What are the ways that a voter referendum gets on the ballot for local issues in Jacksonville?
Is it possible for something to get on the ballot that doesn't have to go through the mayor or city council?
If it is possible, does anyone have an idea of the cost?
I am really curious about what you would like to see on the ballot. I think it is more labor intensive as you need a large number of signatures. I would contact the Supervisor of Elections
Scott, thank you for responding to the question. My question comes from the observation that sometimes (and I'm sure for a reason that hasn't been fully explained) the elected representatives choose not to act on an issue that is of great concern to a group of people. The Shipyards Pier would be an example. So my question is - does it have to end there?
The wording of your initiative should be put together by an attorney with this type experience. If there is a cost involved to the taxpayer the source of funding needs to be identified. Then you need so many signatures on petitions , say 5270 approved, so collecting about 6500 would be necessary. Then you need to fund the campaign and drum up local media for generating momentum for passage. Might be easier to elect the right candidate for mayor that would share the same vision. Just an observation! Good luck.
doug_
drumming up LOCAL MEDIA.. .
facebook
metjax
what were you kicking around that head of yours?
Quote from: scottwilson on December 24, 2010, 03:17:33 PM
I am really curious about what you would like to see on the ballot. I think it is more labor intensive as you need a large number of signatures. I would contact the Supervisor of Elections
Scott, Its Shipyards III that everyone is curious about. Shipyards I-$36,500,000 of taxpayer money gone. 16 acres of PUBLIC space reduced to 8 with the addition of Landmar, 150 slip marina with not even 1 slip for the PUBLIC. Bankruptcy and after 2010-604 its just dumb luck that we have it back. Scott, we were there together share your observations of SCAD the 6 teams of graduate students that gave their presentations at city hall with the members of MJ.
Quote from: dougskiles on December 24, 2010, 03:46:56 PM
Scott, thank you for responding to the question. My question comes from the observation that sometimes (and I'm sure for a reason that hasn't been fully explained) the elected representatives choose not to act on an issue that is of great concern to a group of people. The Shipyards Pier would be an example. So my question is - does it have to end there?
dougskiles, I applaud your inquiry into this option of a legislative alternative when a mayor or city council member refuses to sponsor the legislation on your behalf.
A voter referendum is an option. And if I may suggest that before you undertake this option allow our current elected legislative representatives the opportunity to introduce legislation that could keep the Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier separate. Although I must say that the patience with our current legislators is running out and that after January 4, 2011 and when Governor Scott is sworn into office I believe in my heart that this issue will escalate to a statewide joke.
But back to the local level and a referendum on the pier. This came up during Jacksonville Waterway Commission meetings during the period when the Charter Revision Commission meetings were taking place in council chambers and the Waterways meetings were moved to the 4Th floor. Councilman Crescimbeni suggested at a meeting that maybe a referendum is needed for the pier. And the reason given was that Cresimbeni as well as other members would say if there was just somebody else besides you showing up at a meeting voicing this concern then maybe we may look into it further. He has a point.
The current administration is not interested and there are numerous examples to highlight that position. Same can be said for councilmembers. Before the referendum or intervention by the Governor someone in a legislative position in Jacksonville needs to step up to the plate and Make it Happen.
Quote
And the reason given was that Cresimbeni as well as other members would say if there was just somebody else besides you showing up at a meeting voicing this concern then maybe we may look into it further. He has a point.
Are there any more meetings that we can show up to? There has been lots of talk about making things happen here recently. I'm willing to show up. Who else? I'm surprise the Riverkeeper wasn't there with you.
Quote
Might be easier to elect the right candidate for mayor that would share the same vision. Just an observation! Good luck.
mfc - do you think Audrey would be willing to commit to making the pier public?
Last question - other than what Cresimbeni stated above - what is the reason they don't want to commit to making it public? I can only guess that it makes the land more enticing to another developer. But history seems to suggest that perhaps this concept isn't the way to go.
I did reach out to the Riverkeeper. I spoke with Jimmy Orth and right now they are focusing on the water withdrawal issues in central Florida and the TMDL nutrient standards.
They are aware of the issue. I know that they are compiling a questionaire for councilmembers and the mayoral candidates and you would hope that it is on the radar for consideration.
Be concerned. Don't sit there and think that everyone else is making that call or attending that meeting because there not.
Neal Armingeon when the OFWB was an issue did write a letter to then city council president Lad Daniels about saving and using the OFWB and we all know how that ended up.
Suzanne Jenkins to her credit introduced 2005-207. She also tried. The legislation was never voted on by our city council.
The number one reason that the powers that be don't want to make it Public is legislative protectionism.
Keep score.
I don't think you can count on the new Governor doing anything to make the pier public, if it costs any taxpayer money.
Charles,
I disagree 100%. Governor elect Scott can make the Pier Public.
Allow for private money to Make it Happen.
Legislation from somebody has to happen.
Gov. Scott, if he cared at all about such a local issue, might be for private development on the pier, and for the pier to be privately owned. After all, that way, it is not a drain on tax money, and would contribute to the tax base. Unless, of course, he wanted to exempt it from taxes as an incentive to create some of his 700,000 jobs.
Quote from: mfc on December 25, 2010, 07:31:54 PM
The wording of your initiative should be put together by an attorney with this type experience. If there is a cost involved to the taxpayer the source of funding needs to be identified. Then you need so many signatures on petitions , say 5270 approved, so collecting about 6500 would be necessary. Then you need to fund the campaign and drum up local media for generating momentum for passage. Might be easier to elect the right candidate for mayor that would share the same vision. Just an observation! Good luck.
No doubt Public Property should be accessible to the Public. I still don't understand the reasoning for dividing a parcel of public property. You are talking about surveying, dividing legal descriptions and recording new deeds. Don't you think it would be better to determine a use first? Will the entire parcel remain in the hands of the City. I do believe that if the City decides to sell a portion to a private company we should look at ways to keep the pier and the Riverwalk Public space.
Quote from: scottwilson on December 29, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
You are talking about surveying, dividing legal descriptions and recording new deeds.
Scott, all of that can be done for less than $2,000 - and we could probably find MJ members who would do it free of charge.
Quote from: scottwilson on December 29, 2010, 01:43:48 PM
I do believe that if the City decides to sell a portion to a private company we should look at ways to keep the pier and the Riverwalk Public space.
This is exactly what Noone is trying to do - protect it from future sale to a private company. So why not protect it now - and through legislation? And then - why wait to do something with it? We can use it now.