I'm still trying to figure out how this is supposed to enhance the park to get more people to visit it on a regular basis. I don't know why the park would need to be closed to do any of this but here are the big ticket items for the $100,000k short term plan intended to improve the park.
$18,000 for removing 20 trees.
$30,000 for DVI to hire and employ someone to lock up chairs everyday.
$50,000 for replacing some fixed benches with removable tables and chairs.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-03-30/story/hemming-plaza-fix-price-could-start-100000-advisory-group-says
We may live in the dumbest city in America.
And I'm starting to think the dumbest country as well.
I was in Hemming Park for one of those protests the other day, and personally I was glad to have the shade. It was burning up. They need to leave well enough alone. What about putting that $100,000 towards that Homeless Day Resource Center or actually using it to help these people get back on their feet?
To remove some ailing trees makes sense. To relocate some tables for a “spreading†effect, or to remove selected tables and chairs might make some sense. However, when I heard that the intention is to gradually replace all of the permanent table / chair units with lightweight removable units, I walked out of the meeting today, not wanting to be a part of the process. I’m out. Kaput. Gone from the Hemming Park meetings. I have work to do.
Photos were presented showing the damaged tables and chairs, not giving a thought to repair or replacement of the sturdy and solid older units. Clearly the decision has already been made to replace the permanent solid table / chair units with lightweight removable units, to be chained up when not being used.
This removable table / chair unit plan is supposed to decrease the “gathering†tendency of the problem occupiers. The plan is to have no tables and chairs present in the park in the early and mid-morning periods, nor in the mid-to-late afternoon, so that the unwanted elements will not have a place to “commandeerâ€. In other words, the hope is that the unwanted element will not come into the park to “take over†an area if there are not tables and chairs for them to gather around.
This move is a partial destruction of the park, a removal of amenities and conveniences for “all†visitors, thereby insuring that some potential visitors will avoid the park. This is a case wherein frustrated committee members are intent on “doing somethingâ€, even if it is wrong, so that the effective solutions don’t have to be addressed for the moment.
We will see. And when the “problem†remains, along with the decreased attractiveness and functionality of the park, I will smile as I see the same “unwanted elements†gathering in the park, much as they do now.
The solution of course is to “take’em outâ€, to eliminate the unwanted elements with sniper fire competition, gaming one might say, using retired army snipers or perhaps currently inactive serial killers, hooded of course, who lack targets for the moment. We could make it more interesting by positioning the snipers at least three full blocks away, thereby forcing the unwanted elements to seek safety in the center of the park, as the geometry of the scenario would offer targets only on the park edges. This could be very interesting, much like our long gone ancestors of Roman times who enjoyed watching the lions devour Christians and other unfortunates. ;D
But……… seriously, we need to address the difficult but long term solutions, ones which avoid destroying the most attractive attributes of the park. Several MJ posters have talked about these solutions before. And they are positive, not destructive to the park, nor to the “unwanted elementsâ€.
What of the following positive moves, which we’ve apparently forgotten about, to gradually decrease the “habitual†park population? How about more active and aggressive long-term assistance from existing facilities for selected “park†individuals who are willing to respond to it? Some might actually get on their feet and out of the park. How about more programming of the park to “take back†areas as the events and activities are ongoing? How about a day center of some kind, at the right location? How about aggressive encouragement of neighboring workers to eat in the park, or to have meetings the park, thereby again taking over the formerly “occupied†territories from the unwanted elements?
And this is not so positive, but how about aggressive enforcement of the park rules so that gradually those who are the most undesirable in the park can be banned from the park. This alone would gradually reduce the park’s unwanted element population considerably over time.
I’ve said before that we should envision the most beautiful park, the most welcoming park, for all visitors, and we should make it so. Beautiful live oaks and welcoming solid benches, tables and chairs add to the ambience and function of a park. Destroying the park for some, destroys it for all. But yes, by some means or machinations, remove the unwanted elements via positive, or even negative and aggressive steps, but do not remove the attributes which make the park beautiful and welcoming.
I just don't see how a single thing on the short term list of "improvements" is actually an "improvement" that attracts people to spend time in the park. It appears the focus of the group is clearly to get rid of the people who currently use it and they are willing to make it worse for everyone to achieve that goal. Worse, they are willing to spend lots of public money to make it happen. We have all the potential in the world but we clearly continue to be downtown's worst enemy. It's getting to a point where people who don't want any money "wasted" downtown are starting to have a valid argument.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 31, 2012, 06:39:02 AM
I just don't see how a single thing on the short term list of "improvements" is actually an "improvement" that attracts people to spend time in the park. It appears the focus of the group is clearly to get rid of the people who currently use it and they are willing to make it worse for everyone to achieve that goal. Worse, they are willing to spend lots of public money to make it happen. We have all the potential in the world but we clearly continue to be downtown's worst enemy. It's getting to a point where people who don't want any money "wasted" downtown are starting to have a valid argument.
You're making the good sense Lake. I like to go for the ideal, or to the max on things like this, a view that occasionally gets me in trouble, as it sometimes ignores subtle realities which, although small, can bring good results. Therefore I am inclined to sweep aside any attempts to limit the park's attractiveness, and to go to the "max" for making the park "ideal", a park which could be a statement of excellence, which will be a continual draw to all people entering the area.
In my view, replacing the solid table / chair units with lightweight units which surely will "wiggle" when sat upon, and project a scene of cheapness, is not a move to maximize the park's function and beauty. Who wants to see a stack of tables / chairs, plastic or PVC tables, along the park? Who wants to request a table / chair be set out for use? Who wants to visit the park for a moment, to sit upon a table at 3:00 p.m., and find them locked up? Who wants to spend the money to achieve mediocrity and partially destructive results, when there are solid positives to work upon? Who wants to pay people to move tables and chairs every day of the year?
BTW, I just received an email from someone, bashing me for my comment above about the Christians being fed to the lions in Roman times. I don't find it humorous to reflect upon those times of persecution. My point was that the event of the sniper competition to clear the park, admittedly a bit of cynicism, and of course offered in a joking manner, would in some ways be similar to the historical event of the Christians being fed to the lions.... if that is in fact true. I must find somewhere a book of the era and check it out.
Any park action taken should be to resolve the unwanted element problem via solid, long term moves, because these people will come, and will commandere the park, no matter if the tables and chairs are there or not. We must look to the long run, to a point after which the "problem" is finally solved by whatever means. After that point, will we have the partially destroyed park, or will we have the ideal and beautiful park which will offer enjoyment for anyone who comes into the area?
To all those that know that this proposal is not the fix downtown needs but rather the death knoll for the park, I will remind you that this still has to go in front of city council. You have an army of people who use the park regularly, whether you like all of them or not, who also have the right to speak for 3 minutes at city council. Walking out of meetings while it is easier on you lets the others win. Only by getting in their faces and telling them loud and clear that they are wrong will you ever be able to beat them.
The improvements to this park as listed do exactly what they want them too. It moves a group of people they do not want to see out of the park. While it is said not to be racially motivated, it is most certainly social economically motivated and that is just as bad.
The correct fixes to the real problem have been mentioned on this forum. Everyone knows what they are and knows also that they would be the right things to do. However, they are not easy and they do not eliminate that group of people quickly enough, so here we are.
The actions being proposed have nothing to do making with downtown better, they are indeed all about prosecuting a section of the population that uses the park.
If downtown matters to you, you know what you have to do. Do you have the courage to do it?
We could mothball a lot of historic structures with 100k What a freakin' waste of money.
Admittedly, walking out of the meeting was somewhat cowardly, but that's my nature, as I am not a good speaker. But too, my walking out was a statement that something is not all good, fuzzy and agreeable with the situation of the park project. This is the beginning of my probable exit of all meetings about downtown. Does anybody care? Don't give a damn. I have work to do.
I am concerned about downtown however, and about the park, and will continue to use whatever assets I have -- money, work, and, mental exercises (thought) to assist ultimately in its improvement. I will, if permitted, continue to offer my opinions on MJ, and perhaps send emails to individuals who happen to be "involved" and open to receiving emails on certain subjects.
Get enough people to walk out, and they wouldn't have a quorum to be able to do business.
Quote from: ronchamblin on March 31, 2012, 09:09:42 AM
Admittedly, walking out of the meeting was somewhat cowardly, but that's my nature, as I am not a good speaker. But too, my walking out was a statement that something is not all good, fuzzy and agreeable with the situation of the park project. This is the beginning of my probable exit of all meetings about downtown. Does anybody care? Don't give a damn. I have work to do.
I am concerned about downtown however, and about the park, and will continue to use whatever assets I have -- money, work, and, mental exercises (thought) to assist ultimately in its improvement. I will, if permitted, continue to offer my opinions on MJ, and perhaps send emails to individuals who happen to be "involved" and open to receiving emails on certain subjects.
I do not think that walking out of that meeting was cowardly. Perhaps not the best tactic but if you were cowardly, you would not have been there to start with. I fully understand why one walks in cases like that. I have done the same in the past, but then learned to regret it. However, none of that changes what must be done, does it? The question becomes, are you the one to do it?
Of course the table and chair contract won't be bidded out...rather automatically awarded to Presentation Resources. ::)
This proposal is all "stick" and no "carrot". It attempts to punish the "undesirables" and offers no improvements to the "desirables" to attract them. Also why can't ailing trees be replaced instead of removed?
It's not the chairs and tables that bring out the undesirables but the location. If ALL the chairs and tables are removed they will just sit on the planters and the ground, continuing as if nothing happened.
You can't shoot them, can't feed them to the lions and certainly can't intimidate them with stern looks and mousy rhetoric. $30 grand a year, perpetually, for a table and chair monitor is stupid. Cheap fold-ups are stupid. How many of these removable chairs will end up down by the creek or on the next block? How often will they need to be replaced because of theft or damage. Extra insurance might be needed because someone will fall over and blame it on the cheap chairs.
I still think that the number of permanent, sturdy benches, chairs and tables should be at least doubled and, of course, spread out throughout the park. Then, aggressive police presence (there are enough officers in the general area to cover the manpower need) to really enforce park rules and general interpersonal etiquette would go a long way in reducing so-called undesirables. That, and the perusal of other avenues to otherwise occupy and amuse the "homeless" away from the park.
Park maintenance should be ongoing and not just a knee jerk response to the sky is falling. Unsafe tree limbs should always be addressed in a timely fashion. If the park is dingy there should be an ongoing effort with pressure washers, brooms or leaf blowers as well is the pruning and pickup always needed to keep a place looking spiffy.
Next year there is going to be a huge art undertaking throughout the area. How do you think we are going to entice artists to participate and the voting public to wander about downtown enjoying the art and voting on the mega prizes? Where are the venues? Which businesses are going to sign up to host the artists? Ron, are you in on this and will you host displays in and in front of your business? Making the center of downtown a no man's land just because our leadership cannot seem to get a handle on perceived problems foretells disaster for Dr. Wood's vision.
The "solution" to the Hemming plaza "problem" is a total WASTE to TAX payers. I would like to see who on the city council actually votes to spend 100k on park improvements. Where would they be getting this money from? I thought the city was facing budget cuts.
Also, I've been to Hemming Plaza at all hours of the day and I've never felt unsafe. The park is already patrolled by the police and there are cameras everywhere. If people feel sooo unsafe about visiting Hemming Plaza with the current police presence, perhaps they should choose another park to visit.
Throwing 100k at this situation is the wrong thing to do. I have not been active in the Hemming Plaza meetings however, if this "solution" gains anymore traction, i am willing to join the fight against this boondoggle. The citizens must take a stand or else government will spend spend spend
Actually Strider, walking out was kinda fun. I was Walter Mittying, imagining I was at a United Nations Meeting, and that I was walking out in a huff like the Russians or the Chinese. It was such a rush, perhaps it might be enough to allow me to attend other meetings.
But yes, I do have difficulty speaking in front of more than three people. The pressure of being self-conscious overcomes the ability think and speak about what one really wants to convey. So, I suspect that for the rest of my life, I will simply convey most of my ideas via writing. This shows the value of online forums like MJ. The forum gives people like me, who are uncomfortable at meetings in crowded rooms, a chance to “talk†in front of people without really being in the room.
I suspect that there are those in the city council, and others associated with the city, who read the MJ forum discussions. So it is good for all MJ posters to speak their minds on subjects in which they feel qualified or interested.
And yes, Ralph Whiskey, I am engaging the art project.
Hemming Park is the birthplace of the city's civic life. It should be a great place. I disagree that the solution to its current challenges is to make it so uninviting for everyone that NO ONE wants to be there.
Who has authored this solution, and who is leading the decision-making process?
Ridiculous! The best thing about the park is the trees. How unbearable will it be in the summer without shade. What fools thought of this?
And it's awesome that there are a lot of people playing chess there every day. The funny thing is that if we were in Rome and they were a bunch of old Italian men playing chess, everyone would be like, oh, I love Rome and all the people outside having heated discussions and playing chess, etc. But since they are black guys, they are undesirables! Humans and their prejudices are such strange things!
I have never felt uncomfortable at the park. No one has ever bothered me. I like trees and chairs.
COJ, if you do this, everyone will know it is only to clear out the poor from the park.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2012, 02:24:08 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on March 31, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
Hemming Park is the birthplace of the city's civic life. It should be a great place. I disagree that the solution to its current challenges is to make it so uninviting for everyone that NO ONE wants to be there.
Who has authored this solution, and who is leading the decision-making process?
Denise Lee and Don Redman, the solutions are pushed by Jerry Morans group of merchants
What angle is Jerry pushing?? Is this all about his business? Or is it something more...
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2012, 03:25:02 PM
Quote from: ben says on March 31, 2012, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2012, 02:24:08 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on March 31, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
Hemming Park is the birthplace of the city's civic life. It should be a great place. I disagree that the solution to its current challenges is to make it so uninviting for everyone that NO ONE wants to be there.
Who has authored this solution, and who is leading the decision-making process?
Denise Lee and Don Redman, the solutions are pushed by Jerry Morans group of merchants
What angle is Jerry pushing?? Is this all about his business? Or is it something more...
His business and his 1962 era politics
Jerry: people won't visit your restaurant because you charge $30 dollars for a plate of pasta, talk everyones ear off, and your (quite frankly) racist intermeddling on the issue of the park. People aren't avoiding your business because there's people sitting in the park. Get a grip.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2012, 10:14:02 AM
Why dont we just offer a hundred thousand dollars to the 'undesirable' group to stay away from the park for a year?
You could probably convince the entire clique to do it for 50 thousand dollars plus access to a bathroom.
Better yet, give me and the remaining Northbank workers $1k a piece if we sign a contract to eat our lunches in the park. You'll fill the park and save $70k or so in cash. However, I'd like as many trees to stay as possible. Slavery is over. No need for a brother to bake in the sun if he doesn't have too.
I am at Hemming at least once a month for artwalk. I have not noticed a lot of problems with the tables and chairs. I sit at them when I am there. If their are a few that need repair or replacement then repair or replace them. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water. As for being intimidated I have only had one issue in the year that I have been going. A drunk asked me for some money and I didn't happen to have any extra and would not take no for an answer until I told him to go fuck himself. Problem solved in short order but of not their were 3-4 uniformed officers a short distance away that didn't bother to intervene at all. Had my wife been there by herself she would have felt very intimidated by that. This town is backwards it always has been since I was a kid and it continues that fine tradition.
It’s comforting that I’m getting some support on MJ for my position of being gentle with the park; that is, not getting carried away with the removal of trees and tables / chairs. Actually, in fairness to the park villains, the current plan is, if I am not mistaken, to remove only the damaged or diseased trees, and not to remove them all. I do hope however that they replace the removed trees with teenage trees, as there are few things in nature as beautiful and calming as a tree. We humans have experienced the beauty of trees for eons, as we have the sky and the earth, allowing me to suspect that there is something within the human psyche which allows comfort and pleasure as we view and feel these aspects of nature. So yes….. city council persons, let us have the trees, the beautiful live oaks in amongst the concrete of the city core.
It seems to me that the mayor and the city council are very determined to get something done “now†about Hemming Park. And this pressure is being placed upon the individuals and committees, who are impatient too. All of this frustration, determination, and impatience is driving many to do “somethingâ€, “anything†to solve the “problemâ€.
We shouldn’t have to spend lots of money on the park. Any money spent should be on overall enhancements, and not on awkward changes to force out undesirables, who should be addressed in more effective ways. All the park really needs is several tree replacements, some refurbishing of existing furniture, creative programming, encouragement of locals to use the park, engaging needy individuals hanging out in the park with a view to taking them to a position of self-sufficiency, and strict enforcement of the rules so that gradual banning will reduce the occupier level to one that is tolerable. Anything more is a waste of time and money, and will do nothing for the long term goals of the park.
If it was April 1st, I would have assumed this was an April fool's joke. I can't believe this is real.
We had a great food truck bazaar at Bold City Brewery that attracted hundreds of residents today despite the rain. Something like it could be programmed at Hemming Plaza in less than a month for pennies on a dollar. Another idea would be to designate Monroe and Duval Streets as everyday drive up locations. Then take that $100k we're about to waste and invest it in a children's playscape or tot lot, to attract groups taking field trips to the museum and library. The extra foot traffic will naturally run off the bad element (there's nothing wrong with the old guys playing chess, so I don't consider them bad, imo). Concepts like this would bring more people into the park in the short term than anything this committee cooks up.
While we rebuild Hemming Plaza, has the mayor rebuilt the southbank riverwalk? I mean I am sure that Hemming Plaza has a STRONG number of tourists on a daily basis and the investment will be worth every penny, compared to fixing something that is used daily by residents and tourists. But hey, what do we know? Fix the fountain, but let the boards and riverwalk continue to rot.
QuoteHemming Park is the birthplace of the city's civic life. It should be a great place.
Wow, I did not know the river wound its way through Hemming Plaza, but that is an amazing statement.
QuoteI think the key word is "civic" life, rather than economic or political, mtrain.
Stephen, gotcha, I understand, more people visit Hemming Plaza each day, than do the river. I can't wait to see folks kayak through Hemming Plaza.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 31, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
We had a great food truck bazaar at Bold City Brewery that attracted hundreds of residents today despite the rain. Something like it could be programmed at Hemming Plaza in less than a month for pennies on a dollar. Another idea would be to designate Monroe and Duval Streets as everyday drive up locations. Then take that $100k we're about to waste and invest it in a children's playscape or tot lot, to attract groups taking field trips to the museum and library. The extra foot traffic will naturally run off the bad element (there's nothing wrong with the old guys playing chess, so I don't consider them bad, imo). Concepts like this would bring more people into the park in the short term than anything this committee cooks up.
I do not think we could do a tot lot at this point. Ron Littlepage has spent the last two months trying his best to convince people that they would rather be in Syria right now than Hemming. That has caused groups have started to avoid trips and tours to that area. Which Mr. Littlepage has reported as though their fear were caused by actual experience and not his columns.
What a comedy of errors....you'd think the place was being occupied by lepers. To a lot of people, I guess these people are lepers. Makes me sick.
And with all due respect, I don't think Jerry deserves one iota of business.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2012, 06:27:52 PM
Great posts Ron. I think if you refer to the new plan for the park, the plan is to remove all of the trees and replace them with flower beds.
I got a brief look at a design for the park which was done several years ago. Today, I attempted to locate the proposed design on the Internet but without success. The comments I've heard about the plan is that it is only 60% complete, and that there is no money to do the work now. But you are correct, the park is to be flattened, and there are to be almost no trees, but there will be flower beds. I cannot recall if there are to be benches. Surely however. I cannot imagine a park without some benches.
In any case, I'm not sure of the motivation to change the park so extensively anyway. I suspect however that the reasoning is that "IF" the park has no clusters of tables and benches, and has no clear open areas where groups can meet and gather, and has only somewhat narrow pathways through the flower beds and hedges, then that is to be the solution to the commandeering problem. And to some degree, it makes sense, as the new design would only invite a stroll down the narrow paths through the park. It's just that the new design, if implemented, would not be as welcoming or interesting as is the current Hemming. The new design definitely projects a different park environment, with a quite different function and use scenario.
Ron, if you feel uncomfortable addressing the council, do what I do. Write out a statement ahead of time, and bring it along. If someone else addresses something ahead of me, I cross that off. If I think of something I need to add, I'll jot it on my written copy. But I have something written out ahead of time that I can read if I freeze up or start babbling, which I have been know to do. :-)
I hate the plan to change Hemming. I think it's just beautiful as it is. A treeless lawn is certainly not conducive to visitors.
If it's coming before council, and you know when, please post it here.
If the trees are removed from Hemming Plaza, it will be a useless as the 'new' plaza across from the Library on Main St.
If this happens, I will have no choice but to give up what little hope I still have for Jacksonville. The very stupidity of this idea is mind-boggling.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 01, 2012, 09:26:59 AM
If the trees are removed from Hemming Plaza, it will be a useless as the 'new' plaza across from the Library on Main St.
+1 Great Point.
These guys are quite the think tank. Ron you should set them straight. The dvi's ideas are are so counterproductive.
When I oppose something such as the proposed changes to the park, and when I view the proposal as something stupid, I begin to wonder by what bit of ignorance I continue to hold my opposition. In some respects, I failed the test of honesty at the meetings because my nature prevented me from forcing clarity of purpose from those at the meetings so that I might replace my bit of ignorance with convencing information, if there is to be any, and therefore I deserve for the moment to be on the losing side of the debate.
If I had had the mettle to force my opinions upon these individuals, most of whom are well meaning and considerate, and to force their opinions clearly upon me, the direction in which we are now heading, might not be. But of course there is time for continued input, and therefore time to turn things more favorably to us.
When one cannot understand the logic or sense of a decision, when one simply cannot fathom the reasons for what one considers to be a somewhat stupid action, one might find that within the dynamics lies motives not relevant to the fundamental purpose of the whole scenario, but one might find motives related to money, power, contracts, job security, or agency security â€" all of which is somewhat understandable, but not too much so, as it is this kind of hogwash which spoils genuine efforts to get the best things done in a city environment.
Perhaps some at the city council will see our comments and will place our reasoning upon their brains as they soon consider the fate of the park and its trees, tables, chairs and benches; and of course the fate of the people about whom this whole conversation is really about.
I agree with Stephen Dare that the city has supplanted Hemming Plaza's historic role as a center of our civic life. Yes, the city's commerce revolved around the river, but the river was a victim of benign neglect as wharves and warehouses populated the riverfront. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the river was more of an afterthought as the city aggressively moved government buildings and parking lots to the river but placed no public parks on the river - except for Friendship Park on the opposite bank of the river. It would be years before we had Metropolitan Park and the Jacksonville Landing. By then, the focus of city life did shift from the dying retail center around Hemming Plaza to the new Rouse development at the Landing. It was indeed Hemming Park that was the spiritual heart of downtown before city priorities went elsewhere. I remember the darker days of Hemming Plaza when former JCpenney, May-Cohen, and Woolworth locations stood empty and the plaza was all but abandoned by major retail.
Quote from: stephendare on April 01, 2012, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on April 01, 2012, 10:11:04 AM
These guys are quite the think tank. Ron you should set them straight. The dvi's ideas are are so counterproductive.
Well, I knew the hundred thousand dollar figure was too good to be true.
heres the latest update from the committee.
Naturally DVI will need thirty thousand dollars a year to oversee the removable furniture.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2012-03-30/hemming-plaza-fix-could-cost-100000-now-more-later
QuoteCleaning up Hemming Plaza in downtown Jacksonville could cost less than $100,000 - but that will be just a start toward a long-term fix, a group reporting to a City Council committee concluded Friday.
A subcommittee reporting to a council committee examining the park in front of City Hall said some rusting metal furniture should be replaced with movable tables and chairs, and some trees should be cut down.
The costs in the short-term work include a projected $30,000 yearly for downtown ambassadors employed by Donwtown Vision Inc. to clean and maintain moveable furniture, which would be staged and locked up when it's not in use. The subcommittee, a mix of city employees and neighboring business owners, initially budgeted $50,000 for replacing all the park tables and chairs. They later agreed much of the existing furnitue could stay, so the real price would be less, but a firm cost hasn't been set
Hey, I'll do it for $25,000 a year!! Are we putting this out to bid?
Quote from: Jaxson on April 01, 2012, 04:44:38 PM
I agree with Stephen Dare that the city has supplanted Hemming Plaza's historic role as a center of our civic life. Yes, the city's commerce revolved around the river, but the river was a victim of benign neglect as wharves and warehouses populated the riverfront. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the river was more of an afterthought as the city aggressively moved government buildings and parking lots to the river but placed no public parks on the river - except for Friendship Park on the opposite bank of the river. It would be years before we had Metropolitan Park and the Jacksonville Landing. By then, the focus of city life did shift from the dying retail center around Hemming Plaza to the new Rouse development at the Landing. It was indeed Hemming Park that was the spiritual heart of downtown before city priorities went elsewhere. I remember the darker days of Hemming Plaza when former JCpenney, May-Cohen, and Woolworth locations stood empty and the plaza was all but abandoned by major retail.
Makes sense Jaxson. What does this idea of shifting retail centers mean for the future of Hemming? How should the change in the center of retail affect the attention given to Hemming? Should Hemming still be given importance as being the center of the north core area? If Hemming "was" something, what should it be now?
It's obvious to me that since we've surrounded it by government and cultural uses, it should become more of a "civic" square. It should be a place where public speeches are given (like it used to be). It should be a central green space within a concrete downtown core (which it used to be). It should be a comfortable place for pedestrians with amenities (like public restrooms....like it used to be). It should be surrounding by pedestrian scale uses that activate the park's perimeter (like it used to be). Imo, just about anything else (giving DVI $30k a year for a chair shuffler, etc.) over complicates the situation and potentially makes it worse than it is today.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 31, 2012, 09:39:53 PM
Ron, if you feel uncomfortable addressing the council, do what I do. Write out a statement ahead of time, and bring it along. If someone else addresses something ahead of me, I cross that off. If I think of something I need to add, I'll jot it on my written copy. But I have something written out ahead of time that I can read if I freeze up or start babbling, which I have been know to do. :-)
I hate the plan to change Hemming. I think it's just beautiful as it is. A treeless lawn is certainly not conducive to visitors.
If it's coming before council, and you know when, please post it here.
There is an Urban Core CPAC meeting today at the Ed Ball building. What is their position? Have they taken one? I'm going to try and make it.
I have emailed one of the CPAC members to express frustration with the Hemming Plaza ideas
It sounds to me like DVI wants to destroy Hemming Plaza, limit food trucks and tear down buildings. With that being that case, why would be even considering "recommendations" from them? That are complete idiots.
^It's definitely been a rough week for DVI. All three positions regarding Hemming Plaza, food trucks and demolishing the courthouse/courthouse annex without a redevelopment plan are horrible decisions from an urban planning and downtown revitalization standpoint. All three are positions one would expect an entity with a suburban oriented mindset to recommend. They would have been better off just skipping the meetings and not taking a position either way.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 10:37:47 AM
^It's definitely been a rough week for DVI. All three positions regarding Hemming Plaza, food trucks and demolishing the courthouse/courthouse annex without a redevelopment plan are horrible decisions from an urban planning and downtown revitalization standpoint. All three are positions one would expect an entity with a suburban oriented mindset to recommend.
I am sure glad that they are not the ulitmate decision makers in this city our we'd be in serious trouble. I hope the mayors office shoots down everything they come to the table with.
I have a lot of respect for DVI and the people involved. I'm very disappointed by this recommendation. "Vision" indeed.
This is what happens when you have a Board made up of inviduals who aren't experts in the entity they oversee.
Appreciate your drift DD08. Actually, although it is possible that DVI, or certain persons within it, might disagree with some on the outside of DVI, I must say that DVI overall has had, in my opinion, a very positive affect on the downtown core over recent years. Somebody or some agency has to do the kind of things they've done, and are doing. There existence allows me to relate it to the scenario wherein one doesn't value something until it is gone.
If DVI had not been here, doing many things behind the scenes over recent years, you would see a very different downtown core. DVI attempts to be, in my opinion, sensitive to the pressure of outside influence and the desires of the concerned individuals in the city core. The vocal opposition to the actions and opinions expressed by DVI is being monitored by DVI I'm sure. That's what dialogue and debate is all about.
There are always differences in opinion, some quite different, almost volatile. Thank goodness we have the opportunity for debate, much of which is offered on this MJ forum, which in my opinion is each year becoming a greater vehicle for gaining consensus and making the right things happen in the Jax city core.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 10:37:47 AM
^It's definitely been a rough week for DVI. All three positions regarding Hemming Plaza, food trucks and demolishing the courthouse/courthouse annex without a redevelopment plan are horrible decisions from an urban planning and downtown revitalization standpoint. All three are positions one would expect an entity with a suburban oriented mindset to recommend. They would have been better off just skipping the meetings and not taking a position either way.
Ennis - Off topic of this discussion, but how would you feel if there WERE well-conceived plans for the courthouse/annex sites?
Steve, to be honest, I personally feel like the courthouse annex would be an ideal property to issue an RFP for a market rate adaptive reuse project. IMO, the foot print would be suitable for affordable housing and a mix of other uses, including a mix of retail and entertainment oriented uses around outdoor courtyards/malls/plaza at street level.
The courthouse site and the parking lot behind it, makes sense for a vertical/mixed-use convention center, assuming such a project is feasible.
In either event (I won't lose sleep if the buildings aren't preserved), I think its pretty backwards to spend millions demolishing both sites without first having a committed redevelopment plan. The last thing downtown needs is more abandoned lots (planting sod doesn't make it a park, just look at the shipyards). Based on the city's history, I feel if these buildings are demolished without really considering anything else, we'll end up with two extra blocks of Northbank land that will sit empty for more than a decade.
Quotewithout first having a committed redevelopment plan
And that includes the bonding capacity to come up with the public side of the money (we all know there are private interests discussing the Hyatt extension portion).
Honestly, I don't care if they demolish the courthouse building, but I think the old City Hall building could be reused.
QuoteIn either event (I won't lose sleep if the buildings aren't preserved), I think its pretty backwards to spend millions demolishing both sites without first having a committed redevelopment plan. The last thing downtown needs is more abandoned lots (planting sod doesn't make it a park, just look at the shipyards). Based on the city's history, I feel if these buildings are demolished without really considering anything else, we'll end up with two extra blocks of Northbank land that will sit empty for more than a decade.
Lake, nothing is going to happen for a while. The City stopped all construction in the old Courthouse, so Corey and her group are going to be in the Annex for a while, at least until Brown can find money to continue the build out. Public Defender is already moved to the Godbold building, so that building is now another issue of what to do with it, I believe that one though is on the National Registry of Historic Buildings, having been a pharmacy or some medical building.
The Annex could be used to house other city services that Brown and Hand have been moving back to downtown, after Peyton expanded the locations around town. There is still empty space in City Hall, for that matter, so space for the City is not an issue, but as you rightly pointed out, neither is money for the tear down of old buildings. Maybe Brown will throw out another "Public-Private" initiative for the demolition of the buildings, if they come to that status.
They've run out of money to finish the old federal courthouse?
Quote from: fsujax on April 02, 2012, 10:43:30 AM
This is what happens when you have a Board made up of inviduals who aren't experts in the entity they oversee.
you mean like some other governmental entities in town?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
Steve, to be honest, I personally feel like the courthouse annex would be an ideal property to issue an RFP for a market rate adaptive reuse project. IMO, the foot print would be suitable for affordable housing and a mix of other uses, including a mix of retail and entertainment oriented uses around outdoor courtyards/malls/plaza at street level.
The courthouse site and the parking lot behind it, makes sense for a vertical/mixed-use convention center, assuming such a project is feasible.
In either event (I won't lose sleep if the buildings aren't preserved), I think its pretty backwards to spend millions demolishing both sites without first having a committed redevelopment plan. The last thing downtown needs is more abandoned lots (planting sod doesn't make it a park, just look at the shipyards). Based on the city's history, I feel if these buildings are demolished without really considering anything else, we'll end up with two extra blocks of Northbank land that will sit empty for more than a decade.
The parking lot behind the courthouse is built on pilings and the river is extremely deep in this location. Based on the necessary structural requirements and ongoing maintenance for a vertical mixed use development/convention center, it may be a less-than-viable proposition economically.
I'd suggest that the city's investment in these sites - as GREAT civic space - may help catalyze the Bay Street district and strengthen the connection between the downtown core and stadium district (both of which are stated objectives of the city).
I wouldn't be in favor of demolishing these buildings just for the sake of demolishing them without a well-conceived long term strategy. And I think the assumption that the courthouse parking lot can be converted to a high-load structure should be more carefully vetted.
^I agree. I think the entire future of both sites should be fully vetted before demolition of any structure located on them comes up for discussion. That's basically my main gripe about the situation. To a degree, its telling that we're having this discussion now. Frankly, the future of these sites should have been vetted a decade ago.
the courthouse lot would be the same situation as the Hyatt....did they rebuild/reinforce those pilings when building the hotel?
Any new structure of significant size would have its own pilings driven into the river. This would go for that parking deck site and the current courthouse building sites.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 02, 2012, 10:20:05 PM
the courthouse lot would be the same situation as the Hyatt....did they rebuild/reinforce those pilings when building the hotel?
As I understand:
Hyatt = City Land (historically) - city constructed seawall and filled, for parking and later hotel
Courthouse Parking = County Land (historically) - county constructed parking on pilings.
^Either way, the Hyatt has pilings driven deep into the ground. Anything constructed over next door would have to be the same, regardless of the construction of parking on pilings and it won't be cheap. All the more reason why the future of these sites should be fully vetted before demolishing the structures. I could definitely see a case, where we spend millions to demolish and then decide the site isn't feasible for whatever new use is cooked up, ultimately leaving us with a few more extra blocks of dead zones.
Back to Hemming Plaza...here's a note I received from a neighbor who attended the Urban Core CPAC meeting last night
Last night the UC CPAC approved the UC CPAC Parks Review Committee's Hemming Plaza recommendations: revitalize Hemming Plaza by (a) making Hemming more attractive using flower beds and grassy areas; (b) remove tables and chairs and keep benches only; (c) increase police presence with foot patrols; (d) create an area for children and families; (e) stage programmed events at Hemming; and, (f) install bicycles racks to encourage bicyclists to come to Hemming Plaza. CM Lee's aide attended the UC CPAC meeting and briefed us on the various recommendations to the Ad Hoc Committee Ms. Lee chairs.
he also told me that the City Council Ad Hoc committee is meeting this Wednesday to accept the final report and recommendations.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 02, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
They've run out of money to finish the old federal courthouse?
from the T-U this morning
Quote
Later in the afternoon meeting, Brown’s chief of staff, Chris Hand, said work on the old federal courthouse that will house the State Attorney's Office would be bid out in coming months. The bid specifications will allow options on what sort of walkway is proposed, including an elevated one.
Design work on the building is being done by AECOM services and should be completed in about 60 days, after which the bids will go out.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-04-03/story/councilwoman-pressures-city-chief-judge-duval-courthouse-savings#ixzz1qyllacfw
$100,000 to destroy beautiful trees and wreck a nice area is not the way to solve this problem. Jacksonville can't be the only city to face this issue and I'll bet it's been solved elsewhere with less destructive ideas. This one is one of the all time dumbest I've ever heard!
You can add flowers without taking out the trees, plenty of flowers grow well in shade.
How is taking away the beauty and shade of the tree canopy, going to make families want to drive past the parks in their own neighborhoods, to go to this one?
Is there some sort of presentation or report that details this plan? Can MJ post it as a cover story?
I just read through the meeting minutes. The tree canopy removal seems to focus on creating sight lines for security cameras at the expense of the park user's comfortability, based on the meeting minutes.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/council-committees,-boards---commissions/hemming-plaza-subcommittee.aspx
Unless, there is something not mentioned in the minutes, some of the committee's recommendations are the complete opposite of the public survey they conducted.
QuoteThe Chair announced that the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the findings of the Survey Monkey that sought to gauge how visitors to Hemming Plaza felt about the plaza---its potential and shortcomings. Amy Harrell, Downtown Vision, Inc., who designed the survey, led the review. Printed copies of the survey had been distributed for the meeting’s attendees to follow. The preliminary results were from a 6-day period on the websites. The preliminary findings of the survey quantified responses on how often people visited the park (noting those that either lived or worked within 4 blocks of the park and other); when they visit, how long do individuals spend in the park; what do you do when you visit the park? (eat a meal, attend an event, for a meeting, relax, visiting friends, other); what do you like about the park? The survey’s responses indicated that people wanted to enjoy the park and wanted to feel safe while visiting the park. Respondents want to see food vendors and family events. Respondents were not in favor of removing tables and chairs from the park.
660 of the survey’s responses were from individuals who either lived or worked within four blocks of the park, representing 58% of the survey.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - March 21, 2012Anyway, here are some quotes cut and pasted from various meetings:
The mission of the committeeQuoteThe Chair reiterated what the objectives of the Committee were: namely, to make Hemming Plaza safe and secure for all who visited the park. While the focus of the Committee’s work is the park, the homeless in the park is an ancillary issue. She reviewed concerns raised at the last Committee meeting. The Council President is expecting the Committee’s recommendations at the end of March.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - January 19, 2012Sub-committee members:QuoteThose appointed to the sub-committee are: Terry Lorrince (Downtown Vision), Jerry Moran (La Cena Ristorante), Chris Warren (Chamber of Commerce), Stephen Dare (Metro Jax), Ron Chamblin (Chamblin Uptown), Sheriff John Rutherford (or a representative), Fred Sarkees (Mental Health Resource Center), Karen Nasrallah, Jacksonville Economic Development Commission), Assistant General Counsel Jason Teal, Mr. Hudson (Bryan Building proprietor), and a Salvation Army representative.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - January 19, 2012New York City's Bryant Park as an exampleQuoteSubcommittee Chairman Kelley Boree opened the meeting by stating the focus would be limited to park design and programing. She gave a short presentation showing how Bryant Park in New York City, while much larger than Hemming Plaza, has many similarities. Bryant Park was transformed from a place of crime and drug use to a popular place for families, tourists and city residents. The park was redesigned, removing much of the overgrown bushes and trees that improved sight lines and increased safety.
She suggested similar changes for Hemming Plaza. Because diseased trees need to be removed, a design by HDR shows 60 percent of what a redesigned Hemming Plaza would look like. However, it should be noted that there is currently no funding for this project and that the 60 percent plan is not detailed enough to go out for bid. It suggests a single level plaza that offers better sight lines and removing the fountain on Laura Street. Boree invited suggestions from those in attendance. They included:
Adding parking to Monroe Street between Hogan and Laura Streets. Also in that area, the bordering streets should be made available to expand the park for special events when needed.
Better programming of activities in the park.
Arrange for food trucks to come to the park regularly to offer a variety of non-competing lunch items.
As to not offer competition to existing businesses, carts that offer Shaved Ice were suggested.
Once the park is redesigned, local garden clubs could adopt parts of the park to offer landscaping and upkeep.
Art in the park on a daily basis was suggested. Local artist could create in the park and give demonstrations and lessons at the same time.
Allow MOCA to use the park as an annex to display statues and other art.
Movies in the park.
Amplified bands should be discouraged from performing at night.
Look for seasonal events like ice skating.
The current permanent tables, benches and chairs should be removed.
Offer something to attract those who go to church downtown to come to the park after services.
There is a need for increased police presence. Some suggested having JSO in the park from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Offer the stage for afternoon school band performances (quartets mainly).
Look to include buskers like jugglers and magicians.
Bring in Expos for bicycle riders and golfers. Let businesses set up booths to draw interest into the park.
Events should expose people to the parking on the Southbank and encourage them to ride the Skyway to Hemming Plaza.
Area offices should be encouraged to hold staff meetings in the park.
Need to find a revenue-generating source for the park.
Have Dalton Advertising do PSAs once the programming begins.
The need for a stage was discussed. One would be needed but no consensus was reached as to its size or location. However, it was agreed that if the stage was raised too high it would provide a hiding place for vagrants to break the law undetected. A discussion about permanent restrooms resulted in most of the group agreeing that they would attract vagrants and pose a staffing problem.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2012Topic of Removing Tables, Chairs & BenchesQuoteThe discussion then turned to the removal of tables and chairs in the park. While some called for the removal of all the tables, chairs and benches and making Hemming Plaza a passive walk through green space, others felt that would limit park usage. It was agreed that the corner near Laura and Duval Streets was often too densely populated with card players and those watching the games. The number of chairs, tables and benches in such a close proximity made that section of the park loud and a problem area.
Boree explained that the Park and Recreation department could not remove the tables, chairs and benches without the approval and direction of the Mayor’s office.
Amy Harrell of DVI proposed that instead of removing benches, that they be moved to the perimeter of the park and face the streets to discourage large groups of people congregating in a small area in the park.
If temporary tables and chairs were to be used as they were in the past, it was estimated that each set of a table and four chairs would cost about $1,000. When DVI did this in the past, there was no charge and the tables and chairs were available from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. There would also be added expense to clean the tables and chairs daily.
Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2012The Subcommittee's RecommendationsQuoteThe Chair asked for the Subcommittee report that included recommendations to make the park more attractive to office workers and downtown visitors. The recommendations included conducting both an online and in person use surveys, the removal of distressed trees and replace low growing plants, remove some benches to discourage large groups from congregating in a single area, identified the Northeast portion of the park near Duval and Laura Streets as a problem area and suggested removing tables from that area first, asked for increased police presence, suggested that Downtown Vision handle the assignment of setting up temporary chairs and tables if the permanent ones are removed. Other suggestions included a greater presence by the Hope Team to address homeless issues, increase park programming, and consider hiring a private security company to augment the JSO officers who from time to time have to be called away from Hemming Plaza.
CM Gulliford appreciated the recommendations but suggested actions be more pro-active rather than reactive when considering the park. He suggested the formation of a “Friends of Hemming Plaza†to help invigorate the park and bring about positive programming to draw new potential users.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2012Why Close The Park For An Extended Period Of Time?QuoteAt the close of the meeting, Lorince suggested that Parks and Recreation consider closing the park for 2 or 3 weeks when the trees, benches, tables and chairs are removed. It will put people on notice that changes are occurring to the park. When reopened, stake holders would be encouraged to recruit at least 50 people a weekday to eat lunch in the park.
Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - February 22, 2012Removing Benches, Tables, and ChairsQuoteThe status of removing benches, tables and chairs was brought up. CM Lee read the written “Hemming Plaza Sub-Committee Recommendations†(included in Minutes package). The sub-committee suggested the following:
• Keep 15 to 20 benches but distribute them throughout the park.
• Recommended that DVI oversee the utilization and storage of tables and chairs.
• The moveable tables and chairs would be in the park from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
• Recommended purchasing 30 tables and 100 chairs made of power-coated steel with UV protection.
• Recommended light-weight furniture for ease of moving and storage.
• Establish a furniture schedule.
Discussion ensued about the pros and cons of the permanent tables. Pros thought that removing them was an unnecessary expense and that it was a rather drastic move. Those opposing the tables said the tables attract nuisance users, gambling and encourage people to “squat†in one place for long periods of time.
Ad Hoc Committee on Hemming Plaza Meeting Minutes - March 9, 2012Results of the Committee's Public SurveyQuoteThe Chair announced that the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the findings of the Survey Monkey that sought to gauge how visitors to Hemming Plaza felt about the plaza---its potential and shortcomings. Amy Harrell, Downtown Vision, Inc., who designed the survey, led the review. Printed copies of the survey had been distributed for the meeting’s attendees to follow. The preliminary results were from a 6-day period on the websites. The preliminary findings of the survey quantified responses on how often people visited the park (noting those that either lived or worked within 4 blocks of the park and other); when they visit, how long do individuals spend in the park; what do you do when you visit the park? (eat a meal, attend an event, for a meeting, relax, visiting friends, other); what do you like about the park? The survey’s responses indicated that people wanted to enjoy the park and wanted to feel safe while visiting the park. Respondents want to see food vendors and family events. Respondents were not in favor of removing tables and chairs from the park.
660 of the survey’s responses were from individuals who either lived or worked within four blocks of the park, representing 58% of the survey.
Why are the initial recommendations not aligning with the results of the public survey? Seems like much of the $100,000 in changes should be spend on programming instead of movable furniture.
^My understanding is that the issue with the trees is that they're reaching the end of their life span and that some are sick, and will have to come down. If they're water oaks that would make sense, as they only live for about 50 or 60 years. From experience I know that removing any large tree is very expensive.
Though I'd think you'd just replace them with longer lived, healthier oaks rather than nothing.
That would make too much sense. What would have made more sense would have been to place longer lived oaks in there 25 or 30 years ago when they planted water oaks to begin with. Still, the water oaks are not anywhere near 50-60 years old. You could start replacing them gradually, a few at a time, so as not to de-nude the park, if that is necessary.
True, regarding sick trees but what I read also talks about making sight lines for security cameras. It would be good to replace sick trees with new trees because the park's canopy is probably its best amenity.
I'm just reading through the short and long term improvement lists now. This stands out regarding the tree canopy:
Short term section (2012):
Remove distressed trees (20 trees) = $18,000
Long term section (2013):
Remove Remaining Trees (12 trees) = $10,800
It seems to be missing the... Flatten entire area... replace with asphalt... paint lines for parking... and add automated parking ticket dispensing machines...
Voila! No more "undesireables" and adds parking for city council members who do not want to walk. Perhaps they could even fence it in and make it private for the mayor and all city hall employees! :o ::)
If interested, here's the Hemming Plaza short and long term recommendations.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Hemming-Plaza-Plan/i-5RJPqVf/0/XL/HEMMING-PLAZA-MEETING-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Hemming-Plaza-Plan/i-dRcrhnH/0/XL/HEMMING-PLAZA-MEETING-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Hemming-Plaza-Plan/i-X9bBWXX/0/XL/HEMMING-PLAZA-MEETING-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Hemming-Plaza-Plan/i-QjfZ7mb/0/XL/HEMMING-PLAZA-MEETING-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Hemming-Plaza-Plan/i-zXFhFsB/0/XL/HEMMING-PLAZA-MEETING-XL.jpg)
That does say 180K a year to maintain a park that is not really a park available to the real public? And for that 750K of one time expense, we get a park with no trees, only tables and chairs if they actually get put out, but, of course, those bad chess players will be gone for sure. We might actually be better off as tax payers leveling the thing and letting the council members park there. The park will at least be used then because if this plan is put into effect, the odds are no one will get to use the park. Hey, maybe that's the plan after all, get us so disgusted with the idiotic planning that we let them turn it into another parking lot.
Perhaps it be cheaper to keep the park "as is" and pay people $10 a day to spend either their breakfast, lunch break or happy hour in the park? You'll immediately attract a diverse crowd and you're annual maintenance costs will remain the same. When someone drives by, the place would look like NYC's Rockefeller Plaza. Where can I sign up? Give me $10 bucks and I'll by a lunch from a nearby restaurant and eat it in the park.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 03, 2012, 07:14:46 PM
Perhaps it be cheaper to keep the park "as is" and pay people $10 a day to spend either their breakfast, lunch break or happy hour in the park? You'll immediately attract a diverse crowd and you're annual maintenance costs will remain the same. When someone drives by, the place would look like NYC's Rockefeller Plaza. Where can I sign up? Give me $10 bucks and I'll by a lunch from a nearby restaurant and eat it in the park.
Subway's across the street. You could even give the extra $2.39 to the nearest Occupier. :)
So …. at least the park visitor will have benches and flowers. But what is more beautiful than a tree? Few things in nature are. Are we to be without the shade of a tree…. in the hot sun, in amongst the concrete of the city core? Come.... you fools who designed their removal, stand in the sun. And you …. fools who approved this stupidity…….. sit an hour in the hot sun. But no… you will sit in your air-conditioned office as the park visitor bakes in the sun, and longs for the beauty and comfort of the trees. A tree casts its shade upon all.... the young child with the fair skin, the old man with burnt baldness, the fair woman, and even the fools who would have them removed.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 03, 2012, 07:14:46 PM
Perhaps it be cheaper to keep the park "as is" and pay people $10 a day to spend either their breakfast, lunch break or happy hour in the park? You'll immediately attract a diverse crowd and you're annual maintenance costs will remain the same. When someone drives by, the place would look like NYC's Rockefeller Plaza. Where can I sign up? Give me $10 bucks and I'll by a lunch from a nearby restaurant and eat it in the park.
A thousand a day the first year, 500.00 a day the second year and 250.00 a day the third year. Want bet it won't be needed by the end of the second year? And it will only be $ 638,750.00 total! Cheaper than the current proposal.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think we caught the people in charge of this rubbish, RED-HANDED.
Now, we just simply need to put them on the hot seat and pressure them to revise their decisions. We ARE NOT going to let them get away from this. We already have too many times in the past in different places.
-Josh
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Special%20Effects%20Images/hemming-civil-war.jpg)
Hemming Park, Jacksonville, had trees since it's days as a military base in 1864.
But ah, hell! Who needs a little history eh?
A lookout tower would be pretty cool too! 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 06, 2012, 07:00:55 AM
A lookout tower would be pretty cool too! 8)
[/]
Just like the OP mall.
Is there any opposition movements planned?
Can we hold them accountable and force them to listen to those who took the survey?
Can we force the council to pick a new committie and start over?
there is plenty of opposition...even among council members
There is time, and two events, to make our opinions and opposition known to the city council. The first is the city council meeting this coming Tuesday at 6:00 p. m. During the "public comment" time, anyone can have 3 minutes to offer their opinion about any subject. One must fill out a card and turn it in to be called to speak. The second event is the Hemming Park meeting at city hall on the 18th of April at 10:00 a.m.
I cannot speak worth a damn. So if any of you desires to speak, it would be great if about three of you could speak on this Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. By that time, we could arrive at a concise and effective delivery for each of the three speakers. The critical issues would be the avoidance of complete tree removal, the avoidance of complete table/chair removal, and the avoidance of temporary tables. We could point out that the recent survey held by DVI gave weight to these opinions. We could ask... why are we going against the results of the survey?
We could also offer the idea that we should enhance the park's amenities, and not remove them. And that with the proper programming, the park could be brought to a level of optimum condition for all visitors.
The Hemming Park meeting held at city hall in the Davis room on the first floor has had in the past about 25 people. Wouldn't it be great to overwhelm the meeting with about 30 or so additional attendees, all giving opinion similar to the above. All attending will be given a chance to speak if they wish.
In other words, we have two important opportunities to kill the ridiculous plans for the park, and to have them replaced with sensible ideas for progressive and positive consequences instead of the current moves which will tend to destroy the beauty and utility of the park.