Springfield meeting about ash

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

Apparently, Springfield has had 141 properties tested for ash.  Ironically, the properties aren't so much affected by ASH as they are by lead.  112 properties have elevated lead levels and only 19 properties have ash.  The elevated lead properties are not dangerous because they are part of the ash site, but seem to be hazardous because of other lead exposure (no great surprise to anyone who lives in a historic area with old homes painted with the very best lead paint money could buy).  

The road that got us to this place is a bit complicated, and what to do now, even more so.  

Everyone agrees that living with lead, while not news to anyone, is still a concern.  All parties also agree that having this notation on our property record cards is a burden landowners should not have to bare -- considering many neighborhoods throughout Jacksonville, if tested, would reveal similar toxins.  This puts owning property in SW Springfield at an unfair disadvantage and serves no apparent cause.

Not to mention, seems arbitrary.

Doug feels strongly that we should band together, with each other and with Durkeville, and move toward common goals.    He invited us to join him at the Urban Core CPAC meeting, details will be posted here.

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

And thanks to Crissie and Lisa for their involvement as well. 

[sheclown]

Erick posted a very good summary and a link to the letter from the OGC's letter to the EPA on myspringfield.org

http://myspringfield.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=3260#p3260

[Doug V]

If, after considering the pros and cons, and unknowns of allowing the city access to your property for testing and remediation, you decide to suspend your previously submitted access agreement, here are the addresses to which you should mail letters:

James Manning
Environmental and Compliance Department
The City of Jacksonville
WEST 1ST ST COMPLEX-ADMIN BLDG 2636 1ST ST W
Jacksonville, FL 32204

Kristina Nelson
Office of General Counsel
The City of Jacksonville
117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Don’t forget to save a signed/dated copy

[avs]

I don't know anything about a meeting with Gaffney either - if someone met with him could they please share the information?

[sheclown]

Read the info about the new property card language:

http://myspringfield.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=3304#p3304

[Doug V]

There was discussion Thursday whether property owners who doesn't sign an access agreement, or suspends it pending a satisfactory resolution of the questions raised, might find themselves unable to get re-signed. For the time being that should not be a problem, per the message I received from Project New Ground. I will retain a copy of this response:

Doug,

Currently, propety owners can complete an access agreement at anytime. Property owners who change their minds can also complete a new access agreement to be included in the program.
Thanks,
-Greg
(Project New Ground)

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah they "adjusted" it alright...if by "adjusted" they meant "making it worse"...

[iluvolives]

NPR did a story on the ash situation this morning on my way to work.

[Miss Fixit]

http://www.umass.edu/plsoils/soiltest/services1.htm

This is the website that allows you to order home tests online.  9 bucks to test for all manner of horrible materials!

Please remember that if you discover contamination, such as lead, as a result of these tests you are then obligated to disclose the presence of such contamination when selling your property.

[sheclown]

At tonight's CPAC meeting, Doug didn't hold back...he told EPA and the city his point of view especially as he reads the 36 acre vs. 400 acre issue.  (Apparently, all that needed to be included in the property record card notation per decree were the properties located in the 36 acre hot spot.  The EPA expanded this 36 acres to 400 acres and this is why SPR got tagged on the property record cards).

Claude and Stephen Dare made great points as well.  I especially loved Claude's comparison to buying a piece of property and the "approximately" point.  (City is trying to say that 36 acres, approximately, could mean 400.  Claude, very strongly pointed out that 400 is not approximately 36 in any manner.)

Stephen brought up the ordinance issue.  That the consent decree required an extra step -- a city ordinance to make it legal.  He suggested the feds need not involve themselves in our ordinances.

My feeling is that the city and the EPA aren't going to budge -- except in a very minor way.  But that is just from a general observation -- no specifics.

[Springfield Chicken]

I think the best comment of the night was from Chris, who suggested that Jacksonville take the stimulus money it's been awarded and go ahead and make this a massive and quick clean up.  Better that than continue to suck down an already deficient budget and close libraries and schools.

[Doug V]

Thanks to so many of my Springfield neighbors who came to the CPAC meeting, and for the comments they made.  I agree with Gloria that Claude very skillfully pointed out the absurdity of the city's position that the Consent Decree authorizes and even requires the PRC notices way beyond the 36 acres.  Thanks also to Stephen Dare for stating clearly that this is about pushing financial liability for the city's mistakes onto the property owners.

I was disappointed with two things.  First, the city and EPA had a golden opportunity last night to largely ameliorate the economic harm that this poorly conceived program is causing to the Urban Core.  They need more time to think about the changes that are obviously required?  Don't believe it.  They've had reason to understand this for years, and in the past several weeks we have done their legal work for them - pointing out a path by which they can abide by the Consent Decree without causing most of the financial harm.

I was also disappointed that CPAC adopted a weak and incomplete motion.  That being said, I think you could see how difficult it is to get such a group to speak clearly and in one voice.  They bring lots of baggage to this.  In fact, I wasn't at all certain that any motion would come from us so soon, and we always have the possibility of trying to do a better job on this issue in the next meeting or two.

What we did accomplish yesterday was to get this issue into a public forum.  I think we need to keep it there.  The city's and EPA's position is indefensible and harmful to hundreds (thousands?) of families and homeowners.  We need to keep making noise.  The Times-Union was there last night.  I hope we'll see a story soon.  This should be a lead story on local TV news.

So what do we do next?  I've been focused on the CPAC meeting, but we need to think carefully about our next steps.