions MOSH and Baptist anchoring the neighborhood.  Which is it?

The borders of the neighborhood as seen by SMPS are I-95 on the north, philips highway on the east, Greenridge/Emerson to the south, and the river to the west.

But I can't for the life of me understand the level of pushback that the mixed-use storage facility on the SOUTHBANK got from San Marco residents (and activists joining in from around town).  This is what I don't understand  - besides the argument about destroying the beloved "overlay" (God I hate these stupid overlays here) and the *evil* PUD zoning category that *evil* developers use for many projects  , for a neighborhood who's big group seems to think Cedar St, south of 95, is the northern border of the district, that was a lot of animus for a project not even in their own neighborhood, technically.

This is in downtown and violated the downtown overlay.  While it was not within our territory, it was a project that was very important to our members and residents of our neighborhood.  We stood in support of them as well as the city policies meant to enhance the downtown environment.  This is an extremely prominent parcel in the southbank neighborhood and as such it requires extra attention to adhere to good design principles.

[Florida Power And Light]

The " Worst" NIMBY are the Best.
Even though Heavy Casualties occur.
Dang those backyards!!
RAP influenced by two persons that were engaged with the radical transformation of Clay and St Johns county.
Yep-former  County Planners. RAP residents.
Susan Fraser helped tamp down Mello Mushroom proposal.
The General " we gonna have to accept Change" mantra prevailed.

Business interests could focus on Lane Avenue. NIMBY Gone. And the last couple of Ventures can tell us the place is not what it used to be. They " Tried"

Charles- when an area becomes literally trashy compared to what it once was.... The area Propensity / Inclination to NIMBY is decidedly Absent.

Bumper Sticker:

Leaving the bOLD New City of Jacksonville ??!!
Take A Friend!!!
Crime White Flight  You Don't Count Ingrained Growth NFL $$