ntroduced by Council Member Schellenberg:
ORDINANCE 2011-577
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING NUISANCE AND EMERGENCY ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES; AMENDING CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION), PART 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), SECTION 307.102 (DEFINITIONS) AND SECTION 307.106 (APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO LANDMARKS, LANDMARK SITES, AND PROPERTY IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS), ORDINANCE CODE TO ALLOW FOR A SUNSET PROVISION FOR “MOTHBALLINGâ€; CREATING A NEW SECTION 307.308 (SUNSET), CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION), PART 3 (ENFORCEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 518), ORDINANCE CODE, TO ALLOW FOR A SUNSET PROVISION FOR MOTHBALLING; AMENDING CHAPTER 518 (JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE CODE), PART (GENERAL PROVISIONS), SUBPART A (TITLE AND SCOPE), SECTION 518.103 (APPLICABILITY) TO REFLECT THE CHAPTER 307 SUNSETTING SECTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Amending Section 307.102 (Historic Preservation and Protection) and Section 307.106 (Approval of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark sites, and property in historic districts), Ordinance Code. Section 307.102 (Historic Preservation and Protection) and Section 307.106 (Approval of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark sites, and property in historic districts), Ordinance Code, are hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 307. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION.
PART 1. (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
* * *
Sec. 307.102. Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall mean:
* * *
(m) Sunset. Section 307.102(n), enacted in Ordinance 2011-408-E, shall be in effect until August 9, 2014 at which time such subsection shall sunset, be repealed, and be of no further effect unless reenacted in subsequent legislation. All completed applications filed before August 9, 2014 shall be subject to Section 307.102(n)
* * *
Sec. 307.106. Approval of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark sites, and property in historic districts.
* * *
(w) Sunset. Section 307.106(v), enacted in Ordinance 2011-408-E, shall be in effect until August 9, 2014 at which time such subsection shall sunset, be repealed, and be of no further effect unless reenacted in subsequent legislation. All completed applications filed before August 9, 2014 shall be subject to Section 307.102(v)
* * *
Section 2. Creating Section 307.308 (Sunset), Ordinance Code. Section 307.308 (Sunset), Ordinance Code, is hereby created to read as follows:
CHAPTER 307. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION.
* * *
PART 3. ENFORCEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 518.
* * *
Sec. 307.308. Sunset. Section 307.305, enacted in Ordinance 2011-408-E, shall be in effect until August 9, 2014 at which time such subsection shall sunset, be repealed, and be of no further effect unless reenacted in subsequent legislation. All completed applications filed before August 9, 2014 shall be subject to Section 307.102(n).
* * *
Section 3. Creating Subsection 518.103(e) (Applicability), Ordinance Code. A new subsection 518.103(e) (Applicability), Ordinance Code, is hereby created to read as follows:
CHAPTER 518. JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE CODE.
* * *
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
SUBPART A. TITLE AND SCOPE
* * *
Sec. 518.103. - Applicability.
(a) This Chapter shall apply to every building and portion thereof, and appurtenance thereto, and the premises on which it is situated, used or intended to be used, whether for commercial, business, institutional, industrial, multifamily or residential.
(b) This Chapter will also apply to any improved or unimproved lot or tract of land, notwithstanding its use, located within the City of Jacksonville.
(c) Every portion of a building and premises thereof shall conform to the requirements of the specific Part of this Chapter irrespective of the primary use of the building and irrespective of when the building may have been constructed, altered or repaired.
(d) This Chapter establishes certain minimum standards for the initial and continued occupancy, use and maintenance of all commercial, business, institutional, industrial, multifamily and single family residential buildings and structures and does not replace or modify standards otherwise established for the construction, repair, alteration or use of such buildings and structures, the premises, or the equipment or facilities maintained in the buildings or structures or on the premises. Where a provision of this Chapter is found to be in conflict with another applicable code or regulation, the provision that establishes the higher standard, as determined by the Chief, or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, shall prevail.
(e) All references in this Chapter to the provisions of Chapter 307 (Historic Preservation and Protection) shall be contingent upon and subject to the continued applicability of those sections referenced in Chapter 307, and shall be effective to the same extent as any referenced Chapter 307 provision sunsetted or repealed.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor’s signature.
Form Approved:
/s/ Margaret M. Sidman _
Office of General Counsel
Legislation Prepared By: Margaret M. Sidman
G:\SHARED\LEGIS.CC\2011\ord\Schellenberg Chapter 307 Mothballing- sunset.doc
Schellenberg is District 6. Isn't that the beaches?
What he is introducing will, in effect, end mothballing as of August 2014. Period.
Where is District 6?
Okay. Well we already know he does not support the legislation. But he was the only 1 out of 18 council members. We learned quickly he had his whities all in a bunch from the first meeting we attended.
As I understand this amendment he is proposing, he wants it to come back to council in 3 years to be approved again? Before it can go forth for more years? Do I understand it correctly?
Additionally, won't the current council have to approve the BS he submitted? They won't do it.
Quote from: sheclown on September 13, 2011, 11:11:49 AM
Where is District 6?
Mandarin and Julington Creek I believe.
Quote from: sheclown on September 13, 2011, 11:11:49 AM
Schellenberg is District 6. Isn't that the beaches?
What he is introducing will, in effect, end mothballing as of August 2014. Period.
Where is District 6?
as Bridges said it is the Mandarin area.
the Councilman is a Tea Party favorite and his beef here is about giving special treatment to certain neighborhoods....I'm sure he's opposed to the historict districts in general
As long as you show up and make a big deal about it, e.g. let them know that you know, then I doubt it'll go anywhere.
Thinking certain neighborhoods are being given "special treatment" over others is absurb. Neighborhoods are all different and people move to them for different reasons, I personally would slit my throat before I would live in Mandarin. But to each his own. Our neighborhoods have historic fabric that makes them unique. There are things in Mandarin that make it unique and appealing to those who live there. I am sure he would want those things kept in tact down there. Does he think historic districts all over the US should be abolished?? Good grief! What a nut. There are tons of studies out there showing the economic impact that preserving the past can have. I am sure the things in Mandarin that support its economic vitality he would support. This isn't Mandarin vs. Historic Districts, he needs to get on the Jacksonville team.
I emailed all the council members urging them to stand by the original ordinance.
I wonder would he would think if we started demolishing historic structures in Mandarin? remember there is some history there too!
Quote from: fsujax on September 13, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
I wonder would he would think if we started demolishing historic structures in Mandarin? remember there is some history there too!
Teabaggers think the only government you need is your shotgun to keep welfare-types away, he'd probably be fine with it.
Quote from: fsujax on September 13, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
I wonder would he would think if we started demolishing historic structures in Mandarin? remember there is some history there too!
If you're referring to all the prime hunting land off of Racetrac Rd, then I would agree with you - History.
QuoteTeabaggers think the only government you need is your shotgun to keep welfare-types away
Isn't that really just anarchy? :)
Well. All the lovely old "historic" oak trees along San Jose are pretty much gone...they paved paradise and put up a parking lot...lots of strip malls.
I wouldn't like to live in Mandarin, either. I don't even like to VISIT Mandarin. But I wouldn't support any legislation that destroys it like this one would do in our historic districts.
Why should he care? He doesn't ever have to even come to them. He can stay safely in his cookie cutter world and leave us alone. :-)
and this doesn't cost the city a dime.
it will likely provide them several dimes!!
Quote from: avs on September 13, 2011, 01:10:45 PM
QuoteTeabaggers think the only government you need is your shotgun to keep welfare-types away
Isn't that really just anarchy? :)
nope. anarchists care about people, not property.
i agree that schellenberg taking issue with neighbourhoods getting 'special treatment' is absurd (though only to be expected). what really bothers me is that he thinks that, as a representative ov mandarin and julington creek, he has any knowledge ov or right to say anything about springfield.
(edited 'cause i not spell so good sometimes)
Schellenberg is on the Recreation, Community Development, Public Health & Safety Committee whose responsibilites include (note HISTORIC PRESERVATION):
Matters relating to recreation; public housing; economic development; affordable housing; farms; forestry; fish and game; parks; zoo; international trade and travel issues; Sister Cities program; Jacksonville Public Library; Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Department; Agriculture Department; Jacksonville Economic Development Commission; Jacksonville Housing Commission; Jacksonville Housing Authority; Community Services Department; ad valorem property tax exemptions; historic preservation; community revitalization; Waterways Commission; vessels for hire; Urban Services Districts; the Neighborhoods Department; education and schools; Duval County School Board; literacy issues; higher education institutions and issues; military bases; personnel and affairs; base realignment and closure (BRAC) issues; veterans' issues; Jacksonville Children's Commission; child services; public safety; motor vehicle inspections; collections; crime victim services; Sheriff's Office; Fire and Rescue Department; emergency preparedness and civil defenses; hospitals; Health Department; human services; welfare; health; and all related subjects.
QuoteLetters from readers: Historic Springfield Houses
Posted: August 13, 2011 - 12:00am
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-08-13/story/letters-readers-historic-springfield-houses#ixzz1Y9hxG3O2
Bill needs revising
Unfortunately, the editorial regarding the Springfield article distorted the facts.
Although the original bill stated that over 450 historic homes have been demolished in Springfield, when I inquired about the number, no one could verify it or provide data to back it up.
In fact, when the bill was discussed at the council meeting, a member of the Springfield Historic Society stated the number of demolished homes was more likely a third of the 450 listed in the bill.
Also, the editorial mentioned the five-year moratorium. But that was reduced to three years before passage.
Despite the erroneous figures present in the original bill (and in the editorial), I voted against the bill for two main reasons:
- The three-year moratorium granted in the bill is not a term of three years commencing from the date of the mayor's signature. In actuality, homeowners can use this three-year moratorium whenever they want. I will be introducing a bill to rectify this gross error in the bill.
- I believe in the free enterprise system.
It is not the place of government to interfere with the laws of supply and demand, to choose winners and losers, or to subsidize the failures of private investors.
We will learn from our mistakes, but only if we are allowed to make them.
Matt Schellenberg, City Council member
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2011-08-13/story/letters-readers-historic-springfield-houses#ixzz1Y9hdaHs9
a friend found this...
Springfield- Help me understand. Gloria, Nicole, Debbie Springfielder, Bridges, tufsu1, Kenfsu, CityLife, and there are more. You all are very obviously organized and are creating change.
2011-560 is Shipyards/Landmar Gaffney's district and this represents $23,500,000 and in the next council cycle could be voted on and be history. Right now does anyone realize that FIND projects are being identified and you can ask for Klutho Park or Confederate Park as a dreging project or possible small Canoe or Kayak launch.
FIND has money.
City of Jacksonville will seek and provide the matching funds to Make It Happen. Attach an amendment for say $100,000 to 2011-560 for some secure money. Now, I have been advocating for the pier.
But if Springfield wanted a dredging project or any money from this settlement ageement I believe you need to ask. But again help me to understand how nobody seems to be concerned. What am I not seeing?
Noone, sounds like you are talking about Hogans Creek. While I would LOVE to see that project happen, and it would make so much difference here, some of the people you mentioned are actively involved in Preservation SOS. Preservation SOS is about saving the houses. We do some small beautification projects, but it's primarily about saving the houses. That's our focus. If we lose that focus and move it to something else, historic preservation suffers.
Yes, non-profits have to stay focused on their missions. Sustainable Springfield would consider looking into this but, as an all volunteer organization, we are limited in what we can take on in our "spare" time.
As a member of Preservation SOS, I am more concerned with remaining focused on our mission, which is saving the historic structures within the historic district. I'm also VERY busy with maintaining the alleys, corners, etc., (moving, picking up trash and clipping back the overgrown limbs and brush) in the neighborhood. I spend most of my Saturday mornings doing just that, and when I can find more time, I'll do more. Between working full time, and what I've already stated, I simply haven't a great deal of free time to get more involved in other issues.
However, I have written to Gafffney and the council about Hogans creek, and supported your efforts. Yes, I want Hogans creek cleaned, dredged and maintained, but at the present....my main concern is stopping the city from destroying our historic district, and the demolitions that continue to happen at an alarming rate.
Obviously, your main interest is the creek, but don't fault others for not being able to devote the time to the same concerns, when we feel ours is just as important.
Strider started a new thread. Received some pm's I'll get back with everyone. I apologize for hijacking the thread. I still for the life of me have no clue why that duplex was bulldozed next to Hogans Creek. Just wanted to make everyone aware that the legislative opportunity for a FIND matching grant is now.
Dang! It's a matching grant? I was going to ask if FIND money was available for historic preservation, but a matching grant means we'd have to match it. Shoot. All we have is energy. And sometimes, even that flags.
Except for Springfielder, who I saw pushing a lawnmower down Walnut Street this afternoon, going to mow another vacant lot, after she showed up at the 7th and Pearl roundabout this morning to help us straighten and stake the two trees someone mowed down when they missed the roundabout.
"Springfielder" Code for "lean, mean, mowing machine."
Debbie, when you saw me on Walnut, I had already finished the corners of 5th & Ionia, and 6th & Ionia. I had stopped at several locations coming back from the Pearl street roundabout help, and did some branch/palm trimming on my way home.
@ Ionia...LOL
Quote2011-0577 ORD-MC Amend Chapt 307 (Historic Preservation & Protection), Ord Code, Secs 307.102 (Definitions) & 307.106 (Apv of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark Sites & Propty in Historic Dists), to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Create New Sec 307.308 (Sunset) to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Amend Chapt 518 (Jax Propty Safety & Maint Code), Sec 518.103 (Applicability) to Reflect Chapt 307 Sunsetting Secs. (Sidman) (Introduced by CM Schellenberg) Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 9/27/11
Public Hearing on this Tuesday night, full council.
The neighborhood showed up in force at tonight's LUZ committee meeting.
The chair, Reggie Brown, waved more than a dozen yellow speaker cards in the air and insisted that CM Shillingberg have a noticed meeting with Lisa Sheppard and the concerned citizens before the next LUZ meeting (October 18th).
So, the issue was deferred.
16 people trekked to city hall to show their support.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/LUZ.jpg)
Not everyone made it in the photo. Carmen, Jennifer, Dashing Dan, Jeff, Benda, Mark, Pat T., were there to support mothballing as well.
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU
My feeling is that Reggie Brown is giving Schellingburg a chance to save face and withdraw the ordinance for council consideration.
Council member Schellenberg spoke briefly. I still don't quite understand his argument. Essentially he made two points:
- he thought the reduction from 5 to 3 years included a sunset clause, but well, it didn't. This argument (essentially the "I didn't know what I voted on") argument would make sense if he voted in favor and now had second thoughts about his vote. But he voted against it.
- the bill hinders "free market". First of all, IMHO, zoning rules are always restricting property rights in some way. They goal of zoning is more to provide people with the ability to plan long term. E.g. if I buy a house in a residential zoned area, I can be assured that my neighbor doesn't built a chemical plant. In that way, zoning restricts free markets. If anything, mothballing provides more options to owners to develop their properties instead of rejecting them. Having the city vote again in 3 years to overturn the sunset clause would just mean that the city is not letting free markets work itself out, and you don't get the ability to plan long term.
anyway. Lets hope Mr. Schellenberg decides to just shelf this.
Very insightful moved
His councilmember colleagues seem to have given him a respectable way out.
He should take it.
The focus is on Springfield right now, but the mothballing ordinance will help everyone who has an interest in sustainable development.
Kudos to CM Lumb and CM Boyer!
And thank you for coming down to oppose the sunset clause, Dashing Dan. It was nice to meet you.
I am waiting patiently for Schellenberg to back out of his Sunset Clause. I have yet to see a meeting as it was encouraged he hold.
Here's hoping, but if it comes before City Council, we'll be able to speak there.
It has to go back before LUZ before it can go to council, as the item was deferred.
The message was clear to him: pull it.
Several council members have already told me via email responses they will NOT support the Sunset Clause.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 06, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
And thank you for coming down to oppose the sunset clause, Dashing Dan. It was nice to meet you.
I enjoyed seeing you and the rest of the group from Springfield.
Thanks to the MJ posters, I have come to believe that mothballing is more important than anything else that's on the table right now.
In our urban core, most of the harm that's been done is due to indiscriminate demolition.
TONIGHT. Maybe they'll vote and get it over with. There's no room for public comment, so I don't think we need butts in seats for this one. I'll let you know what happens.
Quote
4. 2011-577
ORD-MC Amend Chapt 307 (Historic Preservation & Protection), Ord Code, Secs 307.102 (Definitions) & 307.106 (Apv of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark Sites & Propty in Historic Dists), to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Create New Sec 307.308 (Sunset) to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Amend Chapt 518 (Jax Propty Safety & Maint Code), Sec 518.103 (Applicability) to Reflect Chapt 307 Sunsetting Secs. (Sidman) (Introduced by CM Schellenberg) (CPAC Dist 1 Letter of Opposition on file)
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 9/27/11
1. 9/13/2011 CO Introduced: LUZ
9/20/2011 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 9/27/2011 CO PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; LUZ
Bill Summary
Deferred again. Councilman Shellingburg wants to hold yet another public meeting to discuss this in spite of the fact that there has NEVER been a citizen show up in support of his ordinance at any meeting. Dude represents only himself
Quote from: sheclown on November 01, 2011, 05:10:34 PM
Deferred again. Councilman Shellingburg wants to hold yet another public meeting to discuss this in spite of the fact that there has NEVER been a citizen show up in support of his ordinance at any meeting. Dude represents only himself
this is quite interesting....and did i mention, a waste?
What a way to spend his time as a new councilmember.
Wasteful.
LUZ needs to grow a pair and take a stand on this. They told him to have a noticed meeting. He's dragging his feet and wasting money. No one has shown up to support him. We have shown up in opposition. HPC has taken a firm stand against this.
Personal vendetta and sour grapes. For what purpose?
QuoteNovember 2, 2011
9:15 p.m.
Meeting Notice
Notice is hereby given that Council Member Matt Schellenberg and Council Member Robin Lumb will meet on Monday, November 7, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in Conference Room B located at 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425, City Hall, Jacksonville, FL 32202. The meeting is to discuss the following bill:
2011-577: ORD-MC Amend Chapt 307 (Historic Preservation & Protection), Ord Code, Secs 307.102 (Definitions) & 307.106 (Apv of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark Sites & Propty in Historic Dists), to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Create New Sec 307.308 (Sunset) to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Amend Chapt 518 (Jax Propty Safety & Maint Code), Sec 518.103 (Applicability) to Reflect Chapt 307 Sunsetting Secs. (Sidman) (Introduced by CM Schellenberg) (CPAC Dist 1 Letter of Opposition on file) Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 9/27/11
All interested parties are encouraged to attend.
Please contact Audrey Braman, ECA, District 6, for additional information at 630-1388.
MMS/alb
cc: Council Members & Staff
Cheryl Brown, Director/Council Secretary
Dana Farris, Chief, Legislative Services Division
Jeff Clements, Chief, Research Division
Office of the General Counsel
Cityc@coj.net
Posted Notice Board - 1st Floor City Hall
Posted Meeting - City Council Calendar
Electronic Notification - 1st Floor City Hall
Posting to Public Notices - City Council Web Page
Media Box
Councilman Schellenberg called me yesterday in response to my last email. We talked for about 15 minutes and he genuinely wanted to know why I feel so strongly about mothballing/no sunset provision. He asked questions and explained his side of it. I told him, among other things, that I thought preserving the property was the primary goal, and that if some owner who didn't deserve a break benefited from mothballing I could live with that if the alternative was loss of another piece of our history. I didn't win him over but I appreciate the fact that he asked good questions and pressed for details and examples, etc.
I am of a mind this is going in the in the wrong direction! Mothballing, at a minimum,is cheaper than razing! Anyone has a chance to bring a house to life with something to work with. Should Councilman Shellenberg be reminded that Springfield is one heck of a chunk of HISTORICAL HOMES?
Quote from: CS Foltz on November 04, 2011, 12:49:41 PM
I am of a mind this is going in the in the wrong direction! Mothballing, at a minimum,is cheaper than razing! Anyone has a chance to bring a house to life with something to work with. Should Councilman Shellenberg be reminded that Springfield is one heck of a chunk of HISTORICAL HOMES?
Completely agree CS.... You make a very valid point.. doing a decent securing of a building so as to Mothball it for a future prospect, especially in these economic times far outweighs the cost of demolition.
Sadly , the mindset of the opposition.. We that value history are deemed a building-hugger . we must be crazy to want to save everything that is old.. Some people like the idea of cookie-cutter subdivisions and high rise glass buildings . I guess it is a matter of point of view.
History matters to me, and I know it is not my call but if it was, this is really easy.. It is SO much cheaper to mothball than to demolish.
I am hopeful Mothballing and Historic Preservation will remain in Jacksonville. Too much has fallen already. Much of it is replaced by blighted overgrown empty spaces or ugly surface parking lots that reveal a slab of what was once a landmark. Enough!
Springfield Chicken, you represent very well. Thanks for your emails, your seat occupations, your speeches to HPC, and your passion about the houses.
Hopefully, this sunset provision will be voted on soon and put to rest.
I sure hope so!
I also wish I could duplicate your efforts in my neighborhoods!
The riverside brewing district and also the jacksonville marina mile are near and dear to my heart.
I'm so proud for folks such as yourself, sheclown who take the preservation works so seriously and cheer you on as we all poopoo any provision to sunset the mothballing before it's really underway.
Cheers and critical mass of kudos to you and your team, friends and peers!
While our work is different in lakeshore and certainly in riverside where the demolitions are put to a grinding halt before they ever begin, we do have buildings to board up and keep secure from vagrants + vandals.
You inspire me thank you
ricker, thanks for the kind words.
QuoteNovember 17, 2011
11:15 a.m.
Meeting Notice
Notice is hereby given that Council Member Matt Schellenberg and Council Member Jim Love will meet on Wednesday, November 30, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in Conference Room B located at 117 West Duval Street, Suite 425, City Hall, Jacksonville, FL 32202. The meeting is to discuss the following bill:
2011-577: ORD-MC Amend Chapt 307 (Historic Preservation & Protection), Ord Code, Secs 307.102 (Definitions) & 307.106 (Apv of Changes to Landmarks, Landmark Sites & Propty in Historic Dists), to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Create New Sec 307.308 (Sunset) to allow a Sunset Provision for "Mothballing"; Amend Chapt 518 (Jax Propty Safety & Maint Code), Sec 518.103 (Applicability) to Reflect Chapt 307 Sunsetting Secs. (Sidman) (Introduced by CM Schellenberg) (CPAC Dist 1 Letter of Opposition on file) Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 9/27/11
All interested parties are encouraged to attend.
Please contact Audrey Braman, ECA, District 6, for additional information at 630-1388.
MMS/alb
cc: Council Members & Staff
Cheryl Brown, Director/Council Secretary
Dana Farris, Chief, Legislative Services Division
Jeff Clements, Chief, Research Division
Office of the General Counsel
Cityc@coj.net
Posted Notice Board - 1st Floor City Hall
Posted Meeting - City Council Calendar
Electronic Notification - 1st Floor City Hall
Posting to Public Notices - City Council Web Page
Media Box
?
Schellenberg is degenerating to a farce of a city councilman. I thought he ran (and won) to fight waste, not to be part of it.
His fellow councilmembers need to set him straight.
He is a newbie with no clue.
What an absolute waste of time.
Quote from: iloveionia on November 17, 2011, 11:37:14 PM
His fellow councilmembers need to set him straight.
He is a newbie with no clue.
What an absolute waste of time.
the part about... with no clue... says everything that can be said.
With that mentality we would have NO Historic preservation.
Hopefully he will get a clue .
Ricker , Sheclown , and all of us that represent the masses working tirelessly to save our historic places have endless work to do. I salute all efforts.
Quote from: ricker on November 05, 2011, 07:37:49 AM
I sure hope so!
I also wish I could duplicate your efforts in my neighborhoods!
The riverside brewing district and also the jacksonville marina mile are near and dear to my heart.
I'm so proud for folks such as yourself, sheclown who take the preservation works so seriously and cheer you on as we all poopoo any provision to sunset the mothballing before it's really underway.
Cheers and critical mass of kudos to you and your team, friends and peers!
While our work is different in lakeshore and certainly in riverside where the demolitions are put to a grinding halt before they ever begin, we do have buildings to board up and keep secure from vagrants + vandals.
You inspire me thank you
Ricker... your efforts can be duplicated.. you simply have to find the man power. I offer as I have offered for Springfield to help anywhere I possibly can.
Personally I have attended 4 or 5 meetings to discuss this sunset clause or to hear it discussed by others --
& I have never heard anyone agree with his position.
Now, we are looking at another noticed meeting, another LUZ meeting.
Instead of putting forth efforts toward some action which is concrete, I sit and listen to the same old song over and over -- and someone's window doesn't get rebuilt, or their wall doesn't get painted, and my grandson is not at my side, nor are my dishes getting done. And my limited volunteer hours are wasted.
But I don't cost the taxpayers money.
What has this personal crusade cost in hours of salaried employees' time? What new idea hasn't come to fruition or other problem been addressed?
This is lack of leadership, pure and simple. LUZ needs to move this along.
There is some underlying motivation why he won't drop this that needs to be delved into. Get a reporter on it. It is a total waste of our tax money to continue to bring something up that has been rejected before. Someone needs to delve into his motivation, it probably goes back to money. Get a reporter to follow the trail.
There is, most likely, a group of people who are putting him up to this, who wish to keep their agendas hidden.
They don't show up at meetings or email councilmen.
Perhaps they only write checks.
Quote from: avs on November 18, 2011, 07:33:28 AM
There is some underlying motivation why he won't drop this that needs to be delved into. Get a reporter on it. It is a total waste of our tax money to continue to bring something up that has been rejected before. Someone needs to delve into his motivation, it probably goes back to money. Get a reporter to follow the trail.
That is a stellar idea! And your theory makes a lot of sense.
deferred again
Epic waste of time.
and tax payer money
Thank you CM Schellenberg for withdrawing your sunset bill.
Yay!