Jim Love's bill to prevent new business developments in riverside/avondale by requiring impossible parking mandates is up for a vote tomorrow. Jacksonville strikes again...killing organic, citizen initiated growth and revitalization through heavy handed over regulation.
If you can make it to the city council meeting to voice your thoughts about deceptive and misleading legislation please come.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-2Xrdqxq/0/X2/2012-0339-X2.jpg)
This is a link to the original bill.
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2012-0339\Original%20Text
I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote
A little too late.
This bill has received no opposition.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 25, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote
It was in front of LUZ last week.
It is a done deal.
I have a few questions:
QuoteConversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.
1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot. Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this?
I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay. This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains. Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.
2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?
3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history? In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.
4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities? Murray Hill? Fairfax? Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?
Quote
1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot. Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this?
God, I hope not. That is ludicrous. And sad.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2012, 04:51:22 PM
I have a few questions:
QuoteConversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.
1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot. Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this?
I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay. This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains. Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.
2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?
3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history? In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.
4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities? Murray Hill? Fairfax? Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?
Lakelander-
I would say email Jim Love but I doubt he is capable of understanding the consequences of this ordinance.
I emailed the LUZ committee with those same concerns and never heard back.
I spoke with RAP and they claimed that if the use does not change and the building is not vacant for more than 6 months, then the ordinance would not affect the new tenant or business owner.
This ordinance was pushed by the neighbors of the Avondale shoppes that did not have an opportunity to be heard when Mojo's moved in.
The neighborhood and the RAP board are capping the number of restaurants and bars in our neighborhood.
One silver lining is that it could push nightlife into 5 points, Brooklyn and downtown.
Ben
Here's the modified bill.
QuoteThe Land Use and Zoning Committee offers the following first amendment to File No. 2012-339:
(1) Strike page 2, lines 6 through page 3 line 30, in its entirety and insert:
“(a) Except for conversions of structures to a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption, retail sales or service establishments and single-family residential uses located in contributing structures within an identified commercial character area shall have zero parking requirements.
(b) Conversions of structures to a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.
(c) Any expansion of contributing structures, after the date of the adoption of this Subpart shall provide 50 percent of the required parking for the expansion pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use.
(d) Except for conversions to new structures for a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption, zero parking shall be required of new structures when such structures are built to the same or less than the square footage of a non-contributing structure if that structure is being replaced. However, all adjacent on-street parking shall be brought into compliance with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i)â€"(iv) and Table 4.
(e) Except as set forth in above, the number of spaces for retail sales and service establishments and multi-family uses shall be 50 percent of the required number of spaces pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use, provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i)â€"(iv) and Table 4.
(f) Conversions to office uses for a contributing historic structure shall be required to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the required parking regulations in Section 656.604(e)(3), regardless of type of office use, and provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i)â€"(iv) and Table 4.
(g) Except as provided above, 65 percent of the required number of spaces in Section 656.604(e)(3) shall be provided for conversions to office uses, regardless of type of officer use, of non-contributing structures or new construction and provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i)â€"(iv) and Table 4.â€; and
(2) Amend the introduction line to reflect this Amendment.
Form Approved:
/s/ Dylan T. Reingold_________
Office of General Counsel
Legislation Prepared By: Dylan Reingold
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on June 25, 2012, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 25, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote
It was in front of LUZ last week.
It is a done deal.
Ben is right. It appears final council vote is scheduled for tomorrow.
Damn. That's too bad. We shoot ourselves in the foot yet again.
It does appear that those opposed to this were asleep at the wheel here. However, there is still a chance to speak on this bill tomorrow and if you get enough people out to do that and you have a convincing argument, you can get it sent back to the committees for re-evaluation. How strongly do you feel that this is going to badly hurt the development of Riverside/ Avondale? Can you convince at least half of city council that you are right?
To this layman, it seems that only larger restaurants over 100 seats are effected. How important is that in the scheme of things? What I would like to know is if Kickbacks and MM would be effected by this in any way? Or do they have their paperwork in so it misses them?
QuoteJim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.
Stephen - Pretty sad statement on your part, you don't even live in the neighborhood. Jim lives across the street from me and he cares about the neighborhood as do many of the owners of the Shoppes of Avondale. While I'd like to see more variety of restaurants, I don't have a problem with taking a breather and waiting to see how the neighborhood absorbs more vehicles in the area.
The statement about Jim Love is callous and unnecessary. Jim is doing exactly what we asked him to do when we elected him, and he is doing what he thinks is right. If you think he is wrong, take up the fight against him in the next election.
Quote from: strider on June 25, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
It does appear that those opposed to this were asleep at the wheel here. However, there is still a chance to speak on this bill tomorrow and if you get enough people out to do that and you have a convincing argument, you can get it sent back to the committees for re-evaluation. How strongly do you feel that this is going to badly hurt the development of Riverside/ Avondale? Can you convince at least half of city council that you are right?
To this layman, it seems that only larger restaurants over 100 seats are effected. How important is that in the scheme of things? What I would like to know is if Kickbacks and MM would be effected by this in any way? Or do they have their paperwork in so it misses them?
I believe Kickback's and MM are exempt. They've already submitted their applications. If I'm Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc., I'd look at this an opportunity to steer some potential development my way since the market for larger establishments is larger than Riverside.
As someone who lives in the neighborhood this is lunacy gone wild. Of course there are not enough parking spaces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ever been to the Riverside Publix around lunchtime? Good luck getting a spot. But that's the breaks Jim. It's called living in a urban environement. Scarce parking is also the ONLY way towards intelligent and efficient mass transit. Do people like this really believe that for every shop and business there has to be enough parking spaces for every potential customer to find one if they all happen to visit at the exact same time?! Have these people ever heard of New York City? I'll tell you first hand Jim, there are not enough spaces for everyone who wants one there. You'd be quite appalled. Oh the stupidity.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on June 25, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2012, 04:51:22 PM
I have a few questions:
QuoteConversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.
1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot. Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this?
I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay. This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains. Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.
2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?
3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history? In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.
4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities? Murray Hill? Fairfax? Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?
Lakelander-
I would say email Jim Love but I doubt he is capable of understanding the consequences of this ordinance.
I emailed the LUZ committee with those same concerns and never heard back.
I spoke with RAP and they claimed that if the use does not change and the building is not vacant for more than 6 months, then the ordinance would not affect the new tenant or business owner.
This ordinance was pushed by the neighbors of the Avondale shoppes that did not have an opportunity to be heard when Mojo's moved in.
The neighborhood and the RAP board are capping the number of restaurants and bars in our neighborhood.
One silver lining is that it could push nightlife into 5 points, Brooklyn and downtown.
Ben
I personally welcome any of Jim Love's "Shunned" businesses just down the road a bit in lovely Murray Hill.
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 25, 2012, 05:55:22 PM
QuoteJim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.
Stephen - Pretty sad statement on your part, you don't even live in the neighborhood. Jim lives across the street from me and he cares about the neighborhood as do many of the owners of the Shoppes of Avondale. While I'd like to see more variety of restaurants, I don't have a problem with taking a breather and waiting to see how the neighborhood absorbs more vehicles in the area.
The statement about Jim Love is callous and unnecessary. Jim is doing exactly what we asked him to do when we elected him, and he is doing what he thinks is right. If you think he is wrong, take up the fight against him in the next election.
Taken to the woodshed is a colloquial expression which I'm sure was meant figuratively, not literally (i.e in the polls). Collectively, we are residents of Jacksonville, so I think it's in our purview to offer our opinions on anything related to this city. Stephen didn't attack his character, so I think you're picking a poor fight in this regard. To put it in other terms, lighten up, Francis.
At least MM and Kickbacks are getting through before all of this mess. R/A is really shooting themselves in the foot. I think this is going be a much larger detriment to the King St District than Avondale.
Quote from: acme54321 on June 25, 2012, 08:25:54 PM
At least MM and Kickbacks are getting through before all of this mess. R/A is really shooting themselves in the foot. I think this is going be a much larger detriment to the King St District than Avondale.
^Yeah, I don't see this having much impact on Avondale. It's not going to stop MM from coming in if they decide too. It will probably stymie redevelopment along King Street though because there's still a ton of underutilized spaces there. However, even King will look different in a few months with Salty Fig, Dahlia's Pour House, and Goozlepipe & Guttyworks coming on line. The key for King Street will be what happens with the bank site in the future. It has enough size to put up a vertical garage supporting a decent amount of restaurant space for it and the surrounding area if it were ever redeveloped.
However, if we learn anything from history is that you can't stop development if there is a market for it. It didn't happen with the original Avondale subdivision in the 1920s (Shops of Avondale and Murray Hill's First Block grew right outside deed restricted section) and it won't in 2012. My guess is that if there's a market for large restaurants, we'll see some more development in Murray Hill, Five Points and Brooklyn. If 220 Brooklyn and Riverside Park come out the ground, it will be interesting to see what happens in Brooklyn. For clubs, I'd keep my eye on the brewery district. Lots of cheap available warehouse space and outside the district's official borders could create ideal conditions for those types of uses.
The other thing to watch out for is the national chains. Don't underestimate their ability to take out a block of overlooked historic "non-contributing" structures to fit a suburban box with the necessary off-street parking they love anyway.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on June 25, 2012, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 25, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote
It was in front of LUZ last week.
It is a done deal.
oops..my bad
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2012, 05:41:39 PM
And I am ashamed to say that this bill has been introduced and sponsored by a republican.
Ive had a lot of beef with my childhood party over the years, mostly on a national level, but I never ever thought I would see the day when a local republican went commie.
Jim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.
In fact, any council member who claims to be a republican but supports this business killing bill needs to have this issue brought up at every campaign speech they make for re election.
Im just disgusted
local government is often not related to national party politics
Emails for city council members.
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/487288_10150862826511829_319612131_n.jpg)
The economic development being shunned by RAP is not only welcome but desperately needed in nearby areas. Bring on the 7-Elevens, McDonalds, Family Dollars, pawn shops, car washes, food trucks, etc. It's all good!
The link to the contact list:
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-members.aspx
I would love to see a lot of these restaurants/bars come to San Marco, possibly along Hendricks where Aardwolf is going in. Seems like we are always crossing the river to go out. The Oklahoma area between Hendricks and San Marco Blvd is ripe for some development, a little run down now.
QuoteDon't underestimate their ability to take out a block of overlooked historic "non-contributing" structures to fit a suburban box with the necessary off-street parking they love anyway.
And there are many of these structures in the district that could be demolished tomorrow...legally.
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2012, 12:39:17 PMThis is very similar to the spurious claim that RAP forced Publix to develop a new "historic store design and layout" that the company has gone on to use nationally. This claim turned out to be pure poppycock, on the same level as when Romy tried to tell everyone at the reunion that she had invented Post its.
Where did you hear this from?
Quote from: thelakelander on June 26, 2012, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2012, 12:39:17 PMThis is very similar to the spurious claim that RAP forced Publix to develop a new "historic store design and layout" that the company has gone on to use nationally. This claim turned out to be pure poppycock, on the same level as when Romy tried to tell everyone at the reunion that she had invented Post its.
Where did you hear this from?
I think he is talking about Dog Walker's quotes in this thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=14470.0
Other than that particular comment by Dog Walker, I had not heard that before.
My money is on Fairfax, the next great urban hot spot with a host of historic building stock and a very eclectic feel. Logistically speaking, it is the hinge pin of Riverside/Avondale - Ortega/Venetia - Lakeshore/Murray Hill, Plop down a few cool restaurant-bars, Starbucks, a trendy shop or two and the place would take off like Moody's goose. Add streetcar for effect.
OCKLAWAHA
QuoteMy money is on Fairfax, the next great urban hot spot with a host of historic building stock and a very eclectic feel. Logistically speaking, it is the hinge pin of Riverside/Avondale - Ortega/Venetia - Lakeshore/Murray Hill, Plop down a few cool restaurant-bars, Starbucks, a trendy shop or two and the place would take off like Moody's goose.
Did Pastiche hear this before or after they closed their facility for dining in, to concentrate on catering? Could not draw the crowd needed to survive, Fairfax has a ways to go yet....
I loved Pastiche, I guess I should have eaten there more often.
Here is the Resident article about Jim Love's ordinance.
Business owners worry about long term effects of Love’s ordinance
Added by SethWilliam on September 5, 2012.
Saved under Neighborhood News for Riverside, Avondale, Ortega and Murray Hill
Riverside/Avondale Overlay modification may limit development
By Steve DiMattia
Resident Community News
District 14 Councilman Jim Love’s ordinance modifying the Riverside/Avondale Overlay, which the city council unanimously passed June 24, has quietly gone into effect with little fanfare or public opposition and no community meetings.
Ordinance 2012-339 requires all new bars and nightclubs, and new restaurants with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet, to provide 50 percent of the city’s regular parking provision.
“Everybody says it’s been a long time coming,†Love said. “Just because it’s a rule doesn’t mean you can’t ask for a deviation. It just gives the council and citizens a chance to look at proposed development that may be bigger [then the ordinance allows] and see if it fits the scale of the neighborhood.â€
But some business owners feel that the ordinance will limit the number and nature of businesses that seek to open in the historic district.
“Those that argue that you can still apply for a deviation are missing the point: It only adds another burden for the small businessman, another hoop to jump through. It’s just disappointing,†said Ben Davis, owner of Riverside’s Intuition Ale on King Street. “I don’t know that we would have been able to open if this ordinance had been on the books because we would have had to provide parking that isn’t available.â€
One local restaurateur is currently facing that dilemma. Scott Schwartz, an Avondale resident and chef/owner of 29 South in Fernandina Beach, is seeking to open a new 150-seat restaurant called 29 South Jax in the area. He sees the ordinance as a major barrier to moving into the historic
district.
“My clientele, the people who will follow 29 South, are in the Riverside/Avondale/San Marco areas,†Schwartz said. “I would probably take an already existing space and convert it to a restaurant. But now, unless I can find a building that was already a restaurant, my options are very limited. I wouldn’t say that I absolutely don’t see myself moving into the area, but the low chances of finding the perfect piece to fit the perfect puzzle makes it unlikely.â€
Davis pointed to lost job opportunities because of such decisions and he also took issue with the fact that the ordinance passed without community meetings.
“When we were working on zoning exceptions for our brewery, we had a community meeting; Kickbacks and Mellow Mushroom both had community meetings. Not having one for this ordinance seems like a double standard,†said Davis, who wrote emails to Love opposing the ordinance. “There is an extreme vocal minority that drove this.â€
Love feels that he provided plenty of opportunity to gather feedback from all sides and sights strong support from residents and some business owners, such as Karin Tucker of Biscotti’s and Ian Chase of The Fox, as proof that he has done the right thing for the district.
“When you see 20 or 30 speak for it and one against, it sends a pretty strong message to the council that you’re on the right track,†said Love, noting the position of those who spoke during four city council public hearings. (Davis contends that a lot of the opposition is “out there working and unable to attend council meetings.â€)
The one dissenting voice was Allan DeVault’s of Black Sheep Restaurant Group, whose major issue was with the 100-seat, 2,500 square feet
stipulation.
“You just can’t easily fit a 100-seat restaurant into 2,500 square feet. It needs to be at least 4,000 square feet,†said DeVault. “The ordinance also takes away the incentive to rehabilitate contributing structures. It just sets a tough precedence.â€
It is a precedence that greatly concerns Davis. “Who represents small business in this neighborhood? The answer is, unfortunately, no one.â€
To read Ordinance 2012-339: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12174
Ben, are you political or controversial by nature? Congrats on your FYC membership, I'd like to buy you a beer at the bar one night!
#167 - Jack
QuoteScott Schwartz, an Avondale resident and chef/owner of 29 South in Fernandina Beach,
Scott and Nan are my next door neighbors there on Edgewood, great folks. I'd love to help him find a place in our 'hood. Great family!
Jack-
I am more angry than anything. I have watched the treatment of the Black Sheep Group, Kickbacks and Mellow Mushroom by our neighborhood NIMBY's and can no longer be silent.
Our neighborhood is the most unique in the city and there needs to be a balance between commercial and residential interests. We have swung to the side of the anti-business zealots and the lack of leadership from our City Councilman is enabling them.
QuoteOur neighborhood is the most unique in the city and there needs to be a balance between commercial and residential interests. We have swung to the side of the anti-business zealots and the lack of leadership from our City Councilman is enabling them.
Ben,
Nothing we can't resolve over a good beer! We should get you Scott and me over to see Jim, he is our neighbor, after all!
Jack
You make some great points, Ben, I'm glad that the opposition is finally achieving some volume.
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 10, 2012, 05:29:19 PM
QuoteOur neighborhood is the most unique in the city and there needs to be a balance between commercial and residential interests. We have swung to the side of the anti-business zealots and the lack of leadership from our City Councilman is enabling them.
Ben,
Nothing we can't resolve over a good beer! We should get you Scott and me over to see Jim, he is our neighbor, after all!
Jack
Good 'ol boy network in full effect. Nice, MTrain, show us all how it's really done in good ole Avondale. I'm guessing WLA was done up in the same fashion... well, maybe after a few bottles of Steele :o
Fuck it, why don't you invite Ian, Karin, Barb, Frank, Mike, Alan, Jon, Brian, Micah, Steve and everyone else that's so in-tune, have a couple beers, a few bottle of wine and fix the whole damn thing. My suggestion would be to fix your perceived parking issues, I don't know, how about 'We Love Avondale, C'mon JTA Let's Straighten this Shit Out Because We're Turning Away Business Because People Park in Front of MY House, LLC' or WLACJLSSOBWTABBPPFMH for short. Catchy huh?
It's a novel concept to use all this time, money and energy to not even address the 'root' problem right? It is parking isn't it? Has nothing to do with new restaurants does it?
You know, I think it might actually be something else other than parking, but what do I know.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 10, 2012, 09:00:15 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 10, 2012, 05:29:19 PM
QuoteOur neighborhood is the most unique in the city and there needs to be a balance between commercial and residential interests. We have swung to the side of the anti-business zealots and the lack of leadership from our City Councilman is enabling them.
Ben,
Nothing we can't resolve over a good beer! We should get you Scott and me over to see Jim, he is our neighbor, after all!
Jack
Good 'ol boy network in full effect. Nice, MTrain, show us all how it's really done in good ole Avondale. I'm guessing WLA was done up in the same fashion... well, maybe after a few bottles of Steele :o
Fuck it, why don't you invite Ian, Karin, Barb, Frank, Mike, Alan, Jon, Brian, Micah, Steve and everyone else that's so in-tune, have a couple beers, a few bottle of wine and fix the whole damn thing. My suggestion would be to fix your perceived parking issues, I don't know, how about 'We Love Avondale, C'mon JTA Let's Straighten this Shit Out Because We're Turning Away Business Because People Park in Front of MY House, LLC' or WLACJLSSOBWTABBPPFMH for short. Catchy huh?
It's a novel concept to use all this time, money and energy to not even address the 'root' problem right? It is parking isn't it? Has nothing to do with new restaurants does it?
You know, I think it might actually be something else other than parking, but what do I know.
Yeah, right? http://residentnews.net/2012/09/05/shoppes-avondale-parking-study-neutral/
Jack,
This isn't going to be solved over beers, lunch or dinner. unless you want to eat/drink at a current establishment (irony intended).
Having viable, contributing, businesses in the area not only bring money into the area, they raise the property values. I travel to many locales and restaurants and local shops define a city. I'm sorry, but the Landing doesn't cut it. The Town Center doesn't either (besides it is too far away). The river is the #1 defining feature of our city. Why we don't have more shopping/dining options on her we will never know. Riverside/Avondale/Ortega is a thread of the city that meanders down the river from downtown and I always take out of town guests through there. Let's try to stregnthen it not restrict it.
KG
Quote from: KEGreene1 on September 10, 2012, 11:33:41 PM
Jack,
This isn't going to be solved over beers, lunch or dinner. unless you want to eat/drink at a current establishment (irony intended).
Having viable, contributing, businesses in the area not only bring money into the area, they raise the property values. I travel to many locales and restaurants and local shops define a city. I'm sorry, but the Landing doesn't cut it. The Town Center doesn't either (besides it is too far away). The river is the #1 defining feature of our city. Why we don't have more shopping/dining options on her we will never know. Riverside/Avondale/Ortega is a thread of the city that meanders down the river from downtown and I always take out of town guests through there. Let's try to stregnthen it not restrict it.
KG
Why is it that the shoppes of Ortega or whatever you call that area around Oxford Ave & Corinthian Ave. Don't have restaurants like you do on King Street, Avondale or even San Marco?
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 11, 2012, 08:43:07 AM
Why is it that the shoppes of Ortega or whatever you call that area around Oxford Ave & Corinthian Ave. Don't have restaurants like you do on King Street, Avondale or even San Marco?
Probably because all of the traffic has long since (1933) been routed around Ortega Village. King, St. Johns and San Marco Boulevard are all arterial streets with significant traffic flows.
The solution to all of this is going back to a fixed mode of transportation such as the streetcars these neighborhoods were built on in the first place. I'm continually amazed that the solution we seek instead is a new law that will encourage people to demolish buildings for the sake of parking more cars. The more of these lifeless lots one has to pass to get to a business, the more we encourage the use of cars to shorten the trip. Would you rather walk two blocks alongside the new Parador garage in downtown, or two blocks along a street in San Marco Village? One is lifeless and could even be perceived as dangerous at night, and the other is full of life and light.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 11, 2012, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 11, 2012, 08:43:07 AM
Why is it that the shoppes of Ortega or whatever you call that area around Oxford Ave & Corinthian Ave. Don't have restaurants like you do on King Street, Avondale or even San Marco?
Probably because all of the traffic has long since (1933) been routed around Ortega Village. King, St. Johns and San Marco Boulevard are all arterial streets with significant traffic flows.
The solution to all of this is going back to a fixed mode of transportation such as the streetcars these neighborhoods were built on in the first place. I'm continually amazed that the solution we seek instead is a new law that will encourage people to demolish buildings for the sake of parking more cars. The more of these lifeless lots one has to pass to get to a business, the more we encourage the use of cars to shorten the trip. Would you rather walk two blocks alongside the new Parador garage in downtown, or two blocks along a street in San Marco Village? One is lifeless and could even be perceived as dangerous at night, and the other is full of life and light.
I'm with you 100% cars killed the streetcars in Jacksonville, Fl. if the powers of the past would have thought it out better. We would have looked a little like New Orleans for the streetcar survived there.
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 10, 2012, 05:29:19 PM
QuoteOur neighborhood is the most unique in the city and there needs to be a balance between commercial and residential interests. We have swung to the side of the anti-business zealots and the lack of leadership from our City Councilman is enabling them.
Ben,
Nothing we can't resolve over a good beer! We should get you Scott and me over to see Jim, he is our neighbor, after all!
Jack
Oh cool. Will you be doing this for every small business owner or potential owner? Or ones who are already established, carry weight, and have the clout of Intuiton?
I love this idea. Take it out of the hands of the market. Bring it down to just a few powerful fellas over a beer.
QuoteOh cool. Will you be doing this for every small business owner or potential owner? Or ones who are already established, carry weight, and have the clout of Intuiton?
If you can get over your cynicism, we might even invite you! ::)
QuoteHaving viable, contributing, businesses in the area not only bring money into the area, they raise the property values. I travel to many locales and restaurants and local shops define a city. I'm sorry, but the Landing doesn't cut it. The Town Center doesn't either (besides it is too far away). The river is the #1 defining feature of our city. Why we don't have more shopping/dining options on her we will never know. Riverside/Avondale/Ortega is a thread of the city that meanders down the river from downtown and I always take out of town guests through there. Let's try to stregnthen it not restrict it.
Kevin, the economic market at hand in Jacksonville shows that Town Center is the retail center of the city, it disgusts me too, but that is where everyone with money wants to be. Its where the citizens have allowed growth to occur. It is not for me, but apparently the rest of Jacksonville LOVES IT. Retail and commercial on the river apparently only entices a smaller few, as evidenced by the condos and retail along it now. Town Center junkies could be on the moon for all we know or care, some may not even know we have a river. ???
Jim's getting bad advice from a lot of people on this, but instead of us bitching about it on a public forum, or bitching about gay and lesbian rights or some other crappy mobility fee, let's do something about it. Go see Jim, let him know he is making a mistake, get the real business owners involved to set the record straight. You, Ben, Scott and I all enjoy St. Johns Avenue and the businesses along it, Jim is a businessman too, a successful one at that, he understands the thread of success. Why not start and ask Jim to look at from this angle or a different angle?
Or we could all bitch, whine and moan some more out here, as if this is getting us anywhere......
Jack
I get your point MTRAIN, but i hope that these forums are more then bitchfests. I can only hope that on all of the discussions including LGBT rights, inspire people, to call, write, email, go to city council meetings etc. There are so many discussions on our forums here I think there needs to be an advocacy page or something that can explain how to make your voice heard to your local officials. There will be some folks that can knock on Jim Love's door and others that can fire off an e-mail but anything is better then not making your voice heard at all.