Highlights from the notes:
1. Concerns about negative media attention
2. DVI survey is good. DVI survey is bad.
3. RFP for vendor to manage park
4. committee members are the seed for a "friends of hemming park" group. with friends like these...
5. Children from churches giving away water bottles = wrong.
6. Preaching = okay.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/535983_10150736428463979_87755113978_9524312_1078952529_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/548078_10150736429553979_87755113978_9524318_157584239_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/535586_10150736431378979_87755113978_9524333_2140834864_n.jpg)
I hope they do view the Key being programing rather than amplified security.
Thanks for sharing!
Two things stand out to me. First Emily Liska is 100 percent correct in that the City of Jacksonville should not need an outside management company to take care of this tiny park in the middle of downtown for pete's sake. Second is that if banning chruch groups from "ministering" is that location is not viable then just "regulate" that it takes place from 12am-5am. There are shelters that would appreciate the help so churches dont need to sprawl food and drinks out in public parks.
Thanks for the update!
One would think that the shelters and churches would work closely together to administer help where & when needed....3 of the 4 large shelters are faith based.
Overall it seems that the DVI survey did not really say what the majority on the committee wanted it to say. It did not support their plan.
The group that handed out bottled water - did they offer it to everyone or just those they thought were needy? It just as easily could have been a drive for heath for everyone as much as it could have been for "feeding the needy". If the former, it should be encouraged rather then regulated. And the city has to be careful with that regulation. For instance, regulating that you could only feed in this park when it was closed anyway would result in a lawsuit.
It has been my experience that church groups seldom want to work together. They sometimes seem like they are competing with one another for that top do-good-er spot. However, there is the Homeless Coalition that tries to coordinate things like this but I fear it ends up just helping to protect everyone's individual interests and funding. Still, were they contacted and invited for input?
The comment about it being publicly noticed is at least partially a cop out - the organizers should make a point of planning what groups should be there and making sure they are if they really want real information and input. Like the hot dog vendor who spends every day at the park.
As to the bad publicity, perhaps if the plans this committee were making for the park were positive, the news coverage would be positive.
Thanks for posting!
Seems like the school-aged bus load of humans coming to the park (even if it was to the HORROR of all) to distribute water would tend to suggest that the park is determined safe by a rather large group of concerned parents.
Ironic really.
Keep churches (and their children) out of the park and you damage the park. These ARE the people you want coming out.
Especially the children.
Let them start with handing out water on a hot day and maybe they will end up playing a game of chess.
Yesterday I enjoyed the park for a few minutes, eating my sausage dog from the corner vendor. And I noticed something. There was a nice mix of people in the park. It was really pleasant. There were several women sitting alone, apparently local workers or city visitors. Enjoying the park there were two families with little ones. And there were the usual fellows playing chess on the tables. There was simply a great mix, what appeared to be a normal park environment, many workers, and others just relaxing, reading, talking.
I began to realize that we are already, by some mechanism, by some luck because it is obvious that we don’t know what we are doing, bringing the park to the condition we’ve been talking about .. which is a park welcoming to all kinds of people. Perhaps our attention to it, the problem that is, is producing the change we’ve talked about, which is a park not seeming offensive to the average individual who approaches the park.
As I sat there, I began to realize that the individuals we’ve been characterizing as being the “occupying†kind; that is, those who have seemed to cause some to feel uncomfortable, are less so. Nobody was shouting or arguing, although there were a couple of individuals who seemed ready to argue, but somehow held quiet, perhaps because everyone else did.
In other words, the momentum is changing in the park, a momentum toward order and consideration for others. Already, the park is approaching the balance we’ve been seeking. So, where are the fellows and the gals who used to shout, and intimidate? Are they moving to another park or area with less police presence? Are they moving to an area where they don’t have to worry about offending others? Are the locals beginning, finally, to enter the park?
This allows me to suggest that, regarding the displacement of the “unwanted elementsâ€, all we must do is “use the park†â€" use it for lunch, use it for meetings, use it to relax from an intense work load. Although our plan for “programming†is good, it is more important for us to use the park. In other words “weâ€, those of us who have been complaining about the “park†and the “elementsâ€, must realize that all we have to do is “use the f*k#g park†in order to solve the problem we’ve been talking about. Please pardon the emphasis language.
It seems so simple but it is true. Use it or lose it. We have not used it, so we lost it. And we are gaining it back by using it. Besides, there are many more of us than them. Who are us, and who are them? They are the habitual occupiers, those who come into the park all day, every day. And we are the users for a few minutes to an hour each day.
So here we are, planning to make all these complex and expensive changes to the park. Why? Why change the park? It's a beautiful park. Remove the sick and dying oaks and replace with teenage youngster oaks. Repair the chairs and tables, or replace them with a different permanent type. Are there some motives to modify and spend money, about which we are ignorant? Soon, the scenario will be changed enough so that the park can accommodate public restrooms. But we must keep up the pressure on the habitual occupiers and those who would make others feel uncomfortable, by “using†the park. Put simply, we must use the park in the most simplest of ways, or we lose it to the habitual occupiers.
Don’t forget what might be the last meeting for the public about the park. It is this Wednesday, on the 18th , 10:00 a.m., at city hall, in the Davis Room on the first floor.
What the park needs is good PR.