Packed house tonight. The moratorium legislation may be in the shadows of the Metropolitan Park legislation tonight. One camp of people are wearing "St. Nicholas" t-shirts. Another group of people are holding signs like "music makes memories."
Watch Council Meeting Live:
http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil
(http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil)
Regarding Metropolitan Park:
There are two different bills up for vote.
2013-244:
(http://i.imgur.com/oIXlCdz.png)
&
2013-166
(http://i.imgur.com/xDizEWs.png)
Full l:
(http://i.imgur.com/tFFty6A.png)
There was considerable discussion at the agenda meeting about the mobility bill. CM Love stated that he intends to amend his amendment to reduce the term back to 18 months, and start immediately. The 1st 9 months will be 25%, the 2nd 6 months will be 50% and the last 3 months will be 75%. Several other council members indicated that they also intend to offer amendments although they were not specific as to what those would be. I indicated my support of CM Love's amendment back to 18 months to CM Love and CM Crescimbeni. I talked to Steve Tocknell, Mike Saylor, Curtis Hart and Wyman Duggan before the meeting and they are also OK with it.
And to Mr. Dare, look for Ocklawaha and you'll find me sitting to his right.
Watch the council meeting live:
http://media.coj.net/COJCouncil
Stephen, Doug and I are on the left side wide aisle behind the second TV screen from the front... ;D
I believe the quick speech we just heard was intended to tell us to: sit down, shut up and hold on... Or you'll be escorted out and have your toys seized by two giant construction workers armed with hammers.
Is everyone excited about the emergency action of 2013-214 by a unanimous vote. This was not an emergency. Public comment didn't happen. look on your agenda. The crushing of the Public Trust.
REALLY? By THIS council?? Say it ain't so.
"ORDINANCE 2013-214
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $19,615.52 FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL OPERATING CONTINGENCY TO PURCHASE 20 CHAIRS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS; INVOKING EXCEPTION OF 126.107(G), ORDINANCE CODE, TO PURCHASE CHAIRS FOR THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FROM OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS & SERVICES; REQUESTING EMERGENCY PASSAGE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2013-0214\Original%20Text (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2013-0214%5COriginal%20Text)
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 05:58:16 PM
"ORDINANCE 2013-214
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $19,615.52 FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL OPERATING CONTINGENCY TO PURCHASE 20 CHAIRS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS; INVOKING EXCEPTION OF 126.107(G), ORDINANCE CODE, TO PURCHASE CHAIRS FOR THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FROM OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS & SERVICES; REQUESTING EMERGENCY PASSAGE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2013-0214\Original%20Text (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2013-0214%5COriginal%20Text)
Wow. I'm went into the wrong industry. Furniture must be where the money is at.
Watching online. Everyone be on your best behavior.
No clapping please, we do have decorum here in COJ.
WTF is an "EMERGENCY CHAIR?" Sound's like a rush trip to the loo.
Public Comments at City Council are both incredibly entertaining and incredibly tedious. You know those private opinionated pointless speeches you share with only your self while driving or drinking your morning coffee. Some people like to make those internal moments external. This is public comments, mostly.
Now, the last two speakers are speaking up for Metro Park. The first speaker was loudly applauded and so was the 2nd speaker. The gallery is scolded by Bishop and Boyer. Boyer, shoots that "mom" gaze at the applauding concert lovers.
Quote from: spuwho on April 09, 2013, 06:04:59 PM
Watching online. Everyone be on your best behavior.
No clapping please, we do have decorum here in COJ.
Try a Golf clap.
Players next month!
FOUR!!!!
All ignorant of the science that water amplifies sound and that sound travels faster over water.
Ocklawaha, drain the river!
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Pete Stompfe Stitz. (?)
speaks very eloquently about the economic impact of the music industry.
I agree with him. Let the sound engineers work the problem. There is some great technology now that can help with this. Also, you can place sound monitors in St Nicholas to log the sound levels.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:18:14 PM
Chelsea Henry is here to give an update the Council about something or another. She is very cute, and talking about how to become a financial wizard by playing 'financial football" online.
Sounds like an infomercial
You'd think SOMEBODY would at least do a google search and learn what the science is... Maybe then they could fix it. Instead the blank faced council is hearing from space cadets. READY! FIRE! AIM! typical Jacksonville.
Where's the concession stand? Can we send out for pizza and beer?
I'm thinking a sound engineer could probably suggest a sound absorbing barrier so it would be a win-win.
So, the Metropolitan Park proponents have a small problem. They are largely opposing the bill that is in their favor. I suppose they are having a instinctual response to older legislators legislating...that can never be good...must oppose. The bill is designed to WAIVE the sound ordinance.
I think somebody on the back row is passing out Belladonna... I'm going to get in line.
Agreed, he's good. In case any of these music lovers are reading the live blog, pass the word, the bill is intended to waive the noise ordnance.
This is Prideless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1kJz99zERE
Ian Logue "threatens" city council with his future fame, says something like "If you keep metropolitan park alive I know I will be proud to say I'm from Jacksonville."
The attorney speaking says:
Metropolitan Park has operated under the assumption for year that it was exempt from the sound ordinance until Redman ">:(" decided to ask general council if it was actually exempt. Pass legislation that is in line with the accepted practice.
The music folks are starting to sound like a prolonged rendition of the intro to John Abercrombie's 'Timeless." For those of you at home, click below and crank up your volume... that first minute or two is what we're hearing. Open a new tab and follow our comments while your hearing 'the music.'
http://www.youtube.com/v/Bhz77Pvfi5M?version=3&hl=en_US
We're all being thrown out.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Ok. Now the Council president has lost his mind (and temper) and cleared over two hundred people from the room for clapping after a speaker.
Good!
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Ok. Now the Council president has lost his mind (and temper) and cleared over two hundred people from the room for clapping after a speaker.
Stephen, does MJ have press credentials? Lori says you can hang if you do.
Bill Bishop turns into a third grade teacher. Kicks everyone out of the chambers "bring them back in one at a time. "
Someone yells from the gallery "You can't do that man..."
"No, if they can't pay attention they have to go. Officers clear them out and bring them back in one at a time."
This is in response to applause coming from the audience regarding Metro Park. The gallery forgot. The concert lovers are truly being treated like they are kids.
Wondering if Council Presidents have to go through audience discipline training.
Hahahahaha
Quote from: spuwho on April 09, 2013, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Ok. Now the Council president has lost his mind (and temper) and cleared over two hundred people from the room for clapping after a speaker.
Stephen, does MJ have press credentials? Lori says you can hang if you do.
Yes, MJ does have press credentials. Ock, Stephen and Arash are still in the room. The crowd has been sent into the Lynwood Roberts Room and will not be allowed back into the Council Chambers for the rest of the night.
There going to call them back 3 at a time, one can speak while the other 2 clap!
This concert promoter is giving back as good as the entire pack of wolves is sending.
There was an answer to this problem sometime back in Portlandia. I should have sent this video in tonight with my son to present to council.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQuVT6gedM
Concert promoters are okay with a temporary waiver. The discussions and whippings will continue at a later date.
Wow, wow, wow, wow. Redman says to a promoter "you have gone out and stirred out these people to think we are going to shut down metro park."
promoter:
That was your initial intent. You wanted to shut down the park.
Redman:
That was not my intent. It was my intent to shut down the park...until we could get everything figured out. :o
Promoter:
turns away from redman and addresses council and essentially says "let's create a permanent fix."
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 06:50:20 PM
There was an answer to this problem sometime back in Portlandia. I should have sent this video in tonight with my son to present to council.
No doubt the Portlandia population has already visited the guy passing out the Belladonna in the back of this room.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:46:27 PM
Don Redman is now bullying the well meaning coordinator of the Rockville festival.
I guess there is blood in the water, so the bottom feeders are attacking.
This is embarrassing
The crowd is gone, no pressure now.
Of course Bishop is scolding the promoters by saying we have a whipped up mob, delivered by a radio station offering free concert tickets
Bishop is asking for the concert supporters to chill out, (a heavy handed suggestion to go home). Concert promoters are now calling on a higher authority, Shad Khan!
So what's the deal, are folks who put in blue speaker cards being called in one by one?
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 06:56:18 PM
Ock are there still people waiting in the lobby?
Not so much in the lobby as in the other room. The way they've been treated they could riot and start throwing chairs... Well maybe not... Sometimes I just miss 1969!
Stephen, it's the same thing Clark did last night with the "bicyclist." Such hubris.
Per Facebook and as posted on this site, the St Nick people were also giving or selling t shirts. Promoters (or a radio station) doing it only seems fair.
and sometimes Bishop goes to concerts he tells us
The biggest negative for supporters of the Mobility Plan is thanks to the concert goers and Bishops tantrum, most of our supporters have left. The way they're calling folks in this is going to go on until 2 or 3am!
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 06:50:20 PM
There was an answer to this problem sometime back in Portlandia. I should have sent this video in tonight with my son to present to council.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQuVT6gedM
(Portlandia - Battle of the Gentle Bands) Very Good Cheshire Cat! :)
Seriously did Bill say "whipped up a mob"? When has that not been the case in heated issues with one side looking to counter the other. There was a chain email going around spawned by those who want to silence the park concerts. So the crowd is passionate, that's not a surprise. I am amazed and blown away that Bill had the chambers cleared. He let his anger get the better of him and that is a darn shame. This incident is going to come back and slap the council. Simply an absurd action. The course should have been to remove those applauding and leave it at that. How embarrassing!
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 07:00:50 PM
... this city needs a political enema.
Conversely, if you were going to give the World an enema, where would you stick the hose? Bet I know!
Redman is a very frightened man, fearful people are often the first to attack in situations like this.
His self righteous behavior is a sad statement to how far into his own reality he has gone. Unfortunately, the city will have to suffer him for a substantial period of time yet, until he is termed out.
If the council believes that just because we are not present, that we do not care... they will find themselves mistaken.
So unprofessional.
Yes Diane, in the last two meeting we have seen Clark state that "Jacksonville is more then these guys here," and Bishops classic tonight, "They've whipped up a mob and offered them free tickets to attend..." My opinion of Bishop's behavior is reminiscent of "The Peoples Central Committee."
FINALLY, somebody speaking up for the mobility plan, but then ruined it by saying he supports the compromise. Before him a builder was ranting about the need for the tax payers to support the builders costs or they simply won't survive.
I think there will be a deeper consideration of Bishops actions later. I am wondering if it is lawful to remove anyone who was not disruptive from an open council meeting? Sure as heck looks like a violation of personal rights to me. Simply saying you will clear the chambers if someone applauds is counting everyone out of order based upon the actions of some. I hate to say it but that is downright Un-American. We may see a challenge to this action, I am amazed by Bishop tonight, never thought to see something like this from him. Wow!
Another speaker saying we can't afford to shut down the concerts based on music genre. Apparently there is wording that would allow some music, some concerts but not rock music???
Amazing amount of power to give one in a simple position as Council President. In anycase, legal or not it was a bad move on the part of Mr. Bishop.
Current speaker: we can be the next big music city of the south.
I keep going back and fourth on Bishop. There are times when he is perfectly reasonable and other times well, other times. Council is acting like a "good 'ol boy" club now that people are not in the gallery. For the record, the people that were cleared out (if they decided to stay) are in the "over flow" rooms watching the meeting on the monitors.
I was there and I will never forget him removing Jackie. It did indeed leave an unhealthy flavor around Kevin at the time. Heavy handed then and now. Honestly, I am getting very, very tired of local politicians acting out power plays at the most inopportune times. It is such an embarrassment to our city. Seriously, on one hand we have a Mayor promoting downtown with millions and on the other we have other elected officials who behave badly in the presence of the entire community and outsiders. Makes my head hurt.
This speaker:
This has nothing to do with noise. If it did the jaguars would be here, the blue angels would be here, the grave digger (monster truck) would be parked out side. This has to do with the type of music. It's about rock n' roll. It's like we are imitating Foot Loose...and you know how that turned out.
QuoteHe's a nice enough person, thecat. Hes just not terribly suited to politics. He allows his passions and ideology to get carried away with him
Bishop was one of the reasons the 3 year bill on the Moratorium was delayed. He perked up said there were too many questions. We need to take a longer look at it and that would have been the end result if Crescimbeni did not say he would work on a short term solution.
...if my memory serves me right.
I just had the most horrible thought. What in the heck can we expect from Redman during One Spark? Will he set up a table and hand out religious literature? Will he attempt to stifle entertainment venues he doesn't like? One doesn't know what to expect from elected officials anymore. One step forward, two steps back is no longer acceptable. I have been getting messages during all of this from folks stating how amazed they are with the arrogance shown by some on council. That is how bad this is all coming across.
Has the Mayor weighed in on the noise issue in the park?
Its about the language (or so I was told) of the lyrics which concerned the south bank residents. (At least this came up at the ad hoc meetings).
Clearly we have a long way to go to be the bold new city of the south.
Which words are acceptable?
http://www.youtube.com/v/vbZhpf3sQxQ?hl=en_US
Its all just silliness
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 07:39:58 PM
QuoteHe's a nice enough person, thecat. Hes just not terribly suited to politics. He allows his passions and ideology to get carried away with him
Bishop was one of the reasons the 3 year bill on the Moratorium was delayed. He perked up said there were too many questions. We need to take a longer look at it and that would have been the end result if Crescimbeni did not say he would work on a short term solution.
...if my memory serves me right.
Mao Tse Tung was a very conscientious education advocate too. ;)
I feel a little bad for Bishop. I'm not writing him off, yet. This past year based on my few experiences with him at Council he's been a surprising breath of fresh air.
He bought into a ridiculous notion that the pro-metro park folks were a mob stirred up by crazy radio show D.J.'s and over reacted.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 07:53:39 PM
Thats a fatal mistake in politics unfortunately. He just managed to kick hundreds of people from across the demographic spectrum out of the room.
Its been my experience that now he's toast, politically.
- 1
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 07:44:47 PM
Has the Mayor weighed in on the noise issue in the park?
Based on other examples of how the Mayor's office expresses their opinion on matters before the council it would go something like this:
Mayor's Office: The Mayor is happy to be represented here tonight. He is interested in the opinions of the council on this matter. He looks forward to discussing these issues further.
Council: Does the mayor have an opinion or position on the matter?
Mayor's office: The mayor's office is happy to be represented here tonight.
Council: So, the mayor does not have a position?
Mayor's office: That's all I have...*giggle.*
Bishop calls for a break. Everyone is allowed back in to begin public comments in an "orderly process."
Bishop needs the break I believe. Something else must be going on here. The action he took is completely out of character with the man I have seen him to be. I have not seen a break called this early in a council meeting for a very long time. Is anyone left outside now that will be there to come back in?
They probably don't realize their mics are still on
The chamber looks very empty right about now. I tell you what, any citizen who took the time and energy to go down there after work, find parking and attend has got to be ticked off by tonight's events. The meeting was a shambles. The chuckling and smiling on behalf of some on council is not playing well at all. You are right Gloria, they don't know the mikes are on and what they are picking up makes the panel look even more out of touch with the people who where there tonight. This was not a good night for Jacksonville and I hope in retrospect some will come to that realization.
"music is its own reward"
Meeting is back on. Room is about half full.
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 08:18:57 PM
Meeting is back on. Room is about half full.
ooh...so glad the minions were allowed back in
The current speaker says:
the amphitheater should be moved far away on 95 somewhere but let's keep it open for the jazz festival.
Next Speaker:
I was woken up at 7:30AM by boom boom boom.
Indeed. The current speaker wants them to build a new venue out of city limits. Wonder who will write that check? Meanwhile the next guy is worried about being woken up by the "Boom Boom Boom". Sounds kind of exciting. lol
Still chuckling over the woman who said she could hear all the words. :)
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 08:18:57 PM
Meeting is back on. Room is about half full.
ooh...so glad the minions were allowed back in
(http://www.awn.com/files/imagepicker/5086/Minions.jpg)
love Reggie Brown "sir, how close do you live near the train tracks?"
Current Speaker:
makes his case strongly. says, we've been through this before. Jacksonville has done sound studies. It was decided that Metro Park was not designed to be a year round concert venue. Don't destroy my quality of life.
Brown:
Asks the speaker "how far are you living from the train tracks?"
Speaker: about a mile.
Brown: that's doesn't bother you.
Speaker: the train comes and goes. It doesn't shake my walls.
Brown: That's all I wanted to know.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 07:20:33 PM
I just spoke with Wimmer, the organizer of the festival and apologized for the more embarrassing representatives of the city. He exited with his Los Angeles based attorney, who was clearly blown away by the antics of Bishop and Redman.
they got plenty of time to speak with local TV reporters in the lobby
I can't believe we are having to defend rock and roll music -- is this 1960?
Current speaker is just rambling. Says, fireworks! Strip bars! these are allowed...why not rock and roll.
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 07:27:10 PM
I keep going back and fourth on Bishop. There are times when he is perfectly reasonable and other times well, other times.
many of us feel the same way
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 08:28:16 PM
Current speaker is just rambling. Says, fireworks! Strip bars! these are allowed...why not rock and roll.
He was nervous, but you have to give him credit for trying. Like he said "this is my first time at the mic.
current speaker hinting at corruption in the permitting proces
Bishop won't let the speaker answer his question.
This speaker:
St. Augustine is taking money for events because Jacksonville keeps pushing them away. The legislation only temporarily releases Metro park from the sound ordinances. Says, he would miraculously get permits for events when ever they promised the city stuff. Otherwise, it was always 50/50.
He says Metro Park has the ability to hold 12 ticketed events and they can't book those because of the instability and the lack of confidence promoters have in the city.
the owner of a website that promotes events in the city. I forget the name of his site nor am I sure of the point he is making but he says the St. Nicholas people are upset with curse roads; yet, everyone is okay with Rick Ross rapping about crossing Jax's main street bridge to get some cocaine. Continues, people will go to shows and they will go to tampa, Orlando, Miami.
Where is Clark on this issue he should be all over the job creation potential for more concerts at Metro Park. I suppose his line "just think about that guy with a hammer in his hand trying to feed his family" does not apply to "just think about that guy with a mic in his hand...."
To Clark:
Just think about the vendors trying to make a dollar selling a hamburger.
Clark is probably too busy day dreaming on about the quality of the 20 seats he wants the council purchase for themselves with +$19,000 from taxpayer's pockets.
Is Kimberly Daniels there tonight? Isn't this her bill?
Jacksonville Jaguars Touchdowns?
Daniels was here. I don't see her right now.
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 08:40:39 PM
To Clark:
Just think about the vendors trying to make a dollar selling a hamburger.
Who needs such a sucky job when Waffle House will soon be hiring waffle machine operators with their mobility fee money saved?
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 08:46:12 PM
Daniels was here. I don't see her right now.
Did she get mixed into the crowd that got herded out?
POTTY MOUTH RAPPERS!!!
From the FTU:
QuoteJacksonville Council chamber cleared over applause by Metro Park advocates
About 125 people were cleared out of the Jacksonville City Council chamber Tuesday to quiet people applauding comments about legislation to regulate noise during Metropolitan Park concerts.
Council President Bill Bishop told police to clear the chamber during a public comment session after warning the audience at least three times that council rules forbid “public displays,†including applause.
The council went into recess for about 10 minutes and resumed after staff opened p a nearby room with a big-screen television set to the meeting. A second room was opened a little later, and people were called into the chamber three at a time to speak.
“What I’m trying to do is conduct an orderly meeting,†Bishop told the council, saying a radio station that urged people to talk at the council mischaracterized what the council was considering that night.
At least people spoke up, said Danny Hayes, a concert promoter planning the Welcome to Rockville festival at the park April 27-28.
“We’ve engaged people who might not otherwise be engaged,†Hayes said. “…It’s also time to let these people know their voice has been heard.â€
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2013-04-09/jacksonville-council-chamber-cleared-over-applause
I actually agree with Hayes. I'd love to see local mainstream radio stations use their power to encourage civic engagement on a more regular basis. Because it's clearly obvious there are several in leadership that are completely disconnected from the people they are supposed to be serving and looking out for.
Perhaps some of the concert venues can be held in the Waffle House parking lot? Two birds with one stone kinda thing.
:)
Pro-metro parkers are a mixed bag on the noise waiver. Some feel like it's only prolonging the issue. Others think it's a policy worth grabbing even in the short term.
Current speaker:
We are having the wrong conversation. We shouldn't be talking about how to limit growth but how to expand it.
Next Speaker:
Lives in the St. nick area says there are many things louder than the metro park area. She knows exactly what is happening at the Jaguars games...she says take the time to learn this issue. All of us are not in agreement about music in metro park. I want music in metro park. She thinks that the neighbors are worried about "potty mouthed rappers" a term that was used in a neighborhood email.
Current speaker making good points about complaints by the same people going back 15 years over other types of concerts.
Current speaker:
Every neighborhood has benefits, advantages and problems. In the northside, he can't believe that people are able to sleep and eat around the worst smelling factories. Goes through a list of neighborhoods and lists their problems. BEST SPEAKER TONIGHT. Everyone else in this city has to live with the problems in their areas. These people (St. nichloas people) are never going to be satisfied. They should either move or live with it like the rest of us have to deal with our individual neighborhood issues that we can't legislate away.
Jacksonville is soooo family friendly...that alone kills the vibe for young people. You can't attract today's modern generations if they have to assimilate to a society that seems to only accept traditional Christian families and their value system and their wishes. If I had to worry about offending kids everywhere I went, well - I'd be banished pretty quickly.
Metropolitan Park is even an issue? They have like 10 events a year...LoL and nobody really lives close enough to justify concern. This is an even worse argument than richies who buy 40th floor condos in the Four Seasons in SF, NYC, Atlanta or Miami and then complain when the Ritz Carlton wants to build a Residences tower next door, thus destroying their "views" they are so obviously entitled to. So you live a mile or two away down the river...and you're complaining about a very rare concert that sometimes happens at night and your kids might be exposed to people other than yourself saying Fuck?
BTW if I remember correctly (having gone to hang out with the peers at some nighttime gathering at his house via his son), Bill Bishop lives on the water in Arlington. Perhaps he is in the same group who is miffed at the 5 concerts or so that happen in a given year where if you listen hard enough in your backyard you might be able to pick up a barely discernible "fuck". I'll tell you what - the train that roars through Ortega/Ortega Forest 20 or so times a day blasting its horn the whole way no matter the hour is genuinely more noisy than the noisiest hotel room I have ever stayed in NYC. THAT's worth complaining about.
LoL
And...if I am reading this conversation correctly, the councilmembers can grill citizens who come up to comment? OMFG I don't think that happens anywhere else. I watch a lot of government TV and have attended and/or spoken (once) at one council event in both Atlanta and SF...we get a time period, one buzzer goes off to signify 15 or 30 seconds left depending, another goes off, you finish your statement, and they call the next person up. Not ever have I seen a publicly elected official grill, question, or even directly address a citizen who speaks up at these types of events.
Stage or pavilion?
(http://media.marconews.com/media/img/photos/2011/05/11/110508FE-CB-Rockville18_t607.jpg)
Stage Ennis, definitely a stage.
Why is a guy who lives in Orange Park questioning the decisions of the Jacksonville City Council?
but they are chairs made of gold and platinum and laced in diamonds..... Come on taxpayers, $20k for chairs is a drop in the bucket.
Batgirl is up now...and she brought her young son (dressed up as bat boy) to the meeting as well!
ban her!
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 09:02:31 PM
Stage Ennis, definitely a stage.
Certainly looks like one.
Quote from: simms3 on April 09, 2013, 08:58:45 PM
Jacksonville is soooo family friendly...that alone kills the vibe for young people.
sorry simms....but that is oversimplification...lots of young people are also supportive of family-friendly policies and places
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 09, 2013, 09:10:00 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 09, 2013, 08:58:45 PM
Jacksonville is soooo family friendly...that alone kills the vibe for young people.
sorry simms....but that is oversimplification...lots of young people are also supportive of family-friendly policies and places
Lot's of older folks are as well. :)
This speaker is offended by the Council's disrespect for the people speaking. He's going after the council passing the chair purchase "is there a reason they cost $1000 per chair." Asks council if the chairs are in bad condition. Bishop says they are in bad condition. He asks "can I take a look at them?" Bishop says, "you can after the meeting." He says, he didn't come here tonight for a t-shirt. He came on his own regard. He doesn't want to be dismissed because of his age (he is younger).
Lee wants the speaker to know that just because you see affirmative votes without discussion in the council does not mean that the bill was not vetted and heavily discussed.
he says yeah but "$20,000 in chairs."
next speaker:
Discussing that issue is not the loudness of music but the type of music. She's wearing a cape. Cute, yellow cap.
I was a little doubtful that the issue was anything more than a loudness issue and it had nothing to do with the type of music. I can see myself getting frustrated if I had to deal with loud projected sounds on a regular basis but I would deal with it and probably come to enjoy it. But, that's not the issue.
This is one of those "never ceases to amaze me" moments. We are really having a footloose situation.
AND, I love how the arguments that events create jobs seems to be such an ignored proposition by the council. The hilarity and the irony is so so deep.
This speaker:
Recording decibals of the last speaker complaining about sound. He says, she was speaking at 75 decibels. How is a limit of 80 decibels practical for a venue? He says he is a home owner and he is not opposed to sound. Why would you stop something that isn't even a big deal? Everything is cut off at 12am anyway.
Last speaker steps up and bobbles head for extended time. States, noise is the enemy as is the State, Satan is the god of this world. Bobble head several times. We have officially stepped into the "Twilight Zone". This fellow must be related to Redman. That was bizarre.
This speaker:
Dramatic. Remained silent for 10 seconds. Everyone wants peace. *not sure where he is going but surely he will deliver* noise is everywhere. sound is the enemy. satan is the god of this world. becareful working for the state. *speaker did not deliver.*
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 09:19:35 PM
Noise is the enemy as is the state, Satan is the god of this world. Bobble head several times. We have officially stepped into the "Twilight Zone". This fellow must be related to Redman. That was bizarre.
I think he was saying that everyone wants peace but the path to peace is to let go and stop trying to control everything.
Well Cat, he did state that he cut all the phone and noise wires into his home. That should account for something.
This is incredibly bizarre. I don't know if it is because I am hungry, tired or have a sinus infection, but I feel like I am watching a 3 am low budget sci-fi movie.
That may have been it Cat. Let go of control, he certainly did. I particularly liked his assertion that to work for the State is to work for Satan. I wish he would have told us what it meant to work for the city. lol
Doug, the bad music agitates people and makes them violent. You want music fine, but not where everyone can hear it. This per the current speaker. What a wild, weird and wooly night. lmbo
"I'm a child of the 60s and went to lots of concerts"....but "I can hear bad music in my backyard"
Wow...just wow!
It will be harder for people to come downtown when they can't live a normal life.......okay.......per same speaker.
My solution to the Metropolitan Park ordeal. If you don't like living near a 30 year old concert venue, stadium, railroad tracks, airports, etc., now is a great time to find new real estate....
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3387-p1070683.JPG)
If they are a child of the 60's they likely hear more than bad music tufsu. Those flashbacks can be harsh. How crazy is tonight?
I am all for free speech. And I like music. And I like peace. And the taco salad sitting in my fridge waiting for me.
Doug, please do not chew that taco salad to loudly. It could upset your neighbors.
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 05:31:50 PM
Packed house tonight. The moratorium legislation may be in the shadows of the Metropolitan Park legislation tonight. One camp of people are wearing "St. Nicholas" t-shirts. Another group of people are holding signs like "music makes memories."
I did not think it would be quite so monstrous of a shadow.
Yay, little old lady. She didn't want to hear Rapper Rick in her neighborhood with children and church people there. Singing in the neighborhood. No one told us they was coming. Now Denise is stating that the lady is well known and active in the community. Is asking about where the concert was. The lady says there was cups and go go girls and an actual concert. Denise want's to know where the concert played. The lady said it was on a lot and in the street. They were smoking and giving out cigarette lighters. They came in and did like they want.
This speaker is mad about Rick Ross rapping in her neighborhood with out any forewarning. Rick Ross was saying the "P" & the "D". He was blasting his music in front of children, senior citizens and church folk.
I think she is talking about this part of Rick Ross' video.
http://www.youtube.com/v/D9sAuc7kJJw
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 09:34:27 PM
Yay, little old lady. She didn't want to hear Rapper Rick in her neighborhood with children and church people there. Singing in the neighborhood. No one told us they was coming. Now Denise is stating that the lady is well known and active in the community. Is asking about where the concert was. The lady says there was cups and go go girls and an actual concert. Denise want's to know where the concert played. The lady said it was on a lot and in the street. They were smoking and giving out cigarette lighters. They came in and did like they want.
Amen!
They apparently were on this woman's privately owned property without her permission as well.
Quote from: dougskiles on April 09, 2013, 09:29:40 PM
I am all for free speech. And I like music. And I like peace. And the taco salad sitting in my fridge waiting for me.
better make sure the kids don't eat it before you get home ;)
I am not picking a side on this issue. Although it seems to me that a reasonable compromise could be reached fairly easily.
And I have just been informed that my taco salad is actually in a warming drawer, so it shouldn't be so crunchy that I wake up the neighbors.
This speaker:
I don't want to see these concerts go away. It's tough to live next to a venue that blast music for 12 hours a day for two days.
I am happy about the salad Doug. I also call to mind what it took to get the compromise for Mellow Mushroom in Avondale. Reasonable isn't that easily workable in our city sometimes. lol
I think someone should bring Dougskiles his taco salad...and maybe Doug could consider sharing.
ok...now Council will go into high speed action
A theme song for the events of tonight? I'll make sure to tone down the decibel level.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Gpc5_3B5xdk?hl=en_US&version=3"%20type="application/x-shockwave-flash
Wow, they just finished the first period public comments. Lord have mercy. Long evening ahead yet. Denise want's to reconsider everything including money for the chairs. Think she is joshing.
MetroJacksonville.com presents The Loudest Concert in America...Ever
Ennis this music is perfect for these evenings venue. Go Benny Hill.
Not so fast my friends. Back to public comments.
Ummm, nobody cares what the auditor has to say. There's nothing wrong with bankrupting future Jaxsons....
Current speaker is talking about millions and millions of dollars in subfunds that can be swept. Let's get the money and use it. Stay in your budget and quit kicking the can down the road. It is unlawful to exceed your budget. States you can't continue to spend money you don't have. Who knew?
Doug, the current speaker was apparently paid off with a salad. Just confirmed she enjoyed it. Do you know her? lol
Ennis, cue the music.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
Doug, the current speaker was apparently paid off with a salad. Just confirmed she enjoyed it. Do you know her? lol
funny!
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
Doug, the current speaker was apparently paid off with a salad. Just confirmed she enjoyed it. Do you know her? lol
I can't say that I do. But the salad comment did get my attention!
I agree with the older guy. Taxpayers are getting raped by these foolish deals with entities like the Pension Fund and Metropolitan Parking Solutions. However, that building also isn't worth $14 million. I'm not familiar with the contract. Is there a way to consolidate offices in another building and vacate that structure altogether?
Mr. Strasser who was an auditor for the city years ago and put the budget together, says don't keep paying interest. He is a self made multimillionaire and quite a character and ladies man. I have spoken with him in the past. He is hard to follow right now but has a good point. He apparently ticked off Richard Clark by stating some folks don't attend the meetings on pension fire fund issues. Redressed Mr. Strasser. Said he would not let the statement pass that he has gone to meetings. Oh lordy, undies must be to tight tonight. As Ennis said, he has it right though. Think anyone will listen?
Onto the Metropolitan park bill as an emergency. No Kimberly Daniels? Lee want's to amend to add Funk Fest and Redman is asking questions about testing.
Discussing metro park bill to waive the noise ordinance.
Peggy Sidman from General Council states Bill includes boat show, Rockville show without amendment for Funk Fest. Sound will be monitored to give info to committee. Lee's floor amendment adds Funk Festival for a Friday and Saturday.
Looks like this emergency bill only covers three events in May.
council members are just talking. They all vote. Bill passes.
One of the members said that we need to get the DIA involved. Bishop's response "they're looking for an executive director."
yes. it has passed.
Yes, it passed but it only impacts three concerts in May. Bishop is suggesting Metropark is not a venue for large concerts. Mentions Michigan as a good place.
No taco salad. If only there was a place to get some late night Indian.
I haven't figured out what happened to Daniels bill. They referenced it but nothing was said in detail. Did Daniels pull it and leave the meeting?
http://www.youtube.com/v/fK8mneO8yvU
Onto the mobility fee moratorium. The amendment to decrease the moratorium length from 21 months to 18 months. Amendment passes.
Well there certainly was a lot of zipping going on tonight. The entire audience was told to zip it.
this should be interesting...Clark is up
Clark is wanting an amendment to this bill. It's an issue of fairness according to him.
Clark is talking about refunding fees from Oct 19 2012 until now? Crescimbini is asking where the money currently is. The guy from the department says it's about 50K collected? Does not know where the money is but it is in several accounts.
Clark says he believes in treating everybody fairly. Joost says he will not support this amendment. Clark is looking after his buds for sure.
Everybody fairly except the taxpayer...
Carter is supporting the bill because of one guy in his district. One guy? Lori Boyer is with Joost, she does not support Clarks amendment. She speaks to Carter saying the guy he is talking about does not fall under this category.
Clark amendment fails.
Clark is speaking:
There are a few people who have started construction that won't be able to get the waiver. He has a simple floor amendment that those folks who were caught in the middle ground are able to get the 75% waiver.
Crescimbeni:
How much money have we collected?
Burney:
$50k
C:
I've heard a bunch of different figures. are you confident that it is $50k.
Burney:
I'm confident that it is small number.
C:
uh...
Burney:
Uh...
C:
I'm not comfortable with the amendment. Those who waited for the end of the moratorium took that chance.
Clark:
Okay, fine. I just want to treat everyone fairly.
Joost:
I can't support it. This is for plans that are on the line. Not for plans already started.
This Guy:
I think. This guy. that's why I's supporting it. Just cause of this guy. Hurricane. ???
Boyer:
I share Joost's position. To me the only reason we can support a special interest waiver is if we think it is a benefit to our economy. Those who started obviously did not need the wiaver.
The clark amendment fails.
sorry Richie Rich
When Holt speaks my eyes roll back and my brain shuts down.
http://www.youtube.com/v/f4zyjLyBp64
Mobility Fee Reductionorium passes.
18-0...I'm good with the compromise
Now on a another bill about Metropark 2013-166. Bishop and others do not want to discharge the bill. Joost want's to discharge it. Very convoluted night.
I had to step away from the computer for about 30 minutes. So what exactly was approved on the moratorium? Was it 18 months, beginning immediately, or is there still a 3 month ramp up period?
Joost is worried about folks with contracts for future events may be negatively impacted. They would have to abide by the 65 dec rule. Joost says then the folks cannot have the events.
I believe it includes the ramp up.
I believe it was 18 months starting immediately.
I haven't followed local politics much in my life until the past few years, but I have never seen someone so brazenly against the constituents and for his own self promotion as Clark. Not even on a national level.
I am literally blown away by him. Guy couldn't care less about anyone but himself and he's not afraid to show it.
Crescimbini says he has entered another opposing bill on this issue and does not want to discharge the current bill.
I will defer to Cat on this. lol My belief is not as strong as his. :)
Quote from: Bridges on April 09, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
I haven't followed local politics much in my life until the past few years, but I have never seen someone so brazenly against the constituents and for his own self promotion as Clark. Not even on a national level.
I am literally blown away by him. Guy couldn't care less about anyone but himself and he's not afraid to show it.
Bridges, I had this same thought tonight about several on council and I have followed this stuff for decades. The way some in council view their constituents is closer to that of an enemy as opposed to an ordinary citizen with concerns. It's really very ugly.
Quote from: stephendare on April 09, 2013, 10:55:15 PM
Quote from: Bridges on April 09, 2013, 10:51:18 PM
I haven't followed local politics much in my life until the past few years, but I have never seen someone so brazenly against the constituents and for his own self promotion as Clark. Not even on a national level.
I am literally blown away by him. Guy couldn't care less about anyone but himself and he's not afraid to show it.
Its unbelievable.
But his gayloathing pals from Riverside were big helps on giving away the money to basically seven guys with bad real estate investments. Robin Lump, Jim Love and Greg Anderson were pretty much slobbering all over themselves to hand out the cash prizes.
Its too bad that there arent any gay people, people who don't have cars, bicyclists or pedestrians in the whole of Riverside Avondale.
In Love's district. Voted against him first time. His position on this and Mellow Mushroom further reduced my faith n him. Will vote against him again second time.
Oh look, Kimberly is speaking, wants bill discharged. She is worried they will remove the entertainment district portion.
Clark:
We need an entertainment zone. All we are doing is band-aid. He is in favor of including Metro Park into the entertainment zone. Supports the discharge of Redman's bill.* Actually, went for the jobs talk track.* We need to give the promoters/organizers the freedom to do all they can to bring events to our city.
The Metropark Bill was not discharged. Meeting is over.
Cat was correct on the moratorium bill. ;)
Closing ceremonies...
http://www.youtube.com/v/Gpc5_3B5xdk?hl=en_US&version=3"%20type="application/x-shockwave-flash
[/quote]
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 09, 2013, 11:02:34 PM
Cat was correct on the moratorium bill. ;)
That's good to know.
Good night everyone.
Gulliford talks to about a Fairy man...oh, the Ferry man.
Oh, now Redman is suggesting that each person wanting to do a special concert event can apply for a waiver like they did for One Spark. I can just see concert planners loving this suggestion. Can you imagine an even more convoluted process to hold an event. My goodness.
Good night all. Glad to see this meeting end.
Quote from: TheCat on April 09, 2013, 11:04:23 PM
Gulliford talks to about a Fairy man...oh, the Ferry man.
This is what popped in my head before he explained in further detail.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f307/gutterfairyworth1000/fairies-010.jpg)
And the taco salad is now history. Good night all...
What they do not realize is the far reach promoters have with other promoters and what that could mean in terms of major money for this city if these outside promoters decided to make Jacksonville their next stop. I am dear friends with two very well-known promoters who hold notable festivals in Austin Texas, Chicago Illinois and Northern California who sincerely entertained the idea of doing something in our market. I have told both NOT to come into the Jacksonville market because of the nonsense, narrow minds and ignorance in which we are dealing with right now... in which we blatantly saw tonight. It is way too much risk. Do it in St. Augustine as they are welcoming and "courting" promoters of this caliber. Kudos to Danny Wimmer, Mike Yokan and Danny Hays for sticking with this and enduring this bullying. Personally, as much as I support growth, live music and progress in Jacksonville ... Festivals are simply too risky in the first place to have to deal with a redneck City Council where the majority doesn't even want an Entertainment Zone/District.
Thanks for the liveblog guys. Our council is bad no funny turn of phrase just a bad combo dumb and corrupt.
yikes. The best we can hope for is not to lose ground with this council.
Metro Park
Mobility Fee
Holding on with our fingertips?
So did everyone on the Council vote for the Redutionatorium?
yes.
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
Ha! Good one.
In my opinion, they're not even close to done. All we can do is attempt to hold them to it when the fee escalation starts happening. I have no doubt they'll come along and try a "look at the job growth" tactic.
We fed the gators once, now we've fed them again. Now they know where there is always food.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:48:43 AM
So did everyone on the Council vote for the Redutionatorium?
basically yes....one member had an excused absence last night
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
no....the compromise isn't that bad...and while the mayor is all for the mobility fee, I think he'll see the compromise as I do...a necessary evil
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2013, 11:32:38 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
no....the compromise isn't that bad...and while the mayor is all for the mobility fee, I think he'll see the compromise as I do...a necessary evil
Not to mention that a veto is only possible when you have less than 14 votes in favor. He can't veto an 18-0 decision.
So the bill is 18 months, first 9 months at 25% of the fee, next 6 at 50%, then the last three at 75%? Right?
Why in the world would you think they wouldn't come back after 9 months and ask for an extension of 25%? They've already proven they will use any development to support their claims, regardless of merit.
Also, what about the statewide attempt to put a moratorium on mobility plans for 3 years? That seems to be progressing without a hitch through the legislature. Maybe the end goal here is for developers to buy time on the cheap at 25%, hoping it carries right into the statewide moratorium?
Bridges, our mobility plan should not be effected by the state. There is an opt out in the state bill for plans that were approved with a certain percentage of yea votes. Our Mobility Plan was unanimous in a rare moment of cerebral activity on the council.
I do agree however that the blood is in the water and the sharks will soon be circling again to demand 'just another few tax dollars to subsidize our projects.' How about a reduction to 25% across the whole period? Could we just eliminate the plan at the end of 18 months? Watch for financing of infrastructure from property taxes and CDD'S... there are just SO MANY WAYS these B#$%^*%$@@%! can get in our pockets when they can buy the City Council. I don't trust any of them as far as I could toss them... and God knows how I'd love to toss them!
From The Daily Record
QuoteLegislation to waive the City noise ordinance for upcoming shows at Metropolitan Park â€" and public debate about the park's role to host such events â€" resulted in City Council Chambers being cleared Tuesday after several public demonstrations of applause.
More than 100 people attended the Council meeting, with many speaking during the first period of public comment that lasted more than 3 1/2 hours. Many advocates of the waiver applauded after several speakers, which led to Council President Bill Bishop ordering the room to be cleared.
Council rules prohibit demonstrations, such as applause or vocal protest, during meetings.
Council eventually passed the waiver, which will exempt the Southeast US Boat Show this weekend, the "Welcome to Rockville" show April 27-28 and the Funk Fest in early May at the venue.
"I'm proud of Jacksonville for coming out … the waiver is a temporary solution and we'll continue working for a permanent solution," said Danny Wimmer, promoter of the "Welcome to Rockville" event.
At least one local radio station, 102.9 FM, asked people to attend Tuesday's meeting to oppose clamping down on shows at Metropolitan Park. The station advertised on its Facebook page that it would give away 100 pairs of tickets to "Welcome to Rockville" for those who turned out for the meeting, in addition to prizes for best protest sign.
Council member Denise Lee chairs a Council Ad Hoc Committee on Metropolitan Park, which offered the waiver and is reviewing noise issues for paid events at the venue.
The waiver also establishes noise testing to be conducted at the upcoming shows, with the data to be used by the committee as part of a study.
Lee said the waiver is meant to assure people associated with the event that it will still take place as planned.
"This is only a temporary fix," she said.
Several people who spoke against the waiver also said the park was not intended to host such shows.
Bishop said the park "has a lot of problems" and was not designed to host shows like Rockville, but said that did not mean it was not an appropriate venue.
He said if people "want to get in that game" in terms of having such a facility, much work needs to be done to make it happen.
Legislation to expand the Entertainment Zone, which comprises the sports complex and other Downtown areas but not Metropolitan Park, was discussed but was not taken up by Council.
"I just think at this particular time, it's just not timely," Lee said.
For full article which includes other actions taken last night use this link: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539194
Quote from: stephendare on April 10, 2013, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2013, 11:32:38 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
no....the compromise isn't that bad...and while the mayor is all for the mobility fee, I think he'll see the compromise as I do...a necessary evil
some people were just born ready to compromise, as long as it means they get nothing in return.
Thats bloody ridiculous, tufsu.
There was no 'compromise'. the voters and the city got nothing in return except a bill for infrastructure.
I agree it was no compromise rather a mitigation of what the council was going to do to their constituents save for the fact that there was strong push back.
From FCN last evening. Look at the demeanor of this businessman during this interview. He is clearly amazed by what he witnessed in the City Council meeting and note that he has planned over 25 events for Jacksonville that may be threatened by all of this mess in Metropark. Hello Mayor Brown are you paying attention???? You want to grow downtown, perhaps you can explain to everyone how to do that in a city that makes the lives of business people miserable to the point of driving them away? Sad stuff folks.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/308077/483/Save-the-music-in-Metro-Park
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
I'm so far past this. For me, the mobility fee subsidies taxpayers are forced to payout are only a microcosm of the challenges our community faces. Whether it's the human rights ordinance, concerts in Metro Park, the mobility fee, a dead downtown, unreliable mass transit, poorly maintained parks, etc., all things fall back to one arena......poor leadership. Imo, time should be spent on finding and getting a number of qualified people ready to run for seats in the next election. Jacksonville has all the potential in the world and some of the smartest people in society residing in it. However, none of this matters if we don't have the proper amount of leadership willing to stand up for the average taxpayer and the good of the greater community.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
I'm so far past this. For me, the mobility fee subsidies taxpayers are forced to payout are only a microcosm of the challenges our community faces. Whether it's the human rights ordinance, concerts in Metro Park, the mobility fee, a dead downtown, unreliable mass transit, poorly maintained parks, etc., all things fall back to one arena......poor leadership. Imo, time should be spent on finding and getting a number of qualified people ready to run for seats in the next election. Jacksonville has all the potential in the world and some of the smartest people in society residing in it. However, none of this matters if we don't have the proper amount of leadership willing to stand up for the average taxpayer and the good of the greater community.
Ennis, I completely agree which is why I have spent so many years focused on local politics and the people pushing our local agenda's. I know a lot of folks don't like to hear about this stuff and would rather focus on what they would like to see change in the economic and development fabric of Jacksonville but that will always be hindered until the citizen voters take serious action to change things. The reality is that all those dreams are made more and more difficult and challenging because we have all around horrible leadership. By this I mean leadership that is often in office as a result of special interest push, finance and agendas and even though this may make some angry to hear, this starts with our bought and paid for mayor and extends down through council and various offices throughout the city. Too often we (the citizens) accept and defend lousy leadership and representation. If we make excuses for that then we cannot expect anything better than what we currently have.
Yesterday evening at City Hall was simply farcical and incredibly embarrassing to watch. While I make this statement, I am fully aware that leadership will have already decided their behaviors and actions were not only necessary but justified. There is a political culture at work in Jacksonville that is incredibly damaging to all of us. Until folks get damn serious about taking the political mess on, nothing else will fall into line the way it should in a city filled with good and talented folks. I got so fed up with all of this I took a year and a half off from any involvement because it actually made me sick. That is not going to happen again as I will no longer allow the nonsense to make me sick but rather intend to address the core of the sickness in this city. Gosh, I know this may sound a bit angry but I do not apologize for that today. There is a point when people should not only become disgusted with leadership but should do some soul searching about why we keep allowing the latitude we do to special interests and the people they buy.
The only way things will change will be to vote those out of office and replace them with competent people who do not answer to developers alone, who get and understand city planning as well as knwoing how to attract the millenials and creative class. I too am sick of this City Council and their poor leadership.
For everyone reading, remember this when these smart people step up to the plate and run for office. There were quite a few last year that never got past the primary.
Being proactive instead of apathetic, is the only way those people can make it happen. This isn't North Korea, those smart people you speak of have to be elected into office in order to make a difference. Otherwise, status quo will reign supreme.
Did anyone record the vote on the mobility moratorium or the noise ordinance? Can't find it anywhere.
The moratorium was 18 for 0 against. So everyone on council save one dismissed member voted for the moratorium bill. There were two pieces of legislation up regarding Metropark. One was the short term piece that covered three events. I don't remember that vote count. The other piece of legislation was not discharged last night.
Update to above. The moratorium bill 2013-94 passed 18 for 0 against with Yarborough excused.
The sound waiver bill 2013-244 passed 18 for 0 against with Yarborough excused. This waiver is only
good for three events. A short term bill that does not address events past June.
Just wondering here. Will this event, featuring bands, be exempt also? http://theoysterjammusicfestival.com/
Pretty sure the oysterjam will fall under the Boat show exemption
Quote from: 02roadking on April 10, 2013, 03:14:54 PM
Just wondering here. Will this event, featuring bands, be exempt also? http://theoysterjammusicfestival.com/
One would hope it would be covered under the boat show but the link for it does not show the festival as under the umbrella of the boat show. It is billed as a music and craft kind of venue. This would be worth investigating for the Oyster Jam folks as they are not named specifically in this waiver. Would not want to see them unpleasantly surprised.
So, Diane, what is step one.
Gloria, there is a bunch of steps to be taken to begin with, the foremost being a deep personal assessment by all interested parties as to how involved they want to be in changing local politics and as a result who we end up with in City Hall? More importantly how honest do folks want to be with themselves? By this I mean can folks step back enough from personal associations and beliefs about some in office or administrative positions in a way that will let the truth shine in and give them a real perspective about who is in office, who would like to be and why we are not better represented at all levels? No one person can do it alone but I sure can set out a road map for those who are interested. If people are serious about Jacksonville, the steps toward change needs to start now.
For me it has never been about trying to find fault with people in office but rather about holding them to some degree of ethical conduct and competent action on behalf of the voters and citizens. Unfortunately in order to do that effectively, people must be willing to respond in kind to shared facts and then be open to addressing how to change what needs changing, even if that also requires readjusting their views about local political party players and local unelected power players. I wonder, is that possible yet in Jacksonville? Thoughts?
I think it can also start with us. Like Field said in another post, there are many good contenders who got knocked out before even the primary. Identify those that haven't been brought up through corrupted political channels. Identify those who are smart and energetic, with the ability to hear sides and not be swayed by the power of the office.
Once identified we can help them in a variety of ways, leverage connections, spread information and most importantly get the apathetic vote out.
Start with who is term limited out. Who are potential candidates for those seats? We're 2 years out, more than enough time to help position possible candidates.
Then I would make a priority list of those on the council who are most needed to go, also a ranking of vulnerability. Focus resources and energy on the most important races.
Diane,
Let's be real, there is only ONE time in which a Jax City Council member is 'held accountable'. That is when they run for their one and only re-election. Once they are in their second term, their is no voter leverage (thanks to term limit nonsense). And if we are being honest, that one opportunity is only for the year or so before the elcetion for their second term. They will think, rightly so for the most part, that an issue on which they are opposite of their constituents, will be forgotten or overshadowed by a more contemporary issue, by the time of the election.
Your best and safest bet is to elect people who you trust and who 'get it'. Form a team that will RECRUIT good people, that will CAMPAIGN doggedly for them, and then put it's money and time where it's collective mouth is. Once a city councilor's initial election is over, the concrete is largely set.
Quote from: Bridges on April 10, 2013, 07:42:30 PM
I think it can also start with us. Like Field said in another post, there are many good contenders who got knocked out before even the primary. Identify those that haven't been brought up through corrupted political channels. Identify those who are smart and energetic, with the ability to hear sides and not be swayed by the power of the office.
Once identified we can help them in a variety of ways, leverage connections, spread information and most importantly get the apathetic vote out.
Those are great standards to begin with, but actually finding those people will not be that easy. A person who runs for office must be prepared to have all their laundry aired and folks poking into their lives and personal business in many uncomfortable ways. They have to be thick skinned, mentally and emotionally healthy and understand politics enough to know how the game is played and how to avoid stepping into the many traps on a campaign trail and then once they are in office. The person running for office should be able to afford paid staff cause without it they often end up trying to run a campaign with a handful of folks who actually show up to do the real work when you need them most.
My observations and involvement in politics and business over the years has exposed many things about politics, politicians and the relationship to corporate power players. Most people who run for office do so because of ego. That is the reality. Either they want to be in a position of power or they feel like they can make a positive change. The first are the ones to avoid but who are most often elected. The second group who want to work for positive change need to know that the citizens will have their backs once they are in office. Let me repeat, they need to know that the people have their back and if they are campaigning they need to know their supporters will not fail them. What happens here in Jacksonville is that we see the same names on the ballot over and over again. We recycle politicians like old shoes and that is almost never a good thing. In many ways this tendency to stay with the same players is a holdover of past and current Good old Boy politics which is alive, well and strong in majority and minority politics in Duval today.
The other part of the equation that strangles us in this city is media, media, media. For instance, TU should report the news and stay away from making recommendations for office. They rarely get it right. Other reporting agencies should do the same. When media plays politics as opposed to reporting on them or doing real investigative/watchdog reporting we get what we have now. Only recently has TU put real efforts back into an investigative reporting team. That is a good thing. New4Jax needs to step up when it comes to what politicians are doing. They have gotten way to soft in that regard. Friendly reporting is not always good reporting.
What people on this board can do is put together a wish list of items when it comes to what they want in a candidate. Be specific about what you want to see in your leadership. Ask each and every candidate how they will vote of the issues most important to the citizens and make darn sure they stick to those commitments once they are in office. Question their associations with power players and lobbyists. Look at their experience and education and then verify what you are told. See who supports them and base your own support upon that information. Too many GOB's, they may not be the candidate you want, etc. To extremely liberal or conservative, they may not be the candidate you want. All these things must be thought through and evaluated.
Believe it or not, in many ways more important than the ones I just mentioned above is developing the ability as a voter and citizen to see beyond "charisma" and "social connections" with a clarity that does not allow your vote to be simply based upon the candidate seeming to be a nice guy or gal. We want leadership, not dinner dates. This is really difficult in our town because very often the most active individuals rub shoulders with one another on a regular basis and often simply refuse to imagine that so and so could be anything other than a stand up person because their social interactions with them have been fun. A fatal mistake when it comes to deciding on leadership.
Quotevicupstate Diane, Lets get real, there is only ONE time in which a Jax City Council member is 'held accountable'. That is when they run for their one and only re-election. Once they are in their second term, their is no voter leverage (thanks to term limit nonsense). And if we are being honest, that one opportunity is only for the year or so before the elcetion for their second term. They will think, rightly so for the most part, that an issue on which they are opposite of their constituents, will be forgotten or overshadowed by a more contemporary issue, by the time of the election.
Your best and safest bet is to elect people who you trust and who 'get it'. Form a team that will RECRUIT good people, that will CAMPAIGN doggedly for them, and then put it's money and time where it's collective mouth is. Once a city councilor's initial election is over, the concrete is largely set.
I agree with much of this Vic and believe you me I am very honest about the reality of politics. Too honest and vocal in fact for the taste of many in power.
To the issue of candidates behavior once in office let me say this. It is time that state laws regarding recall of local officials be changed so that recall is a valid and doable course of action in the case of corrupt, inept or non performing individuals in office. Right now it is costly, convoluted and time consuming. That has to change. We need to stay on board with Ethics and Ethics reform locally and at that state level (which by the way has been derailed again). Citizens need to report concerns to the local Ethics officer and when needed to other officials including the SAO. The public needs to also make it clear to media that we want them to do what they are supposed to do which is investigate and report. We need to know what our officials are up to and this buddy, buddy relationship many in media have with the powers that be is very often the reason that we see the degree of back door corruption that we do. Rather than lose a connection with a politician or inroad into City Hall, many (not all) in media would rather ignore a story than upset someone powerful. A lot can be done to change the balance.
Quote from: stephendare on April 10, 2013, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2013, 11:32:38 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
So should we spend any time asking the Mayor for a veto? (so frustrating.)
no....the compromise isn't that bad...and while the mayor is all for the mobility fee, I think he'll see the compromise as I do...a necessary evil
some people were just born ready to compromise, as long as it means they get nothing in return.
Thats bloody ridiculous, tufsu.
There was no 'compromise'. the voters and the city got nothing in return except a bill for infrastructure.
I guess that Doug Skiles, Mike Saylor, and Steve Tocknell just got used then
While I doubt any of them are thrilled with the outcome, I do think they would characterize it as a compromise....and one that they agreed to support.
Sorry Stephen, but often times this is what the legislative process requires of our leaders!
Quote from: stephendare on April 10, 2013, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 10, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
Sorry Stephen, but often times this is what the legislative process requires of our leaders!
Sorry, TUFSU, but in this case, your advice sounds foolish.
Just my 2 cents worth, I'd venture to suggest what was required - indeed DEMANDED was that our leaders lead, show some spine and stand up for the people they represent. A compromise is equal to being in second place in a NASCAR race... second place just translates as 'first loser.' WE CLEARLY LOST. Had we won there would have been no compromise.
I do however understand your line of thinking TUFSU1, its the old politician's motto, 'Part of something is better then nothing at all.' And nothing at all is what we would have gotten had we not circled the wagons and fought back. You are perfectly correct to say it was a compromise, for me, now in my 33Rd year of this fight, it was just another loss, a setback, a shovel of sand tossed in our faces.
Yes Doug was used, so were the rest of us that fought so hard to move this city forward only to have the existential civic nihilist throw us under the bus. From the start the Council displayed a typical sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of what they perceived as an apparently meaningless or absurd concept. This left those who were carrying the banners for a better city, exposed and isolated to those, and by those, who would destroy us for 30 pieces of silver. Our city has become a urban backwater led by nonsensical, tergiversatorial imbeciles, governing on the theory that ignorance is bliss and 'tis folly to be wise." CHA-CHING!
It's time to get ready for a massive PUSH - BACK! 2014 and the whole lot of them are fired.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 10, 2013, 08:17:21 PM
Believe it or not, in many ways more important than the ones I just mentioned above is developing the ability as a voter and citizen to see beyond "charisma" and "social connections" with a clarity that does not allow your vote to be simply based upon the candidate seeming to be a nice guy or gal. We want leadership, not dinner dates. This is really difficult in our town because very often the most active individuals rub shoulders with one another on a regular basis and often simply refuse to imagine that so and so could be anything other than a stand up person because their social interactions with them have been fun. A fatal mistake when it comes to deciding on leadership.
This is the smartest thing I have heard anyone say in quite a long time.
Unfortunately, those social connections and their connection to candidate funds- seem to come with understood strings. Until we can find a way to make money accessible to those who would be willing to put up with those political accoutrements, (as you listed in your full post above) without having to make promises of future favor; we won't be able to find true stewards of the people's best interests.
It is very likely we will continue to see the candidate who can raise the most funds- win the election. It comes down to name recognition- and media saturation- because, well, most people don't bother to research for themselves or even to ask questions.
Though, I am not in such company here! :D
Thanks to you live bloggers as well! I can't make the council meetings, but I can always know what happened- as it happened, and I appreciate it!
I haven't plowed through the entire thread for the past few days but have scanned enough of the recent posts to offer my viewpoint of what is being portrayed as a community wide compromise/bad deal that resulted from Doug and Steve and I being "used" as pawns of some sort. I don't feel used and frankly, Doug and Steve were masterful at advocating diverse community interests against a single purpose adversary.
Recall that at the end of the first Joint Committee meeting we were pleasantly surprised that the Clark bill did not pass, as most people expected it would. Council President Bishop indicated he was going to convene a Task Force of some sort to revisit the whole matter. In the following weeks, the internal Council process of counting noses revealed that Lori Boyer was the lone Member of Council with a solid NO vote on her mind. At best, there were less than a majority who could even be described as on the fence when it came to a showdown on the bill itself. A vote to delay is easy. A vote to overturn a sponsored bill with heavy developer support is virtually unheard of in my 30 years of sitting in that room.
The Task Force did not materialize. A mediation of sorts was called by CM Crescimbeni, acting as a Statesman should act in a situation of political impasse. And this was nowhere near being an impasse, btw. The Clark bill, as written, was headed for a veto-proof approval. Which would have set the tone for another extension when that round of relief/subsidy expired.
I was in the room. Not one of the six participants in the "mediated" substitute bill agreed with it. We simply all agreed not to unravel the attempt by CM Crescimbeni to put an approvable motion on the Council floor. The marginal success that came out of the new bill was, for me, that alternative mobility modes do get something out of the deal, both in the trickle of funds that will be collected, but more importantly, in the recognition at City Hall that this community wants and demands a political focus on walkability, pedestrian and cyclist-friendly streets. In my view that message can be driven home with emphasis at the next local election. Now that we all know where the weak links are, maybe we can pull together as a coalition of neighborhoods and voting Districts to change what needs changing at the polls.
Don't feel too badly about a compromise, versus an absolute win. The absolute win was poised in favor of the developers. A compromise you don't like is worlds better than an ass-whippin' you'd hate.
Remember, the legislative justification for the waiver in the first place was to create jobs. The bill as passed is still subject to the scrutiny of competent post-mortem analysis of the data that Council relied on to demonstrate "job creation".That data, supplied by the supporters of the bill, appears to have potentially fatal flaws. If so, then what?
^^ So basically, you took a 'something is better than nothing' approach. I can't say I disagree, if the defeat was inevitable. But it seemed a few weeks ago that the council was split down the middle. Did that change ,or were some of the perceived anti-moratorium folks just paying lip service?
I get the feeling the anti-moratorium crowd brought a knife to a gun fight. Of course, that is not a criticism of the knife holders. A knife was all they had. The 'gun' is a well organized, and FUNDED organization that can apply campaign funds to those it supports.
I have on numerous occasions advocated a political arm of the MJ/pro urban folks. Every time I do, all I hear is crickets.
QuoteRemember, the legislative justification for the waiver in the first place was to create jobs. The bill as passed is still subject to the scrutiny of competent post-mortem analysis of the data that Council relied on to demonstrate "job creation".That data, supplied by the supporters of the bill, appears to have potentially fatal flaws. If so, then what?
I don't mean this in a personal or mean spirited way, but this is naive. They don't want to pay for something they can get for free, and they will use whatever excuse they can manufacture to continue doing so.
Council was never split in the form of nothing being approved at all. Council was undecided on the amount of subsidies they were willing to give away this round. This was mentioned in the discussions on the website during that time.
It originally appeared that the majority were willing to grant special interest their initial 3-year request. However, as public opposition mounted, many desired a solution that they could consider as a compromise. That compromise being in the form of a shorter time period for the requested waiver and having the development community pay something instead of nothing.
If this were not so, Councilman Crescimbeni could have just let Clark's bill die during the initial joint committee meeting, instead of throwing it a last minute life line, in the form of creating a sub committee to develop a short term compromise solution.
QuoteThey don't want to pay for something they can get for free, and they will use whatever excuse they can manufacture to continue doing so.
I agree. I knew this would be the case back in 2011. The precedent has been established. We've already proven we'll lay down, spread our legs and give up the goodies with ease to special interest and his crew. Why wouldn't these guys keep coming back for more? Until we have better representation, expect to continue to be pimped, abused and used.
So basically, the 3 year moratorium was on track to pass,regardless. It might have been a closer vote, but they had a firm majority on their side?
^Yes, that was my recollection. Going into the initial joint committee meeting, it was believed that Clark had the votes lined up to pass the full 3 year moratorium.
The biggest thing the pro-moratorium crowd has going for it (besides the connections, money, and power) is their cohesiveness and leadership chain. They know who is running the show for them and lobbying their efforts. At the first joint committee meeting they asked the developer representative who he was speaking for, and he said the whole group. They then asked Doug, and he said just himself. At the time I thought this was a powerful statement on our behalf. Here is a group of citizens so against the moratorium that they will come speak and fight for a cause without monetary gain as a goal. But whatever symbolic victory that was, it pales in comparison to the difficulty of overcoming a non-cohesive group. Give the bike advocates massive credit, they were the closest thing we had towards a lead on the issue. They kept their party informed and active throughout the process.
So, I think a lot of people are upset because we were kept in the dark as to what was happening. We have a large group of concerned citizens that rely on the information of this site and others to inform them of issues and stir up passion. I'm most upset with our council members who started from the wrong position on the moratorium and moved towards a slightly less-wrong position on the moratorium. But I also feel a little frustrated that we citizens were kept in the dark until *bam* compromise.
We were rallied last October and showed up in force to stop what we thought would be an emergency bill. We were rallied a month and a half ago to stop the Clark bill. We succeeded both times in making change. Just a band of concerned citizens with a no specific leadership. There's power in that.
Quote from: xplanner on April 11, 2013, 04:02:59 AM
I haven't plowed through the entire thread for the past few days but have scanned enough of the recent posts to offer my viewpoint of what is being portrayed as a community wide compromise/bad deal that resulted from Doug and Steve and I being "used" as pawns of some sort. I don't feel used and frankly, Doug and Steve were masterful at advocating diverse community interests against a single purpose adversary.
Recall that at the end of the first Joint Committee meeting we were pleasantly surprised that the Clark bill did not pass, as most people expected it would. Council President Bishop indicated he was going to convene a Task Force of some sort to revisit the whole matter. In the following weeks, the internal Council process of counting noses revealed that Lori Boyer was the lone Member of Council with a solid NO vote on her mind. At best, there were less than a majority who could even be described as on the fence when it came to a showdown on the bill itself. A vote to delay is easy. A vote to overturn a sponsored bill with heavy developer support is virtually unheard of in my 30 years of sitting in that room.
The Task Force did not materialize. A mediation of sorts was called by CM Crescimbeni, acting as a Statesman should act in a situation of political impasse. And this was nowhere near being an impasse, btw. The Clark bill, as written, was headed for a veto-proof approval. Which would have set the tone for another extension when that round of relief/subsidy expired.
I was in the room. Not one of the six participants in the "mediated" substitute bill agreed with it. We simply all agreed not to unravel the attempt by CM Crescimbeni to put an approvable motion on the Council floor. The marginal success that came out of the new bill was, for me, that alternative mobility modes do get something out of the deal, both in the trickle of funds that will be collected, but more importantly, in the recognition at City Hall that this community wants and demands a political focus on walkability, pedestrian and cyclist-friendly streets. In my view that message can be driven home with emphasis at the next local election. Now that we all know where the weak links are, maybe we can pull together as a coalition of neighborhoods and voting Districts to change what needs changing at the polls.
Don't feel too badly about a compromise, versus an absolute win. The absolute win was poised in favor of the developers. A compromise you don't like is worlds better than an ass-whippin' you'd hate.
Remember, the legislative justification for the waiver in the first place was to create jobs. The bill as passed is still subject to the scrutiny of competent post-mortem analysis of the data that Council relied on to demonstrate "job creation".That data, supplied by the supporters of the bill, appears to have potentially fatal flaws. If so, then what?
Thank you for making these points far more cogently than I could!
It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.
Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?
Calling something a compromise assumes that both sides could potentially lose something. What did the developer lobby give up? Something they did not have nor were in reality untitled to? This was not a compromise, it was a gift to a special interest group.
No one was used. They didn't need us at all. Our de facto leaders, like Doug, were intimidated into agreeing to what they knew was a bad deal, the rest of us were simply ignored.
Yes, we got a very small concession at all because were were able to mobilize a large enough group and the potential fall out from ignoring us was too great. So they did the smart thing. When the full frontal approach failed, they did the behind the scenes thing and did it well. They waited just long enough that the press died down. They kept control of the situation and even of our de facto leadership. They made sure there was no time to mobilize the group and to get the facts back out to the public. They knew by control the timing, they could control the spin. Do you think that waiting one council cycle to do this, remember that they actually had two approved substitutes to deal with, would have hurt anyone? Wouldn't it have made sense to delay and see of they could get one bill? Except that they knew the metro park thing was going on and would help drown out anything we managed to do for the mobility fee. Now was the time and the developers knew it.
This whole thing was done very well indeed and in my opinion, not very ethically.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 06:32:33 AM
So basically, the 3 year moratorium was on track to pass,regardless. It might have been a closer vote, but they had a firm majority on their side?
That was my belief. Something was going to pass. In fact, if Council President Bishop hadn't jumped in with the suggestion to bring back the steering committee to review the mobility fee calculation system, we would have seen an amendment for a 1-year 100% off, moratorium the night of the first joint committee meeting. There were three council members ready to offer an amendment. If you go back and watch the tape carefully, CM Holt thought that such an amendment had been made and was ready to vote on it. But what ended up happening was a vote to defer until further study could be made. Curtis Hart was asked if he supported another 1-year 100% off moratorium as a compromise and he could barely contain his enthusiastic response. I was sitting in the front row violently shaking my head and wondering why our side wasn't asked what we thought about such an amendment.
The next day, I sent a letter to all of the council members in that meeting explaining that under no circumstances did I feel an acceptable compromise would include any amount of time with no fee required. I suggested that if we're going to talk compromise it should be in terms of percentage discount. I sent an email to many of those involved in the advocacy and asked their thoughts. Most replied back in agreement. The representatives from the Sierra Club were the only ones who stated that they were against any form of compromise. I asked for this in a letter form so that I could give it to the council. I never received that letter, but I did explain it verbally during the "compromise" meeting.
As to why I chose not to put all of this online, I hope the answer is obvious. When we are in a negotiating situation, it does us no good to publicly broadcast our position, and our discussions. Throughout the process, I kept those who had been what I thought key representatives informed. I sincerely apologize if I missed anyone.
Another issue that I feel needs explanation is that when I talk to council members, I do not feel that it helps our relationship if they view me as a reporter who is going to publicly repeat everything I hear. I am not a member of the media, and do not feel it my duty to share everything I hear. I value the friendships that have been established through this process with members of city council, the mayor's office and the planning department. These friendships will serve us well in the future as we continue advocating for urban redevelopment and alternative forms of transportation.
I'll give you a case in point. This morning, I was having breakfast with my son at Maple Street Biscuit Company and CM Schellenberg approached me. We had a nice conversation about the arts (his daughter is a senior at DA and my son is a freshman). Then he asked me some questions about the compromise and my opinions as to how we should move forward. Matt is one of the more conservative members of this council, and I believe that he truly valued my opinion. I believe this is so because of how we conducted ourselves. You can call me a "love to compromise" guy as much as you want, but I would always rather have a seat at the table making decisions than be on the outside looking in trying to throw stones through a concrete wall. I recognize that this may keep some of you from supporting my efforts in the future because you will see me as "one of the insiders" who can't be trusted. Everyone needs to follow the style that suits them best. I am not the type to stir up anger and threaten to tar and feather people because they don't agree with my opinions. I would much prefer a civilized conversation where I can understand their issues, explain mine and hopefully find a solution that allows us to move forward. On the flip side, I also recognize that there are times you have to draw a line and fight with everything you have. I thought long and hard about it, and didn't feel that this was one of those times.
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.
Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?
25% of the fee will be collected as soon as the mayor signs the bill. I personally have three applications in that will generate $20,000+ (after the discount).
My feeling on this is that because we live in a democratic republic, the will of the majority always wins. If we don't find a way to set the value of this fee to something that the majority supports, we will always be fighting it. Hopefully, as awareness increases about these issues the majority will begin to accept a greater investment and a higher fee. Otherwise we will spend tremendous energy fighting this everytime and eventually give up the fight having accomplished nothing.
Referring to the last sentence of my last post, I was treading lightly on the subject of the new bill's potential legal weaknesses, because I'm not an attorney. But from the vantage point of someone who has spent a career crafting regulatory bills, I question if it may require a Judge to determine if Council passed a "waiver", or a moratorium. If it is technically viewed as a moratorium, then it has to meet very specific State Statutes as to how it is constructed and how it may or may not be extended over time. Apply those standards, and I think the bill is vulnerable. Big if.
And, taking the "if" as a given, the job creation angle is very important from the standpoint that a court could require significant truthful evidence that the first moratorium demonstrated mandatory economic development results in the form of job creation. We don't have any such evidence at this time. The court would likely ask for a tighter definition of what those terms mean too.
My point, in big, block letters, is: we could not have won this fight at Council, neither with a knife nor a gun. Too much political equity had already been expended to expect them to kill the Clark bill, or a variation of it, outright. The good news is, the sponsor didn't get what he wanted. And he's the only one on the "other side" who wasn't prepared to compromise.
The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.
Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.
Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?
the mobility fee is in effect (be it with a discount) now....there is not a full waiver, so some money is being collected
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2013, 10:24:03 AM
Quote from: xplanner on April 11, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.
Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
+1 million
Absolutely!
But I bet we see a few more fights before then. We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working.
The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: Lunican on April 11, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
It's hard to imagine a scenario where the mobility fee will ever go into effect. Public opposition and data showing the moratorium as ineffective resulted in a unanimous extension of developer subsidies.
Under what conditions could the mobility fee be collected?
the mobility fee is in effect (be it with a discount) now....there is not a full waiver, so some money is being collected
Well that's good news. I guess we can pay for the proposed projects in 100 years or so.
^Clark actually suggested refunding the money collected so far. Luckily, the majority of the council didn't agree.
Quote from: Bridges on April 11, 2013, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2013, 10:24:03 AM
Quote from: xplanner on April 11, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.
Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
+1 million
Absolutely!
But I bet we see a few more fights before then. We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working.
The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?
Hmmm. Be careful what you wish for. Is the mobility fee popular with the voters? Do the voters view developers as job creators or robber barons? How do you change public perception?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 11, 2013, 12:26:16 PM
Quote from: Bridges on April 11, 2013, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2013, 10:24:03 AM
Quote from: xplanner on April 11, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.
Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
+1 million
Absolutely!
But I bet we see a few more fights before then. We'll see a step up in permits for 7-11s and the like for the next 9 months. And you can bet they will use that as evidence of the waiver working.
The question now is how do we prepare for these battles?
Hmmm. Be careful what you wish for. Is the mobility fee popular with the voters? Do the voters view developers as job creators or robber barons? How do you change public perception?
Robber Barons + 2 million
I think its funny how important the mobility fee is, but instead we have to deal with 300 G-damn juggalos vs. senior citizens complain about heavy metal at Met Park :)
Quote from: triclops i on April 11, 2013, 01:01:06 PM
I think its funny how important the mobility fee is, but instead we have to deal with 300 G-damn juggalos vs. senior citizens complain about heavy metal at Met Park :)
So true, so true.
Quote from: xplanner on April 11, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Referring to the last sentence of my last post, I was treading lightly on the subject of the new bill's potential legal weaknesses, because I'm not an attorney. But from the vantage point of someone who has spent a career crafting regulatory bills, I question if it may require a Judge to determine if Council passed a "waiver", or a moratorium. If it is technically viewed as a moratorium, then it has to meet very specific State Statutes as to how it is constructed and how it may or may not be extended over time. Apply those standards, and I think the bill is vulnerable. Big if.
And, taking the "if" as a given, the job creation angle is very important from the standpoint that a court could require significant truthful evidence that the first moratorium demonstrated mandatory economic development results in the form of job creation. We don't have any such evidence at this time. The court would likely ask for a tighter definition of what those terms mean too.
My point, in big, block letters, is: we could not have won this fight at Council, neither with a knife nor a gun. Too much political equity had already been expended to expect them to kill the Clark bill, or a variation of it, outright. The good news is, the sponsor didn't get what he wanted. And he's the only one on the "other side" who wasn't prepared to compromise.
The better news, at least for those who love a good fight, is that this Relief Bill will expire almost to the day that Jacksonville votes for the next City Council and Mayor. (How did they walk into that trap???). The forum chat and debates leading up to that election might actually be worth the wait.
Quoting the greatest philosopher of all time, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
I want to return to what is being said here because it is very important. When you want to effectively challenge what is happening at the legislative and administrative level you need to have "leverage"! Big money folks have leverage via their access to funds which buys lobbying power and ultimately face and social time with folks at the top.
So what is the leverage held by average folks? It is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards,
social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office to challenge policies and decisions that we know to be not only unfair, but perhaps even illegal or skirting the law. Too often folks believe that you can't fight City Hall. I beg to differ as I have done so quite successfully in the past. Is it easy? No, it is a time consuming royal pain in the rear but with determined effort can be done with little money and a bunch of willingness. You have to research, dig and dig some more to gather immutable facts. This can entail going so far as to listening to recorded committee meetings,checking the calendars of elected officials and researching old news articles. After having done all of this and you have the proof to back your own position, you need to be willing to report questionable activities to our local Ethics office and for more serious cases to the SAO or other investigative agency as appropriate.
Bottom line is this. Politicians and folks in leadership have the feeling of insulation when it comes to their official and personal actions. City Hall has it's own very distinct "social hierarchy" and outsiders need to remember that when addressing concerns as average citizens. The American people know when they are being
"flimflammed", the same goes for folks in Jacksonville. The problem is that the American public and citizens of Jacksonville as a whole don't know what to do about it. Educating yourself to the legal courses of action and how officials are expected to transparently behave is key. When they don't follow the rules, draft competent legislation or follow procedure it is
feet to the public fire, i.e. exposing the truth of the actions of those in power. The reason that this works and works well is that a good percentage of those in office either elected or appointed are not who they pretend to be and lacking quite often in ethics and outside what is honest and lawful. That potential exposure and willingness to see an issue completely through is the best "leverage" a citizen has.
The second best "leverage" a citizen and voter has is at election time. While money rules when it comes to selling a politician or platform, candidates need votes to win.
When promises are made by candidates and elected officials they darn well need to be held to those promises and too often they are not. That does not happen as it should and that is just weakness of the part of the voters.
Finally the public and groups that are fed up with the lack of true and competent representation need to be willing to work to change the law to make
recall of bad politicians a more streamlined process.
Quote from: GoldenEst82 on April 11, 2013, 02:51:35 AM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 10, 2013, 08:17:21 PM
Believe it or not, in many ways more important than the ones I just mentioned above is developing the ability as a voter and citizen to see beyond "charisma" and "social connections" with a clarity that does not allow your vote to be simply based upon the candidate seeming to be a nice guy or gal. We want leadership, not dinner dates. This is really difficult in our town because very often the most active individuals rub shoulders with one another on a regular basis and often simply refuse to imagine that so and so could be anything other than a stand up person because their social interactions with them have been fun. A fatal mistake when it comes to deciding on leadership.
This is the smartest thing I have heard anyone say in quite a long time.
Unfortunately, those social connections and their connection to candidate funds- seem to come with understood strings. Until we can find a way to make money accessible to those who would be willing to put up with those political accoutrements, (as you listed in your full post above) without having to make promises of future favor; we won't be able to find true stewards of the people's best interests.
It is very likely we will continue to see the candidate who can raise the most funds- win the election. It comes down to name recognition- and media saturation- because, well, most people don't bother to research for themselves or even to ask questions.
Though, I am not in such company here! :D
Thanks to you live bloggers as well! I can't make the council meetings, but I can always know what happened- as it happened, and I appreciate it!
Welcome Golden and "thank you"! I hope you will remain engaged in the conversations going forward. You seem to get it. lol I too really like the Blogging the site does during City council and committee meetings. Not only does it keep folks in the loop, it often does so in an entertaining and engaging way. Serious when it needs to be and irreverent when it counts. ;)
stephendare wrote: "Public perception is that these idiots are greedy and corrupt. And thats an almost universal viewpoint in Jacksonville."
Is there polling data that shows that or just your experience talking to people?
QuoteIt is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office
I think you are discounting the fact that we did that. Two tv stations covered the issue. Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue. The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue. The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium. Two social media campaigns were launched. We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC,
merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium.
We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced.
Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident. Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer. Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate. He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.
He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention.
Still with all that, this is the result. It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices. We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest.
That's the bottom line.
Quote from: fieldafm on April 11, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
QuoteIt is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office
I think you are discounting the fact that we did that. Two tv stations covered the issue. Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue. The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue. The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium. Two social media campaigns were launched. We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium.
We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced.
Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident. Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer. Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate. He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.
He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention.
Still with all that, this is the result. It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices. We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest.
That's the bottom line.
Hold up Mike, my comments were not aimed at this particular issue and were made as a overview of what works and doesn't when mounting legislative and political battles. There is that defensive thing again. Please do not apply an interpretation to my statements that was not meant by the words when shared and especially out of context of the full conversation they were included in. Come on now! I never said those involved in this issue had not done things well. Everyone did their due diligence, worked hard and deserve plenty of respect for that. But as Ms. Boyer and xplanner pointed out there are still questions and it may be worth someone investigating further into which power players met with whom, where and if all conversations were in accordance with public disclosure and Sunshine Laws. Chances are good they were not. Also time to make sure the agreed on waiver and subsequent legislation (it will come up again) has all the "T's" crossed. This thing was fast tracked and many meetings and discussions may not have been properly noted. I know checking this stuff is tedious but it is where you find the cracks that can open up to light. Pay particular attention to the activities of Richard Clark. Nuf said.
Respectfully, I am not being defensive. That is the way things are supposed to work, however it didn't work in this case. There has to be an audience willing to listen. In this case, we encountered an audience who by and large did not want to listen.
What would not revealing all ex parte communications do for the bill that was passed and will now be in affect for the next 18 months? Or are you making that point when considering future elections? Just trying to follow you.
There is only one challenge that matters at this point as it relates to the moratorium, and it's a challenge that will be waged from here on out by land use attorneys. Not exactly weak competition (considering that land use attorneys led the charge for the moratorium) but the law does have very specific language about how mobility impacts must be mitigated.
I understand your angst but want to make it very clear the context of my words. I know first hand the sacrifices a person undergoes in cases like this and would not look down my nose at anyone who engages in a righteous battle. :) I know it is a royal pain and disappointment when things do not work out the way we hope they will with so much hard work, time and effort extended. The key is to never give up and take a break when needed from these types of situations.
Reviewing how the moratorium deal (and others for that matter) go down, including understanding the players, their connections and how they operate can be invaluable in mounting "future" challenges to legislation. It is always wise to focus some attention on the person who is pushing a bill. They have a reason to be offering legislation but the question is who will their efforts help and who will they hurt? If the legislation serves the powerful, start digging and prepping to take on the issue if you wish to oppose it.
With regard to the waiver just passed, considering the time and effort expended, a more critical look at the days leading up to the waiver, unexpected meetings etc. might expose some actions that were not in keeping with transparency as required by the Sunshine Law. We know in this case the who's and why's, but what has yet to be determined is whether or not "agreements" were made outside of the Sunshine as required by law. It's worth looking into. Just try inquiring and see if you get resistance to reviewing council schedules and logs. If you do, that's a bell ringing.
Challenging any piece of legislation offered on behalf of the powerful will often put you up against professionals but they are not always more clever or educated than those opposing them. They just have more practice and a better understanding of the system than the average citizen. So citizens need to take extra steps to educate themselves about city processes. There are enough smart, savvy folks connected to this board to mount some very serious challenges to legislation and political behavior that hurts us and our city. Certainly smarter than some currently on council. It will take even more folks stepping up to help with things like legality of legislation, research etc.
One of the best things Metrojacksonville has done to open doors to understanding is the blogging of meetings taking place at City Hall and elsewhere. That first hand experience for readers is a very important piece to understanding how thing work in committee and during council meetings.
yes, the live blogging is very powerful.
Diane, it fantastic to have your experience helping us understand -- thanks!
Quote from: fieldafm on April 11, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
QuoteIt is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office
I think you are discounting the fact that we did that. Two tv stations covered the issue. Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue. The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue. The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium. Two social media campaigns were launched. We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium.
We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced.
Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident. Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer. Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate. He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.
He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention.
Still with all that, this is the result. It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices. We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest.
That's the bottom line.
Well said. I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
You need to prove them wrong. Start with the organizations that were in your corner. Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action. Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action. That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient.
Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision. I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually. It makes a bigger impact. Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too. Believe me, that says something.
Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue. Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can. Start a website devoted to just this issue.
Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree. But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't. For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue. That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents. Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.
Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'. Don't let it.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on April 11, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
QuoteIt is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office
I think you are discounting the fact that we did that. Two tv stations covered the issue. Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue. The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue. The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium. Two social media campaigns were launched. We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium.
We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced.
Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident. Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer. Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate. He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.
He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention.
Still with all that, this is the result. It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices. We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest.
That's the bottom line.
Well said. I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
You need to prove them wrong. Start with the organizations that were in your corner. Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action. Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action. That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient.
Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision. I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually. It makes a bigger impact. Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too. Believe me, that says something.
Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue. Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can. Start a website devoted to just this issue.
Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree. But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't. For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue. That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents. Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.
Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'. Don't let it.
GOOD POINTS
Council members seem to quickly forget how they are elected, and who they serve.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
that's probably still a fair assumption in a city of 800,000 people spread over 800 square miles
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on April 11, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
QuoteIt is the ability to use factual documentation, city ordinances, ethics standards, social and mainstream media and publicly stated claims made by those holding office
I think you are discounting the fact that we did that. Two tv stations covered the issue. Both the Florida Times Union and Folio editorial boards weighed in on the issue. The Biz Journal, while not giving us a favorable editorial position, did provide coverage of the issue. The Biz Journal also had an online poll which overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium. Two social media campaigns were launched. We had written letters from over 20 respected community orginazations including neighborhood groups, environmental groups, planning organizations, BPAC, merchant groups, CPACs, DVI and DIA that all opposed the moratorium.
We even had 40 people show up to an otherwise empty City Council chambers to oppose a moratorirum before a moratorium was even introduced.
Besides Metrojacksonville.com (who has been beating this drum for years)... the only other person that really paid the issue any attention at first was Steve DiMattia of the Resident. Steve really did a phenomenal job covering this story dating back to last summer. Steve got comments on record from a very wide variety of players (including many, many public officials) on this debate. He even offered space to have competing editorials from both Doug Skiles and Toney Sleiman.
He deserves some kind of journalistic medal for his balanced stories that provided deep depth when no one outside of MJ was paying attention.
Still with all that, this is the result. It wasn't for lack of effort and lack of voices. We got to this point b/c of a majority(not all, but most) of Council was unwilling to listen to their constituents and make a decision on something that was good for the entire community instead of what benefitted a very narrow special interest.
That's the bottom line.
Well said. I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
You need to prove them wrong. Start with the organizations that were in your corner. Encourage all the CPAC's and the other organizations to each vote resolutions in PROTEST of council's action. Work diligently to see that they EACH go on RECORD in opposition to this action. That fact that they may have done so before the vote, is NOT sufficient.
Likewise, everyone needs to write an email to the member expressing your disappointment in this decision. I suggest a WRITTEN snail mail one actually. It makes a bigger impact. Someone has to open it, it has a physical presence, it represents a bigger investment of time too. Believe me, that says something.
Next do everything you can to continue to educate the public on this 'in the weeds' issue. Pass out flyers at community and club meetings, whatever you can. Start a website devoted to just this issue.
Doug's role as the diplomatic negotiator is crucial and he needs to remain 'above the fray' to some degree. But you need 'agitators' to do the work he can't. For instance, be sure that anytime a candidate forum is held ANYWHERE in the city during the election cycle, that someone brings up this issue. That goes DOUBLE for the incumbents. Ask pointed, fact based questions that reminds the audience how they voted.
Never forget that they are counting on this to 'blow over'. Don't let it.
First, we were not very well organized over this and the end result proves it very well. We made a good first impression and then lost all with the follow through. Or lack of it. Reference Lori Boyer's e-mail.
Doug is a great guy but he proved himself vulnerable and so needs to work on proving that he can be a leader all over again. The only way he can do that is with our help. That help must be making us a "special interest group" unto ourselves that is just as influential as any other. To do less means we have lost before we have begun the fight.
It is important to note that while it says "Doug", any name can be substituted here. Don't make this personally about Doug, it isn't. It is about the practical facts of the matter. Unless we can provide cover for the leaders we want to support, their vulnerabilities will haunt them and prevent them from fighting the hard fights. We owe it to them as much as ourselves to find a way to protect them. And political might is the only way to do that.
^Yes, there was no organization. Doug wasn't an officially anointed leader or on anyone's payroll to fight this issue full time. Doug was just one of many citizens in opposition. The fact that some of us made Doug a defacto leader (without him even knowing) is a problem within itself. We need thousands of more Dougs, IMO.
We can also see the positive results of what a better organized group can do as well. Although, they still got screwed unintentionally (because no one really understood how the actual bike/ped numbers were budgeted within the mobility plan), they were thrown a bone by the council for showing up in large numbers and advocating for their particular issue.
"We did the best we could" is the theme song of all losers. There is no place this works, except perhaps, in kindergarten.
"Next time is ours" is the theme song of winners.
We have three losing themes going...
1. That's the best we could get...
2. Our leaders failed us...
3. We ultimately got screwed, learn from this and move on to become more influential....
Quote from: thelakelander on April 12, 2013, 08:16:20 AM
^Yes, there was no organization. Doug wasn't an officially anointed leader or on anyone's payroll to fight this issue full time. Doug was just one of many citizens in opposition. The fact that some of us made Doug a defacto leader (without him even knowing) is a problem within itself. We need thousands of more Dougs, IMO.
We can also see the positive results of what a better organized group can do as well. Although, they still got screwed unintentionally (because no one really understood how the actual bike/ped numbers were budgeted within the mobility plan), they were thrown a bone by the council for showing up in large numbers and advocating for their particular issue.
Just to make it clear, Doug was, regardless of what anyone says, the de facto leader - City council knew it, the opposition knew it and so did Doug. Saying otherwise is doing a disservice to us all. However, the real fault needs to be put on this site. The leadership needed to better organize the potential political might being made available to them and they needed to use the information being fed to them regardless of personalities. This fight could have been a bit different if they had. Or not. We can't make that determination now but it would have been a lot nicer to have found out for sure.
The bike thing was nothing but a dog and pony show. Even the wording says that all they got was what they had already, nothing more and, hey, maybe less. So what bone did they get thrown again? A bone with no substance is still, well, nothing.
So now, we need to find out if Metrojacksonville and it's leaders really wants to do the hard and risky work of meeting it's potential. I know a couple of them are, is that enough and will the rest of us stand by them? Because they can't do it without us and that means we need to be taking the same risks they are.
It seems that I am in the minority in this opinion, however, I am very optimistic about the future success of the Mobility Plan and it's supporting Fee. By keeping even a small percentage alive, we have protected the system as a growth management tool. Yes, I acknowledge that there is much work ahead to get the system operating at the level we hoped it would when it was first enacted.
It is also important to remember that we will need other funding sources for the infrastructure systems we hope to enjoy in our city. The gas tax is going to be a hot issue for the next council year and we need to make sure we are engaged in that debate. The Community Redevelopment Plan for downtown will also be a source of revenue. And there are other options floating around that need to be explored.
I agree that it is time to take a more organized approach to the advocacy of these issues. And I certainly look forward to be part of it.
Quote from: strider on April 12, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
Just to make it clear, Doug was, regardless of what anyone says, the de facto leader - City council knew it, the opposition knew it and so did Doug. Saying otherwise is doing a disservice to us all. However, the real fault needs to be put on this site. The leadership needed to better organize the potential political might being made available to them and they needed to use the information being fed to them regardless of personalities. This fight could have been a bit different if they had. Or not. We can't make that determination now but it would have been a lot nicer to have found out for sure.
The bike thing was nothing but a dog and pony show. Even the wording says that all they got was what they had already, nothing more and, hey, maybe less. So what bone did they get thrown again? A bone with no substance is still, well, nothing.
So now, we need to find out if Metrojacksonville and it's leaders really wants to do the hard and risky work of meeting it's potential. I know a couple of them are, is that enough and will the rest of us stand by them? Because they can't do it without us and that means we need to be taking the same risks they are.
Why not just personally start this advocacy group that you are beseeching the leaders of metrojacksonville to start? This site is a news source and a public forum. While there may be a strong group of supporters of such a group on the forum, that doesn't mean it needs to be (or should be, frankly) run by the site. Now, the guys that run the site are major advocates and Jax movers and shakers, so they'd certainly be very good to have involved with the group, but I think having it as an arm of the site would be a bad idea. So there's nothing stopping you from starting it.
And this group already kind of exists: Transform Jax. Some of the guys that founded it were very important on this issue, but it seems the group could be better leveraged to tackle something like this, no? Or is this type of thing not within the mission you guys had planned? It seems with Field, Wiatt, Ennis as founders and Doug as "affiliated," it might have been more impactful with you guys all repping TransformJax instead of yourself alone. If nothing else, it is an organization for everyone else to rally around, and a place where supportive people can put their money. And it gets the TransformJax brand out. Based on the material on your website, at least, it seems that this is right up your alley.
Quote from: stephendare on April 12, 2013, 10:06:22 AM
Although I think that its harder for Transform Jax to take on fights like this as all of the principals have to do business in the very fields that generate this kind of issue.
This is a good point and a catch22 situation that clearly I am in too. The people who often are the most knowledgeable about an issue also have much to lose personally by getting too involved. But, these same people also garner the most attention from city leaders and the media when issues arise.
Quote from: stephendare on April 12, 2013, 10:06:22 AM
Although I think that its harder for Transform Jax to take on fights like this as all of the principals have to do business in the very fields that generate this kind of issue.
However, I think its time that we organized a meeting and maybe even formed a committee, and I know that several of us, including Doug and obviously Strider would like to see something a little more organized.
So why not move forward on it?
I am fully on board with trying to organize something. Its frustrating sitting back and watching as lobbyist emerge from the council chambers seconds before a meeting on their bill. A meeting would be great to kind of generate ideas for what even the group would be. Right now we just have a lot of passionate people looking to make a change.
Our city and quality of life are too important to leave up to city council.
Yes
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2013, 11:12:20 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
that's probably still a fair assumption in a city of 800,000 people spread over 800 square miles
why do you pretend to be an urbanist?
I don't pretend....but unlike you, I'm also a realist on how others in our region live
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 12, 2013, 09:50:36 AM
And this group already kind of exists: Transform Jax. Some of the guys that founded it were very important on this issue, but it seems the group could be better leveraged to tackle something like this, no? Or is this type of thing not within the mission you guys had planned? It seems with Field, Wiatt, Ennis as founders and Doug as "affiliated," it might have been more impactful with you guys all repping TransformJax instead of yourself alone. If nothing else, it is an organization for everyone else to rally around, and a place where supportive people can put their money. And it gets the TransformJax brand out. Based on the material on your website, at least, it seems that this is right up your alley.
TransForm Jax members were involved in the discussions....and many times we represented ourselves as the group.
That said Stephen also makes a valid point that our every day careers sometimes get in the way of our advocacy. It is a challenge that we have been dealing with from the beginning and one we still wrestle with. I think several of us want to take TransForm Jax to "the next level", but we haven't mapped out what that is or how to get there yet.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 12, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2013, 11:12:20 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 11, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on April 11, 2013, 09:48:08 PM
I get the impression that the council thinks that the pro urban crowd is a vocal, decently organized, MINORITY, that will make a lot of 'noise', but it's bark is worse than it's bite.
that's probably still a fair assumption in a city of 800,000 people spread over 800 square miles
why do you pretend to be an urbanist?
I don't pretend....but unlike you, I'm also a realist on how others in our region live
In a city where roughly 30% of the registered voters turnout for elections, that minority of becomes more powerful. The Urban core has shown its voting power before. A small vocal minority can definitely have an impact with those numbers.
well, feel free to ask Lori if she thinks I am an urbanist...and what my thoughts were on the mobility fee issue