(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/b78d99a1-9095-438e-8779-831559a7f08e.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/b78d99a1-9095-438e-8779-831559a7f08e.jpg.html)
Packed house and they are still entering the women's club. Approx 200 people currently here.
The beloved Doug V will officiate. A wise choice for this controversial meeting
Slammed packed
Calvin Birney is here
Action news. First coast news
JSO
Obviously the meeting will not start on time as people are still coming in
Councilman Lumb
Bill Hoff addressing the crowd.
Daryl Griffin is here
Cm Guliford
The crowd gives Doug some love.
Talk of overlay and special uses.
Ground rules:
1. Read questions submitted
2. Time will be limited
Ability housing (Shannon Nazworth) is speaking
Overview: owns 255 rental units throughout jax. Own three multi family properties. Encourage everyone to visit.
Not special use single occupancy unless married couple.
She's nervous and needs to pause
She talks about the Reno of the property
She goes on:
About the grant. They could only find the property due limitations of the grant. The location was important.
They didn't think they'd get the grant.
She apologizes for not getting in touch with the neighborhood when they heard
People yelling for her to speak up
Restless group
Changed mics
Talking about the grant applications. Veterans comes up.
They didn't want to commit to the grant the service to only veterans
"Yes we will be serving homeless veterans". We will be serving others if no veterans are available
Background cks. We are more lenient than the average landlord
They allow felons but only if not recently. No sex offenders
No services by ability but va will provide to veterans if appropriate
If they are in violation of their leases they will evict They will evict if illegal activity
If they are not a good neighbor they will not be able to stay
No on site staff. But they will screen knowing this.
Someone will be visiting the propert weekly
She's thanking spar board.
They will prioritize homeless vets currently living in Springfield
They will contribute to the securty find and ask the security fund to keep any eye on the property
Current residents They don't know about this yet. They will provide financial support if necessary -- if they have to move out
They have brought a resident from ability housing who tells about her journey.
So this isn't a vacant building?
Tiffany tells her story about be a working mom living in a shelter
Ability housing is done
Doug is setting some ground rules
"Could you explain how you came up with the Reno costs "
Based on their other projects
"What is definition of veteran"
Using VA definition.
"Why did they hide their plans from the community ". The crowd explodes
AH had no intention of hiding anything. We have learned our lesson. We will never do this again
AH has always been welcomed in other communities
Crowd doesn't buy it
Chris Hays speaks to not providing services Crowd seems okay with Alcos help
Crowd is yelling insults to ability housing regarding special uses.
Jack is calling it a treatment facility He is saying there are 50 treatment facilities.
Crowd loves this. Jack says "take it some place else "
Jack pontificates about overlay
Doug has lost control of the meeting
Jack is talking about the river region win
Jack is stating that this is a special use
Jack complains about the AA meetings near him
He gets standing ovation from the crowd
Quote from: sheclown on April 03, 2014, 07:20:40 PM
"Why did they hide their plans from the community ". The crowd explodes
AH had no intention of hiding anything. We have learned our lesson. We will never do this again
AH has always been welcomed in other communities
Crowd doesn't buy it
Has Ability been living under a rock the last decade? Every similar project that's been proposed in Springfield since I've been in town (2003) has received the same exact community response.
Margi talks about the "hand off". Who is helping these people
Seems a split between the crowd. Some want services for the veterans and others don't want them even with the services
Murmurs in the crowd
I have surrounded myself with pastors. Sure Carmichael from st Mary's. Pastors Hamm from St. John's. Susan from the well.
sorry I had to leave. Not doing well in crowds. I thought the introduction was very could but nothing was said about accountability as to how to make sure they will do as they promise, and it appeared issues like veterans were left out of the proposal specifically to avoid being help accountable if there are no/less veterans living in the house.
"How can the community trust AH". Another apology
"How many other AH have on site managers".
"We have a solid track record of handling properties without site managers"
"We have too many needy people. When can we say we've had enough"
No response
"Will you consider moving to another location -- "
No
"Will people with violent felonies be allowed?"
AH answering in a mumbled voice. The incident has to be five years old
Crowd yelling out
"How do you know if the residents are using drugs ?"
Crowd is ugly to former homeless lady
Jack Meeks brings up DIA which will remove "homeless footprint "downtown
"Do homeless people
Follow the services ?"
"What changes would you make to the building. Would they need HPC approval ?"
I can answer that -- yes
"You are putting 54k in each unit...you will over build the building "
No comment
"Is it correct that the tenants could get drunk every day and nothing happen to them"
Pastor Hamm says "I think everyone in Springfield should take a piss test "
(I know there was a reason I was sitting surrounded by the pastors)
"Do you care what residents have to say"
Our mission is to homeless
"Take them to your house " gets yelled out from
The crowd
Applause
Hands are up for questions
Michael Trautmann speaking "23 year resident -- connection with Springfield and downtown. The overlay is about lowering density. The city needs to defend the overlay"
Stomping of feet and clapping of hands
Trautmann gets standing ovation
Doug invites city to speak
Calvin Birney steps up to speak Got to give him
Props for that
I had to leave early, right after the first few rounds of questions. That crowd was ready to go off from the very beginning.
I actually think their plan could work, so long as everyone is up front about expectations and plans. AH and Springfield could work together to make sure that this is a place that doesn't turn into everyone's wildest fears, and a place that helps serve vets and non-vets in need of homeless assistance.
AH has eviction practices. Maybe a clear meeting with SPAR about the requirements for eviction and discussion about rules? Maybe Springfield helps sponsor a program for those in the building (along with other homeless individuals) to help engage them in the community.
But, judging by that crowd, there was no need for the ballots tonight, they could have asked for "All those opposed" and the Nays would have shook that building to the ground.
Sounds like this will play out well on the local news.
Birney says "zoning is correct for what it is. City has not seen application. But everything seems okay. Zoning is correct "
"What is a definition of ongregate living ". Someone asks from
The crowd Speaker brings up rudat study. He's rambling and brings up the auction
The crowd again stomps its feet and cheers
"We are a neighborhood in transition. We want to move forward not backward "
Huxley is now reading the definition of a congregate living services
Huxley says that this project is allowed by zoning
Crowd brings up boarding houses and sober houses
"Springfield is not as protected as the other overlays ". Speaker yells out
"We are fighting for our safety. They are going to be breaking into our houses "
Man speaks in appreciation of prisoners of Christ who watch over the people on their care
AH will prioritize homeless in Springfield
"I am the future of this neighborhood and I am blindsided by this project"
"Man says he doesn't want Springfield homeless in the facility that are sleeping on our porches"
Kim is speaking "AH can rent to whomever they wish. Focus on the grant. Does the grantor require community involvement?"
The overlay discussion doesn't apply. Do you require they pay rent ?"
"Grantor does not require community input ?" No
"Who pays the rent ?" VA helps pay
Meeting is adjourned
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mostpopular/story/Springfield-residents-discuss-homeless-housing/y_QpMxqL6k2B5nzqmo2beQ.cspx
and
Quote
Springfield Residents Oppose New Homeless Apartment Complex
By Kevin Meerschaert
Springfield residents showed up in force to a meeting Thursday night to discuss a new housing development for the homeless proposed for the neighborhood.
An overflow crowd packs into the Springfield Women's Club to hear about a proposal from Ability Housing to house homeless veterans in Springfield.
Credit Kevin Meerschaert / WJCT
Many residents are strongly opposed having Ability Housing of North Florida convert an old apartment building in their neighborhood into residences for the homeless. More than 100 residents packed into the Springfield Woman's Club building to share their feelings with the agency and city officials.
Ability Housing is purchasing the 12 unit Cottage Avenue apartments through a grant and plans to renovate the parcel and the building. The plan is to house homeless veterans in the complex.
Ability Housing Executive Director Shannon Nazworth said the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is going to provide wraparound services along with help from other non-profit organizations.
"When we work with the VA to do our screenings, everything will be done with the consideration that there is no on-site staff," she said. "We will do the best we can to screen appropriately with regards to those facts."
"In addition, the case workers will be coming to visit the residents on a regular basis. Our property manager will visit at least once a week. The maintenance man will visit at least once a week and one of our staff will visit at least once a week," she said.
But many in the Springfield neighborhood said they are already doing their part to help the less fortunate. They pointed to about 50 special use facilities already in Springfield, from halfway houses to shelters.
The apartment building being proposed as housing for homeless veterans is at 319 Cottage Ave. in Springfield.
Credit Kevin Meerschaert / WJCT
Springfield resident and Downtown Investment Authority board member Jack Meeks said the concentration of such facilities can harm a neighborhood.
"Our city laws and zoning recognize that, and in addition to that, as I said, the DIA plan is also going to recognize that," he said "So I think hopefully that ultimately the service providers will get on the right side of history and understand that they can't provide their services in areas that in effect disable or further challenge those areas."
Meeks said he's considering legal action claiming the Ability Housing complex would not just be an apartment house but is new special needs facility. Such new facilities are not permitted under current land use rules in Springfield.
Ability Housing said they would only be landlords of a renovated multi-housing unit which already exists.
http://news.wjct.org/post/springfield-residents-oppose-new-homeless-apartment-complex
QuoteSpringfield residents protest homeless veterans center planned for neighborhood
Friday, April 4, 10:16 AM EDT
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The meeting was billed as a dialogue between Springfield residents and Ability Housing of Northeast Florida officials. A series of questions and answers about a 12-unit apartment complex in the historic neighborhood to assist homeless veterans.
But there was anger. Calls of purposeful deception. An "enough is enough" attitude.
Close to 200 people showed Thursday evening to the town hall-style meeting to talk, vent and lash out about the nonprofit's plans to bring a 12-unit apartment complex on Cottage Avenue to serve homeless veterans.
Ability was notified it would receive $7.3 million from the state in mid-March for the Springfield project and one other.
Ability Housing would serve as the landlord and use the Veterans Administration and other providers to select the chronically homeless who would live in the complex. Springfield veterans would have priority and if no veterans qualified, others who are homeless or at-risk could be picked.
Area residents had myriad concerns, tinged with anger: Why weren't they notified sooner? Will there be on-site supervision? Are mental health and drug treatment mandatory? Why Springfield?
Shannon Nazworth, Ability Housing executive director, and members of her staff were on hand to take the heat.
She apologized to the crowd several times for not contacting neighborhood leadership sooner. She did so after the grant was awarded in the past couple of weeks, not when the nonprofit applied for the state funding late last year.
As for on-site supervision and mandatory treatment, there will neither. Ability Housing would connect tenants with the area service agencies to provide help on a voluntary basis. Nazworth said national best practices show that voluntary, not mandatory, treatment work best when helping those at-risk and rehabilitating.
Having full-time, on-site staff isn't financially feasible because the project is smaller than others the nonprofit oversees, she
said.
The group has 255 units throughout Jacksonville, including the 83-unit Mayfair Village on the Southside for low-income families and the homeless; a 52-unit apartment community called Renaissance Village in the Longbranch neighborhood for the homeless and those at-risk and the 60-unit Oakland Terrace complex on the Eastside for rental assistance.
Springfield has a concentration of treatment and group homes, enough that a zoning overlay change was approved by City Council more than a decade ago to prevent any additional "special uses."
But, with no on-site supervision nor requirements for treatment, the Ability Housing project is considered multifamily, not special use.
Jack Meeks, a resident and member of the Downtown Investment Authority, told the crowd the project is a special use and he has hired a lawyer to make the city enforce its rules.
He said he had no problem with the nonprofit's mission, but didn't want it in Springfield.
"Take it someplace else," Meeks said.
He said he and his wife, JoAnn Tredennick, would continue to pursue the matter to the full extent of the law, which received a standing ovation from many in the room.
Calvin Burney, city planning director, told the crowd he had not seen the application for the project, but from what he has heard it would be deemed multifamily, though any changes during the process could alter it.
Throughout the two hour-plus dialogue, others voiced similar sentiments as Meeks.
Despite the outcry, Nazworth afterward said she will continue to communicate to dispel any misconceptions with residents on the issue. She said the trust will come with time.
"It's going to take time for them to see what we have done," she said. "It's my firm belief that once we are up and running ... it will be just like a regular apartment building and they'll realize it's a benefit to the community."
dchapman@baileypub.com
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542631
Whether or not you agree with Jack, "take it someplace else" is nowhere near the gist of what he said. I knew that would be the sound bite. Typical sensationalism on Chapman's part, and several other news stories. They took the few words they knew could be sensationalized and edited out all the rest of what I felt to be a reasonable point.
Jack made the point that our very caring and compassionate one square mile neighborhood is already home to many more facilities than the typical Jacksonville neighborhood, which averages one per square mile. And that the purpose of the overlay was to limit such facilities in the future because it wasn't fair to the residents that Springfield had so many compared to every other neighborhood in Jacksonville.
You may not agree with the neighbors who made that point, but I don't think that makes our residents heartless to say other neighborhoods than ours could step up to the plate and accept some of these facilities. There are buses, hospitals and grocery stores in other areas of town. I don't know the number in our neighborhood. Maybe its 20. Maybe it really is 50. But when Mandarin, Riverside, Southside, the Beaches, Avondale, etc. have maybe, say 10 or so, then I'll allow the residents of those neighborhoods to start lecturing us about how heartless Springfield is.
Until then, come on over to Springfield and learn what a caring and compassionate neighborhood we really are.
Don't be silly, Stephen. Hospitals and fire stations, let's see. Riverside/Avondale = St. Vincents. Mandarin = Baptist South. Southside = Memorial and St. Vincents in Southpoint. Beaches = Baptist Beaches. Northside = new hospital being built. I'm sure they all have fire stations too. I know most of them have bus service.
That said, we'll agree to disagree, Stephen. Since the point has been made a couple of times without success so far. Done with this one about only Springfield having the necessary services. That's quite simply not true.
Perhaps it's time to stop redlining our historic urban core neighborhoods as segregated districts of crazy, homeless ghettos.
Springfield should not be bullied into taking in more of the crazy, sex addicted and possibly dishonorably discharged veterans and drug addicts because Mandarin and the beaches refuse to take them.
^^i think Stephens point is the facilities that will be relied upon for these tenants is already in existence so it makes sense that a facility of this nature would go closer to needed infrastructure. This is rehabbing an existing structure. Not sure many existing structures of this nature exist in Mandarin not to mention none within easy transport of infrastructure they most likely require. But go ahead make it a me vs them issue again.
Quote from: edjax on April 04, 2014, 04:07:55 PM
^^i think Stephens point is the facilities that will be relied upon for these tenants is already in existence so it makes sense that a facility of this nature would go closer to needed infrastructure. This is rehabbing an existing structure. Not sure many existing structures of this nature exist in Mandarin not to mention none within easy transport of infrastructure they most likely require. But go ahead make it a me vs them issue again.
Give them a bus pass.
Jacksonville is a suburban town so let the suburbs share in the responsibility.
Matter of fact, take some of the Davis land and build a crazy homeless transitional ghetto out near the Duval/St Johns County line and bus the homeless people to the hospital.
That won't happen because the Davis family and people out there have the mayor and governors' personal cell phone numbers.
Much easier to bully working people in our urban core who historically were powerless to stop our overlords from dumping society's ills out way. Out of sight bags out of mind of suburbia.
Glad to see that working people in our urban core are standing up for themselves.
And with our great mass transist system that bus ride would be 3 hours each way.
Dagnabbit. I said I was done talking about this. I hope to keep my promise to myself after this.
edjax, existing structure is fully rented, not a vacant unused structure. Where will those tenants, also low income, go? Ability Housing plans to non-renew their leases. To their credit, they plan to help them find other places. But to my knowledge, there aren't 12 more "affordable housing" studios in Springfield.
So apparently it's OK with you to displace existing low income tenants, in walking distance to the same facilities they need too, and perhaps have to relocate them to another neighborhood NOT within walking distance of facilities, to accommodate a different population of people also in need of affordable housing?
Why is it OK with you to kick them out of their homes? Why are the existing tenants of this apartment building less deserving in your opinion?
I have no idea the total number of facilities in Springfield, but it is high. Then I'm also not sure of how the numbers are quantified. Is it providers? Is it locations? At Prisoners of Christ, we have three properties in Springfield; Thorminc has one or two .... So is that being counted as 2 providers or 4/5 facilities? Even more, we are bringing people into the neighborhood who have just been released from state prisons. I fail to see how taking chronically homeless off the street is more dangerous to the community than what we provide. For that reason alone, I think this is a small amount of residents not wanting anything to change.
As for some other comments, there are several sex offender houses out on the Westside, there and northside is typically only place they can be located due to city regulations on distances to places where children may gather.
Riverside has a HUGE population of substance abuse/prison transition/homeless transition/AIDS care houses. Actually, it may be equal or even more than Springfield. Not to mention a privately operated transitional house for women still incarcerated by the State.
And yes, Stephen is right. Though there are other hospitals, those hospitals stabilize then transport or refer you to UFJacksonville/SHANDS. County health at Blvd & 6th, the VA. When you are operating a program that may have 25+ clients, you would be foolish to look outside Springfield/Brentwood/Myrtle Ave because you would spend a lot of time and expense transporting people to and from these locations.
I have had a little experience with Ability Housing, some of our clients live in their housing on the Southside and they appear to have a well run program.
Does this "medical district" have a development plan? Something that guides growth and directs facilities, such as what's proposed to specific sites? Something, where every one knows in advance of what the long term goal is?
Below, an example of New Orleans' Bio District:
(http://biodistrictneworleans.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Draft_Composite_Scheme_lg_02-04-11.jpg)
Click on the link and you'll be able to read the key, which has specific zones identified for a specific mix of uses.
http://biodistrictneworleans.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Draft_Composite_Scheme_lg_02-04-11.jpg
If so, what areas are identified for support services and associated housing? If not, perhaps it's time to eliminate the silos.
I am sure this is not the first time a building has been purchased and going to be used for something different. This happens. They said they will assist them in finding housing. Assuming the business they are in they will do a good job on placement. Not sure why they would have to find one facility to place all tenants, just 12 units.
I am sure it will work out with all the caring and loving people assisting.
^its an apartment building now and they're continuing to use it as an apartment building right? We looked at that property about a year ago for our expansion, they certainly aren't offering any service from there. Unless they remodel it, it will still be used exactly as it is now, just by a targeted demographic.
Bottom line as Mr Meeks stated. Move it somewhere else as he clearly does not want it in Springfield despite his admiration for their mission. I get it. So where to now? Leave them in Hemming homeless?
Below is a scan of a propaganda sheet produced by the leadership of Historic Springfield and handed out to the crowd at last Thursday's Community Meeting with Ability Housing.
QuoteCrime Rate of Ability Housing Facility
A recent search has been done to examine the number of calls made to JSO for two properties that
Ability Housing claims to have low crime rates.
Property 887 Franklin St. had 184 visits by JSO from 3/30/12- 3/30/2014
Property 3140 Franklin St. had 137 visits by JSO from 3/30/2012 - 3/30/2014
Property 139 Cottage Ave had 40 visits by JSO from 3/30/2012-3/30/2014
All 3 properties share similar reasons for JSO to come and visit (Serve eviction, noise complaint, drug
investigation, warrants, burglary of business, burglary of residential, drug investigation, assault, assault
with firearm, discharge of firearm, etc)
Both properties that are owned by Ability Housing and managed by CT Management have on-site
supervision/management for their residents. Despite both properties having perimeter fencing acting as
a community safeguard the crime rate is still uncomfortably high.
When comparing these two properties versus Cottage Ave, the numbers show that Property 3140
Franklin st. has a percent increase of 226 which is almost 3.5 times higher than what Cottage Ave
experiences now.
When comparing 887 Franklin St. to Cottage Ave, a percent increase of 360 is found which is 4.6 times
higher than the crimes/violence/safety concerns than what Cottage Ave Experiences now.
These numbers verify that the properties Ability Housing states as being safe comfortable environments
that are nestled into their respective communities may not be as safe as they think. Springfield residents
and business safety may be jeopardized by these enormous percentage increases.
On the surface, it seems very bad for Ability Housing. But what do those crime statistics really represent? If we assume that the numbers listed are indeed the number of JSO visits to those precise addresses then we also need to recognize that one can not simply compare the visits per complex to each other without acknowledging the differences between those complexes. The way the information was presented on this handout was simply comparing address to address. The address is not the cause of the JSO visits, the people who live there are. So to compare one complex to another, one must take into account the number of people represented by each address. As we can not know the number of people in each unit or apartment, the next best way is to compare the number of visits per unit.
887 Franklin St is a 6 building, 60 unit complex. This means that number of visits translates to about 3 visits per unit or apartment (184/60=3.066).
3140 Franklin is a 3 building 53 unit complex. This means that the number of visits translates to about 2.6 visits per unit (137/52=2.634).
139 Cottage is a single 12 unit building. This means that the number of visits translates to about 3.3 visits per unit (40/12=3.333).
Comparing apples to apples makes a difference in what these statistics actually say. While the propaganda sheet made by the leadership of Historic Springfield tries to present Ability Housing as a poor landlord and liars, the actually facts say the total opposite and support the statements by Ability Housing.
The propaganda sheet claims that 887 Franklin is 4.6 times worse than the current Cottage residents, the facts show that Cottage is 10% worse than 887 Franklin. The claim of 3.5 times worse than the current Cottage residents for 3140 Franklin is in actuality the opposite with Cottage being 26% worse than 3140 Franklin.
The statements made by Ability Housing claiming they improve the crime issues in their communities they run or own is true.
The leadership of Historic Springfield over this issue, Mr Moulton, Mr Meeks and Mr Trauntman, among other prominent community members, are guilty of lying to their public. They are doing nothing but rabble rousing in an attempt to insure the general public is sympathetic to their cause. They are willing to lie and cheat to get that support. As a member of the Historic Springfield community, I resent that.
I resent the lies, the statements that this is against the overlay, which it is not. I resent the rabble rousing to the point of all but inciting a riot. I resent that this good community, filled with all sorts of economic and racial diversity, is being made to look bad by Mr Meeks, Mr Trautman and others.
Don't like it that this apartment building is being purchased by Ability Housing? Fine. State that. Be truthful with why. Do not use lies and innuendo to hide the truth of that why. Do not use misinformation to further some personal vendetta against another group of residents or potential residents. Doing so puts all of Springfield in a bad light.
There was a lot of booing and foot-stamping at last Thursdays meeting. Unfortunately for Springfield, it was misdirected. It should have been directed at the leaders of the meeting, the people trying to be the leadership of Springfield. They caused more damage than ten Ability Housing projects can cause.
For those interested, here's a summary of the meeting: http://www.sparcouncil.org/community_meeting_with_ability_housing
The anonymous paper survey collected at the end of the meeting showed 113 oppose the project, while 13 are in favor.
Personally, I think the actual physical property itself would be managed fine. Ability Housing has a good track record of property renovation and management. Perhaps I could be wrong, but I don't fear the property turning into a drug market or mad house.
I and most others do, however, have a H-U-G-E problem with an organization purposely not informing or engaging a community about their planned project in that community because they suspect it may be unpopular. As Councilman Gaffney stated, they may not have a legal obligation, but they did have a moral one. If you believe in what you're doing, don't hide it. Sell it. Get others to come on board. Work to get everyone on the same page. Instead, the project was purposely not discussed with members of the community until they had already won the grant. Not cool.
As others have stated, the right location is just as important as the right program. The Springfield historic district still has a high concentration of social service housing, which has some impact on quality-of-life. This was noted by COJ years ago, which resulted in the zoning overlay, meant to decrease the concentration of some kinds of social service housing. This new project may technically avoid those criteria, but in essence is a similar use. And while I'm not really worried about the quality of the property or property management, I would say there's a 99% chance that a program participant moved into the neighborhood from elsewhere will end up financially supporting the drug activity that is left in the neighborhood. Again, that's not cool either.
In the big picture, the positive momentum and projects going on in the community right now far, far outweigh the negative (Heck, this exact property has had multiple offers to renovate into nice apartments appealing to the working and professional class). So I don't expect a noticeable negative impact from this project, but there's more grant dollars for similar projects out there. And others will be looking for good locations to establish them in. When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?
Anyways, that's my personal perspective.
Cheers.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on April 06, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
For those interested, here's a summary of the meeting: http://www.sparcouncil.org/community_meeting_with_ability_housing
The anonymous paper survey collected at the end of the meeting showed 113 oppose the project, while 13 are in favor.
Personally, I think the actual physical property itself would be managed fine. Ability Housing has a good track record of property renovation and management. Perhaps I could be wrong, but I don't fear the property turning into a drug market or mad house.
I and most others do, however, have a H-U-G-E problem with an organization purposely not informing or engaging a community about their planned project in that community because they suspect it may be unpopular. As Councilman Gaffney stated, they may not have a legal obligation, but they did have a moral one. If you believe in what you're doing, don't hide it. Sell it. Get others to come on board. Work to get everyone on the same page. Instead, the project was purposely not discussed with members of the community until they had already won the grant. Not cool.
As others have stated, the right location is just as important as the right program. The Springfield historic district still has a high concentration of social service housing, which has some impact quality-of-life. This was noted by COJ years ago, which resulted in the zoning overlay, meant to decrease the concentration of some kinds of social service housing. This new project may technically avoid those criteria, but in essence is a similar use. And while I'm not really worried about the quality of the property or property management, I would say there's a 99% chance that a program participant moved into the neighborhood from elsewhere will end up financially supporting the drug activity that is left in the neighborhood. Again, that's not cool either.
In the big picture, the positive momentum and projects going on in the community right now far, far outweigh the negative (Heck, this exact property has had multiple offers to renovate into nice apartments appealing to the working and professional class). So I don't expect a noticeable negative impact from this project, but there's more grant dollars for similar projects out there. And others will be looking for good locations to establish them in. When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?
Anyways, that's my personal perspective.
Cheers.
Perhaps we disagree on the "damage" that special uses have done to the neighborhood, but that is a discussion for another day.
I will say that I admire you for your honesty in this post.
Thank you for sharing.
Yes, Bill, a good and honest post. Now go convince some of the other leaders of the community to do the same.
I will state that I fully understand why Ability Housing did not come to the community with this first. Why should they? They were buying an apartment building, nothing more. I do agree that position is from a legal standpoint which you recognized. However, to be honest when trying to state that they had a moral obligation, does anyone buying any apartment building, duplex or even a single family house have any legal or moral requirement to announce what they are going to do? Does your neighbor around the corner have to tell you that they want to buy a duplex and rent it to college kids? I don't see the difference and using that point as an argument why one should be against this comes across as an excuse not a reason.
You ask: When is a roughly 1x1 square mile neighborhood allowed to say "No Thanks, we have our fair share already" without being jerks?
My answer to that is when the leadership uses facts and truth rather than misinformation and innuendo. When the people use reason and common sense rather than stomp their feet and act like a frenzied mob.
Maybe recognizing that there are not 50 or 60 special uses, but only 12. Maybe using the correct definition of special use would be a help as well. Special use is a small group of business that were seen not as this horrible type of community destroying business but one that was indeed too prevalent for a healthy community. At the time of the passage of the overlay, I believe there we indeed 40 or 50 legal special uses. Today, the 12 left are well run and have fought and won this battle once already. Perhaps it is best not to go back there.
The purchasing of this apartment building and the renting it to a group of individuals that happen to have ADA and Fair Housing protections is not a Special Use. Anymore than your personal house is.
I personally do not care either way. I do not believe this type of rental will be any worse that any other and who knows, maybe better. But I hate seeing some of the same poor leadership decisions being made over and over again and making all of Springfield look bad. Most residents are good and caring, some more are simply being caught up in the hype, all are getting painted in a bad light due to a few who can't seem to be honest and truthful no matter what.
Maybe it's time to stop the madness and all of us stop posting while we are all still speaking to each other.
Smiling here Debbie. Metrojacksonville has been so very much milder than Facebook.
Time to stop posting there too. :-)
It seems like the issue stems around two things. 1. Not being notified as a community (although it really could be only have been a courtesy notice) and 2. That 12-24 people who would potentially move into the apartment building could cause great harm and/or havoc in Historic Spfld.
Given Springfield's history, and the response at the community meeting, I'm sure AH is doing a lot of "in-hindsight" thinking. That said it is a wait and see at this stage of the game. The building will be rehabbed and updated (cool) and selfishly I hope any historic interior features will be worked into the rehab.
A Springfield pastor posted a comment a few days ago that compared the Springfield Community Meeting with Ability Housing to a lynching, and that sparked quite the outcry by Springfieldians. Unfortunately some of the responses to his post echoed the way this community treated Ability Housing. Using the term 'lynching' may have been a bit harsh as it infers killing someone, but shy of the killing part, the meeting did resemble a mob of sorts, complete with folks making speeches in what seemed to be a way to 'rally the troops', and people yelling out at the Ability Housing panel. I realize emotions are running high and some people feel they are being dumped on in this situation. It is OK to feel that way - feelings are neither right nor wrong and everyone is entitled to them.
That being said, I was truly shocked at the way some of my neighbors conducted themselves during the meeting and the way the Ability Housing guests were treated. Yes, I said guests. SPAR invited them to our neighborhood to discuss their upcoming project and instead of being open-minded and civil, many Springfield residents treated them rudely on numerous levels. Everyone deserves respect.
Even though the Moderator did a great job of setting the ground rules, throughout the meeting those rules were not honored. Ability Housing had no requirement to come to the Community meeting, yet they agreed to answer residents' questions and explain their project. They apologized numerous times for not communicating with the residents of Springfield even though there is no requirement for them to share their plans with us. Put yourself in Shannon Nazworth's shoes for a moment...how would you have felt if you had people yelling at you the way folks were at the meeting. Certainly not the way to treat anyone, not the way I expected my neighborhood to act, and definitely not the way I wish for my neighborhood (which I love) to be seen/portrayed. After seeing this I understand a little more why our City Council has a 3 minute limitation on public comments and a rule that does not allow comments or any show of support or disdain from the audience.
Below are my thoughts on this issue:
1. The AH purchase of 139 Cottage Avenue is not a violation of the Zoning overlay.
2. The AH use of 139 Cottage Avenue as apartments is not a violation of the Zoning overlay.
3. Any landlord has the legal right to rent their property to whomever they wish - the community cannot dictate that.
4. AH has indicated in the case of 139 Cottage Avenue, they will be a landlord only.
5. Questions/concerns about AH's spending as it relates to this project should not be directed to AH. If someone is concerned the costs involved with the project may appear to be inflated, he/she should direct those concerns to the grant funding entity. It is that entity's responsibility/duty to ensure the funds are spent accurately.
6. The Springfield neighbors who are upset appear to be making assumptions regarding the perceived behavior of future tenants. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to definitively predict how an individual, whether he/she is a homeless person, a homeless veteran, unemployed, alcoholic, mentally challenged, etc., will impact a neighborhood. Have individuals such as these historically caused issues in a neighborhood? Sometimes, yes. The same can be said for those who are NOT homeless, NOT alcoholic, NOT unemployed or NOT mentally challenged.
7. No one can predict the future.
A link to the Ability Housing meeting recap provided by SPAR is attached to this post. As I read thru the recap, I was a little disappoined in the spin the recap took. Perhaps I should not have been, because I believe I know SPAR's stance on the whole issue. However, a recap should accurately encompass the entire meeting, both for and against.
It is certainly Mr. Meeks' right to pursue some sort of legal action to prevent AH from proceeding with their current plan should he choose to do so. It would be my hope that it is done personally and not at SPAR's direction. This could be a very slippery slope, and SPAR does not speak for every resident within Springfield's historic district.
My apologizes for the very long post. It is mostly the quoting of parts of the overlay.
There has been a lot of talk as to what the overlay says about various "special uses" and unfortunately, much of what has been said by some of the leadership over this issue is not correct.
Here's the basic introductory language from the Springfield Overlay:
QuoteSec. 656.365. Legislative findings and intent.
The Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 91-733-570 on January 28, 1992, the City Council established the Springfield Historic District. Since that date, various studies and plans, including the Neighborhood Action Plan, Historic Springfield District, October, 1992, and the Springfield Action Plan dated May, 1997, as revised August, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Council Secretary and in the Planning and Development Department, have recommended the implementation of a zoning district overlay to resolve zoning-related problems in the Springfield Historic District.
(b) The Springfield Historic District consists of more than 12 City blocks, approximately one square mile in size, with 3,800 structures and a population of over 6,900. The number of historic structures totaled 1,890 (115 of which are landmark buildings) in 1991. The District is the largest historic residential district in Florida.
(c) The Springfield Historic District contains 3,800 dwelling units, 1,890 of which are historic dwelling units. Homestead properties in the area were reported at only 521 in August, 1998. Based on these numbers, only 14 percent of the District was owner occupied as of August 1998.
(d) Over a period of many years, zoning and land use changes in Springfield have served to encourage the decline of the area and not its redevelopment. The Springfield Historic District has been negatively affected by current zoning districts which do not recognize the unique character of the neighborhood. For many years prior to the establishment of the District, the City allowed intensive and intrusive uses to locate in the neighborhood and did not encourage the type of development that promotes and sustains a stable, economically viable, and primarily single-family/owner-occupied neighborhood. Standard zoning districts also do not recognize the small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique development pattern.
(e) Within the one square mile area of the Springfield Historic District, the Council finds there is a disproportionately large number of rooming houses (13), group care homes, community residential homes of seven or more residents and automotive uses (20), including automobile sales and repairs and related automotive uses.
(f) As noted in the Springfield Action Plan, the population of Springfield has been in decline during the course of the past two years. Since 1980, the population in Springfield has decreased from 8,049 persons to a 1990 Census count of 6,969 persons. This decrease is primarily attributable to a decline in household size, an increase in vacancy rate, and a decline in building permit activity. Population projections show a continued decline in population into the year 2020, unless the area becomes more attractive as a place to live and invest. In 1990, average (mean) income was only $8,860 per household (only 48 percent of the County's average). Estimates of poverty levels in 1990 affected nearly 46 percent per cent of these households. Fifty percent of the households had a median income of less than $5,710. Income characteristics as found in census data for 1990, on a Countywide basis, show average incomes have increased by more than 80 percent since 1980. However, similar gains for the Springfield neighborhood have not occurred. In 1990, 52 percent of the households had a median income of less than $10,000 and only 9.4 percent with incomes above the County average of $35,618.
(g) The Springfield Historic District is an invaluable resource to the City and its citizens and should be preserved for future generations.
(h) The property disinvestment and blight caused by incompatible zoning and other factors associated with core City decline must be reversed through a comprehensive revitalization program that will include zoning districts tailored to the neighborhood. Standards should allow appropriate and compatible development to proceed without the high costs associated with variances and administrative deviations required to deviate from current lot and use standards.
(I) The zoning districts and regulations contained in this Subpart I were developed with the participation and assistance of neighborhood residents, property owners and City staff.
(j) The Planning Commission and the Urban Affairs and Planning Committee considered these districts and regulations, held public hearings and made their recommendations to the Council.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Council hereby establishes the Springfield Zoning Overlay and Historic District Regulations contained in this Subpart I for the purpose of encouraging residential owner-occupants, allowing for mixed uses and home businesses, discouraging over-intensive uses, and providing performance standards and special regulations for uses allowed by exception.
Take from that what you will. I see that the city pretty much ignored the area for decades, except that in the 70's they tried to start the bulldozers at first and not stop until 20th. That got stopped, but a battle to save the area has been waging ever since.
The overlay's original intent was to address the zoning issues like set backs and mixed use. It did that fairly well, perhaps stopping a bit short of what will eventually be needed but it covered most of the bases. Interpretations of that zoning and historic guidelines seems to be a bigger problem, but that is best left for another discussion.
The reason so many of the "special uses" were in Springfield was multifaceted. To begin with, no one else wanted this area for decades. Then there was the various services already in existence in close proximity. The area was well serviced by public transportation. Houses were purchased cheap and could then be rented on the cheap. The area was where JSO sort of pushed various activities, knowing they could not stop the activity, it was kept away from the "nice " folk. (The last per JSO officers in the late 90's)
In any case, the overlay did address the issue and it has done exactly what the writers wanted, it has allowed the reduction of the special uses by attrition as things simply evolved naturally. No legal business was forced out. Nor does it prevent the opening of new, legal businesses. It simply restricts the types and primarily the scale of the various less desirable (to some) businesses.
Below is the actual "performance standards" section that includes the description of what a special use is:
Quote656.369. Springfield performance standards and development criteria.
The following permitted uses or permissible uses by exception shall meet the performance standards and criteria listed under each use. These uses are in addition to, rather than in lieu of, the supplementary regulations of Section 656.401, as applicable.
(All but Special uses deleted due to message size)
(g) Special uses. Special uses are residential/institutional uses that are no longer permitted in the districts. Such uses may continue if they comply with the standards and criteria of this subsection within one year from the effective date of this legislation. The following uses are identified as special uses: residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents. Beginning November 1, 2008 and thereafter, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
(1) Information showing or depicting the accurate square footage of the facility's livable interior space and number of habitable rooms, as it existed on December 21, 2000; and
(2) Licensure or permit information from the relevant State agency showing continuous operation of the facility from prior to December 21, 2000; and
(3) License or permit information or affidavit if such information is not available as to number of residents authorized to legally occupy the licensed or permitted facility on or before December 21, 2000; and
(4) Number of persons considered by the facility to be occupying the facility as full-time staff and/or their immediate family members.
Those special use facilities which provide the above information in a timely manner are considered legally non-conforming and shall be allowed to continue operation until such time as the legally non-conforming status ceases, as provided in this Chapter. As relating to the information submitted as required in this subsection, special use facilities shall not expand the square footage of the facility, relocate the facility or increase the number of licensed residents in the facility. Additionally, if a facility increases the number of staff, including immediate family members, the facility shall notify the Director within 90 days of such increase.
The city shall through annual inspections also ensure that such uses comply with the following standards, and if the property is not in compliance with the standards after a reasonable time allowed for correction of the violation, if the facility fails to timely submit the information required herein, or if the special use intensifies, expands, relocates or fails to report increases in staff in a timely manner, the special use shall not be allowed to continue.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning code, the occupancy of a special use facility shall not exceed any applicable occupancy limitation otherwise required by any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation.
(1) Chain link fences shall not be allowed in any yards along public streets (not including alleys), and must be located at least six feet behind the closest vertical plane of the primary structure.
(2) The use shall comply with all applicable City property maintenance and unsafe building codes.
(3) Twenty-four-hour, on-site management shall be required.
(4) New rooming houses are not permitted. Existing rooming houses shall be identified by one or more of the following existing conditions, each of which shall create a rebuttable presumption that a building is a rooming house:
(A) Signs that indicate rooms, beds, or living spaces for rent;
(B) Interior locks, partitions, hasps, appliances such as electric fry pans, toaster ovens, refrigerators, etc.;
(c) Individual storage of food;
(D) Alphabetical, numeric, or other labeling of bedrooms or living areas;
(E) Alterations to structures which enhance or facilitate its use as a rooming house.
I believe that most will agree that the proposed used is NOT a special use by definition. You may be interested to note that to do what some have asked for, provide special services in house, would indeed make the use an illegal special use. What Ability Housing is proposing is simply legal. Also take note that when they talk about group care homes, they define such as 6 or fewer in a unit, meaning that 6 or fewer unrelated adults in one apartment or house, not an apartment building with 12 apartments. For instance, the various rooming houses and halfway houses (12 total in Springfield) that are special uses have meet all the criteria and are legally allowed a higher density.
Another thing to look at is how a rooming house is defined, the last few lines in the section above. Think about your house. Does one or more items on the list apply to your home? I guarantee that if it meets the standard codes, it does. Therefore, someone could call your house in as a illegal rooming house and per the above section, you must be considered guilty until you prove your innocence. Nice, isn't it?
I guess that is a way of saying that much of the overlay, including much of this section, simply is not enforceable. Then, when you have people like Mr Meeks and Mr Trautman trying to interpret to suit their personal agendas, you end up with a real mess. I can also guarantee you that a lawsuit against the city or Ability Housing over the interpretation of the overlay or an attempt to toughen the overlay to rid the community of certain groups of people will end up in Federal court and end very badly for both the city and the community.
QuoteSpringfield neighborhood safety walk turns into protest against plans for housing for homeless
By Denise Smith Amos Sat, May 17, 2014 @ 8:57 pm
A Saturday morning walk for safety in historic Springfield became an ad hoc protest against a plan to convert a 12-unit apartment building into housing for "chronically homeless" adults, including veterans.
About 40 people, including School Board member Paula Wright and City Council member Johnny Gaffney, met at Andrew Robinson Elementary, about a block away from the planned facility, and walked the 1-square-mile neighborhood, handing out safety pamphlets, discussing a spate of thefts and planning to convince City Hall to halt the homeless project proposed by Ability Housing of Northeast Florida Inc.
The project involves converting a current apartment building of 12 studio apartments into permanent residences for people who were homeless. The project will target veterans, including some people currently living on the streets in that neighborhood, said Shannon Nazworth, executive director of Ability Housing.
She said she's hopes to work more closely with the community and help them realize they won't need to fear these new residents, who will be carefully screened by her group and Veterans Affairs officials.
"We're not going to put people in these units that we and the VA don't believe will be successful," she said.
"We're going to help the Springfield neighborhood. These are people who are already their neighbors; they just don't have a place to live."
But some neighbors say they're not yet convinced.
Crissie Cudd, who lives in Springfield, said she is against the facility based on what she has read in the project's application documents and her fears that there won't be enough on-site security and monitoring once they move in.
Cudd says she's not against helping those who are homeless. She lives next to a drug treatment and halfway house.
"They're great neighbors," she said. "They have amazing supervision and curfews."
But the veterans' apartment application, she said, doesn't mention either of those safeguards.
Gaffney said there are safety concerns with so many children living and attending school nearby. Latrese Fann, principal of Robinson Elementary, said about 200 to 300 students walk home through the neighborhood daily.
Police officers tried to assure the crowd that they will make sure sex offenders and predators will not be moving into those apartments.
Gaffney added that the project has never gone before the full City Council or even a Council committee, because the application was filed almost as if it were a regular apartment renovation. He urged the group to email fellow council members and the mayor about their concerns.
"Sometimes politicians, they try to sneak things in," Gaffney said. "If we don't protect what we have, it will go down. ... The worst thing you can do is let them off the hook. Invite the mayor out [to Springfield]. Sometimes you have to smoke people out."
Other community residents said the project violates a community "overlay" the city approved in 2000 which limited what kind of developments and "special use" projects can come into Springfield.
At the time the historic neighborhood had the highest concentration of agencies and nonprofit organizations to help struggling families, adults and children in the five-county region. The overlay was designed to lighten that congestion by prohibiting new group homes and similar agencies.
Nazworth said recently that the project does not violate the overlay.
Nazworth said it will not be a group home or treatment center, but an apartment building "comparable to ordinary apartments except that they're aimed at people who have been homeless."
Nazworth said that with 12 units, it's not cost-effective to on-site staff there 24-7, but "these will be the most visited apartments in Springield," she said because caseworkers, property managers, maintenance and Ability staff will visit weekly.
Documents Ability filed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation state that the building will house single adults and two-person adult households.
"Residents will have extensive histories of homelessness, having been homeless for more than one year or having had four separate episodes of homelessness in the past three years," a document said.
"All residents will have a disability diagnosed by a licensed professional health care provider ... most will have a primary diagnosis of mental illness and a long history of psychiatric hospitalization. Others may have chronic illness, such as COPD, HIV/AIDS, heart disease and diabetes."
Ability Housing has more than 12 years' experience managing housing for "vulnerable populations," including 255 units of affordable and supportive housing to "formerly homeless or at risk households."
At its Renaissance Village and Mayfair Village, 90 percent of residents stayed put from 2012 to '13 and their incomes rose an average 5 percent.
Several Springfield marchers said they are unsure if the project will truly target veterans and they wished the plans specified who would monitor the residents.
Nazworth said there has never been problems with the residents of the villages and their neighbors.
"We are viewing this as an educational opportunity, so they can understand you don't need to be scare of homeless people," she said.
The building's current residents will have to move, and some are unhappy about it.
Leisa Crocker said she has been told that Ability will help pay moving costs and the first month's rent elsewhere, but Crocker doesn't want to move. She planted the flowers and planters in front of her building, she says; she wants to stay in the neighborhood.
"I've been living here for five years," she said. "There's no crime. ... We got the neighborhood just like we want it. ... I don't want this place to become a homeless shelter. There's a school near. There's kids that live right here and right there," she said, pointing to nearby homes on Cottage Avenue.
Denise Amos: (904) 359-4083
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-05-17/story/springfield-neighborhood-safety-walk-turns-protest-against-plans-housing
Treating homeless veterans as if they were a danger to our children....nice.
What truly would be a danger to our children -- if the soldiers would have never fought for this country in the first place.
It is somewhat amusing to have the protesters state that part of the issue with Ability Housing is the lack of on site supervision when it would be that very on site supervision that would make this use of the apartment building a special use type business and therefore illegal. The use as planned currently is not illegal under the overly and we know that from actually reading the overlay as well as because the city planing department has already determined it is a proper and legal use under the overlay and the paperwork filed by Mr. Meek' attorney and the fees paid is to appeal that decision.
Why this is a bit scary is this statement:
QuoteAt the time the historic neighborhood had the highest concentration of agencies and nonprofit organizations to help struggling families, adults and children in the five-county region. The overlay was designed to lighten that congestion by prohibiting new group homes and similar agencies.
While there is a bit of truth in the statement, the overlay never mentions non-profits nor anything about the agencies helping families and children being bad for the community. While the statement implies that all group care homes were included as special uses, that is not true and low density group care homes are allowed under the overlay by right. Other "agencies", mostly non-profits like church groups or service providers like the Bridge or Operation New Hope, were never part of the group of businesses being limited by the overlay nor ever considered "special uses". The only list put forward by the few against Ability Housing to prove their claim that there is 50 or more "special uses" in Historic Springfield was nothing but a list of non-profit owned properties with even SPAR Council and SIAA (Woman's Club) on the list.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21248.0.html
Regardless of what some may say now about the existing special uses (there are really only 10 businesses under that classification) if the city somehow changes it's stance and now agrees with this incorrect interpretation of the overlay and says the use of Cottage by Ability Housing is illegal or this misguided group attempts to change the overly to make themselves right, then there will be a war on all the non-profits that help people these few do not like. And the resulting battle will not be a pretty one for all of Jacksonville. Nor is it one they will win in Federal Court.
FYI, the individuals who are challenging the zoning of the proposed use at the property recieved a letter of determination by COJ today. Here it is:
http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2522
QuoteMay 29, 2014
E. Owen McCuller, Jr., Esquire
Smith Hulsey & Busey
225 Water Street, Suite 1800
Jacksonville, FL 32201
RE: Request for Written Interpretation - Ability Housing - 139 Cottage Avenue
Dear Mr. McCuller:
Pursuant to Section 656.109, Ordinance Code, the Director of the Planning and Development Department is vested with the duty and authority to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Code (Chapter 656, Ordinance Code). You have requested a Written Interpretation of the Zoning Code as it relates to the proposed use of 139 Cottage Avenue by Ability Housing of Northeast Florida, Inc.
I have reviewed the pertinent information concerning the above referenced property identified under Real Estate Number 073175-0000 and located at 139 Cottage Avenue. The property is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) functional land use category of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Further, the property is zoned Residential Medium Density-Springfield (RMD-S).
You have asked if a "homeless supportive housing" use is a permitted use under RMD-S or a prohibited special use under the Springfield Zoning Overlay. "Homeless supportive housing" is not a defined use in the Zoning Code. In an e-mail from Jenna Emmons with Ability Housing to Folks Huxford, Chief of Current Planning on April 1, 2014, it was stated that the intention is to renovate the existing 12-unit building and continue to use it as a multi-family dwelling. The e-mail goes on to state that this will not be a residential treatment facility, rooming house, emergency shelter, group care home, or community residential home. Although Ability Housing has not applied for a Certificate of Use, representations from Ability Housing to the Planning and Development Department is that the facility will be operated as a multiple-family dwelling with residents holding long term leases. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted by right in the RMD-S zoning district and under the terms of the Springfield Zoning Overlay.
However, the application for grant funding by Ability Housing to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC), specifically Application 2014-332G, indicates that the proposed use of the Cottage Avenue Apartments is to serve chronically homeless adults without children. Further, all residents will have a disability diagnosed by a licensed professional health care provider, and it is anticipated that the most residents will have a primary diagnosis of mental illness and a long history of psychiatric hospitalization. Additionally and importantly, support services will be provided by community organizations. Oversight of the support services team will be provided by the Program Director for Ability Housing.
Section 656.368(I)(d) of the Zoning Code defines Special Uses to include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of over six residents. Any such new special uses are not allowed in the RMD-S zoning district. This list is inclusive but not exhaustive. The intended plan of development as described in the FHFC application indicates that the proposed use encompasses activities beyond the customary activities associated with multiple-family dwellings. Based on the provided documentation, it is apparent that the intended use, as characterized, is akin to that of a rooming house or group care home and similar activities; activities that served as the very basis of the implementation of the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Therefore, it is my interpretation that the proposed use at 139 College Avenue should be categorized as a special use rather than a multiple-family dwelling, and as such, would be considered a new special use prohibited in the Springfield Zoning Overlay.
If you have any further questions on this or any other zoning related issue, please feel free to contact me at (904) 255-7800.
Sincerely,
Calvin L. Burney, Sr.
Director
It is amusing to ponder why Mr Burney changed his tune from the first meeting. It is also dangerous to now interpret the term "Special Uses" in this way. In reading this determination, I see that Mr Burney is no longer really basing his decision on the use of the property but rather the potential tenants of the property and what they may or may not need.
In this decision, the City is stating that the use as described by Ability Housing is perfectly legal in RMD-S zoning. Next, the City provides the proof that what Ability Housing is saying is true, that they are not opening a Group Care Home under the current legal and accepted definition. But then the city says that because the list of Special Uses is all inclusive, but not really thorough, in their opinion, and that this use is similar to a group care home because it will house disabled persons who need extra services, that it is indeed a special use. It is because the disabled residents may or may not need the outside services Ability Housing is willing to help them get that makes the proposed use illegal not that it actually fits into one of the current legally accepted definitions of a Special Use. To make the conclusion that the Cottage Ave project is illegal, the City just redefined both Group Care Homes and Special Uses.
This decision seems to be about as discriminatory against the disabled as one can get. This is the City telling the disabled they are not welcome in Historic Springfield if not all of Jacksonville.
One of the interesting things about this letter is to recognize what it really is. An opinion letter from the head of planning to a lawyer working on the behalf of Mr Jack Meeks, nothing more. Until Ability Housing actually applies for a Certificate of Use, it doesn't mean all that much. I guess it could scare off Ability Housing from Springfield, but I somehow doubt that. The real fight about Cottage Ave will happen down the road, not today. What the opinion letter is more likely to do is to enable Mr Meeks to come after several other non-profits he does not like and attempt to shut them down based on the concept that you are an illegal Special Use if you happen to help disabled persons in any way. I don't see how they can make any of that stick unless they make an attempt at changing the overlay to reflect Mr Burney's opinion as it is indeed changing definitions which I thought took a ordinance change.
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 09:38:30 AM
If this is just an opinion letter from Calvin to Meeks' attorney, writing about the specialized circumstances described by Meeks reflecting Meeks characterization of the situation, why are these people disseminating it as the final word?
This sounds exactly like the ploy of pretending that 'attorneys have instructed' Realtors to red tag their own listings in springfield in order to bully through a ruling. It claims legal authority through the concept of 'truthiness'.
Calvin could write a similar letter expressing his opinion about one of the churches in Springfield if the questioner worded it a specific way.
It's not just an "opinion letter." It's a formal legal interpretation of the Zoning Code, and it has real legal consequences. Unless and until an "adversely affected" person appeals it within 14 days, this interpretation will effectively be the law (and it won't be subject to challenge later).
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.
The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.
Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.
Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.
I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.
The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.
Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.
Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.
I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.
this literally has nothing to do with my response. You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.
Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.
Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I
meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works. I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax). I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.
The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation. Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.
The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.
Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.
Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.
I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.
this literally has nothing to do with my response. You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.
Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.
Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works. I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax). I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.
The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation. Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.
While I do not doubt you on the 14 day appeal issue, it seems to only apply to this particular opinion for this particular client. Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one. For this to be binding on everyone and without future appeal rights, it would have to be made part of the ordinance and the public noticed about the coming decisions. This is still, whether legally binding on anyone or not, nothing but an opinion by a manager serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, it is not an ordinance and so can be changed on a whim by someone else in the future. Just like Mr Burney just up and decided to change the current interpretation of the ordinances involving Special Uses and Group Care Homes. And I personally question if he has not gone too far and over stepped his bounds.
Quote from: strider on June 02, 2014, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.
The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.
Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.
Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.
I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.
this literally has nothing to do with my response. You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.
Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.
Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works. I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax). I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.
The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation. Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.
Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one.
Application for what? Doesn't the letter state that the use is not allowed at all in Springfield? Again, I'm not familiar with the underlying facts here, so I very well may be missing something.
GatorNation, I wouldn't depend only upon what you read here for interpretation. There are a lot of differing opinions on this and every other topic, and of course, we all post what we believe to be true. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we have some real pot-stirrers on MJ. It's an opinion blog. Take everything we say with a grain of salt. Perhaps even more than a grain. :-)
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 12:46:37 PM
Quote from: strider on June 02, 2014, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: GatorNation on June 02, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 02, 2014, 10:53:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply do not see how this claim is true.
The letter is addressed to Jack Meeks attorney, not Ability Housing.
Jack does not own the property, nor does he have any legal standing in the narrow question presented.
Ergo, it would seem to be not a legally binding document.
I didn't say it was "fair," but that's how the language of the Zoning Code reads/works.
this literally has nothing to do with my response. You didn't say it was fair, you incorrectly stated that it was a legally binding decision.
Unless of course you are implying that Jack used a city agency for his personal legal questions, which I highly doubt is true.
Poor choice of words on my point . . . what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's a fair result (i.e., allowing a third party to secure a binding legal interpretation that affects the personal property rights of another), but that's how the Code is written/works. I don't have a dog in this hunt (and I know very little about the facts here, other than what I've read on MetroJax). I was simply commenting on the legal consequences of this interpretation.
The letter states that it was written "pursuant to Section 656.109," which means that someone requested a formal written interpretation of the Code. The reason one asks for a formal written interpretation is that he/she is looking for a legally binding interpretation, and only someone with legal standing (under the Code) can ask for such an interpretation. Unless that interpretation is appealed to the City's Planning Commission within 14 days, it is a final decision of the City and legally binding.
Unless and until someone makes an actual application using this criteria (from the letter, we know no one has yet), this interpretation can only be binding on the person who requested the interpretation and a new interpretation would be required once that actual application was made. That application, even if denied based on the facts of this opinion, still would have the 14 day appeal rights, just like this one.
Application for what? Doesn't the letter state that the use is not allowed at all in Springfield? Again, I'm not familiar with the underlying facts here, so I very well may be missing something.
The use described by Mr Burney is based on an e-mail from Ability Housing, which Mr Burney admits describes a legal use, and then his speculation based on information taken from a financial grant leading him to feel that the possible use by Ability Housing is one similar(akin) to an illegal use and he feels that is enough to call it an illegal use. Until the actual user of the building makes that application for the COU (Certificate of use as required by the City), how does Mr Burney have the needed real information to make that judgement for the actual owner and the actual use as presented by that owner? The use described by Mr Burney and an unrelated (to the owner and user) lawyer is not necessarily what Ability Housing is truly going to do as it is based on speculation at this point, not an actual legal application by the owner who would be effected by this opinion. If Ability Housing comes back with an application that says this is a rental, each unit is separate and shall have it's own annual lease, does not the city have to give them the Certificate of Use based on the fact that an apartment building used as such is a legal use by right? Then it would seem that it would be up to the City to prove it is being used as some "Special Use" and therefore illegal. Even if Mr Burney can and does use his knowledge of this opinion as requested by Mr Meeks as a basis to deny Ability Housing a COU, it will still be a new decision and one that carries with it the 14 day appeal rights.
FYI, Mr Burney is attempting to create a new Special Use with his opinion letter and that is an issue. The use as Mr Burney describes it does not meet the criteria for Special Uses as it is defined in the codes as they stand now. The danger here is if Mr Burney is and can just up and somehow redefine Group Care Homes as then it affects all of Jacksonville not just Springfield.
This is just bad governing again and frankly, the city should know better than try to take away the rights of the disabled to live in an area just because someone else doesn't like them in their community. That is why ADA and Fair Housing laws exist.
QuoteAbility Housing to file appeal over homeless veterans housing denial in Springfield
Wednesday, June 11, 6:07 PM EDT
From Staff
Last month, the city's planning director determined that a Springfield property could not be used for homeless veteran housing because the area's zoning rules wouldn't allow it.
Ability Housing will appeal Calvin Burney's interpretation that its goal for the 139 Cottage Ave. Apartments doesn't violate Springfield's zoning code.
The nonprofit wants to purchase the 12-unit complex and rehabilitate it for housing homeless veterans. Ability Housing was notified in mid-March it would receive $7.3 million for that project and one other.
Springfield residents voiced concerns at an April 3 forum about having the project in their neighborhood. Many said there already were too many drug and mental health facilities in the area — the reason a zoning overlay was adopted more than a decade ago to prohibit more.
Jack Meeks, a resident and member of the Downtown Investment Authority, and his wife, JoAnn Tredennick, said they would legally pursue the issue. Burney's March 29 letter is in response for a written interpretation from their attorney.
It's that interpretation Ability Housing will appeal to the city's Planning Department.
"We believe the interpretation of the use of 139 Cottage Ave. Apartments is incorrect," said Shannon Nazworth, Ability Housing executive director, in a news release. "Cottage Avenue is currently a 12-unit apartment building and after our purchase will remain a 12-unit apartment building."
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543168
An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all. The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself, was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting. And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal. And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.
Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.
Quote from: strider on July 22, 2014, 08:33:02 AM
An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all. The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself, was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting. And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal. And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.
Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.
The Planning Dept had not yet read the grant at the time of the first community meeting.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 22, 2014, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: strider on July 22, 2014, 08:33:02 AM
An interesting fact with this issue is that at that first community meeting, the very same information Mr Burney used to make his written determination that this would be an illegal use was known by all. The grant application, which was the basis for declaring that the Ability Housing purchase and use of the apartment building was akin to a special use and therefore illegal itself, was talked about at that meeting by both Ability Housing and the community and available on-line prior to that meeting. And yet, at that meeting both Mr. Huxford and Mr. Burney stood up and stated for the public record that the use was perfectly legal. And did so in front of a foot stomping angry mob.
Makes one wonder exactly who or what got to Mr. Burney to cause that 180 degree change in opinion.
The Planning Dept had not yet read the grant at the time of the first community meeting.
I find that hard to believe as the grant was the entire reason some knew about the Ability Housing project and why the meeting was called. In addition, like I mentioned, the reasons for the grant, the wording of the grant and the exact use as described in the grant were talked about by both the community representatives and Ability Housing at that first meeting. Where in spite of the information being presented, Mr. Burney still stated for the public record that the use by Ability Housing was indeed legal. In front of a foot stomping angry mob. One would think that at the very least Mr. Burney and Mr. Huxford would have questioned the use at that point. Instead, it took a paid for by Mr. Meeks request for a written interpretation for Mr. Burney to decide that Ability Housing's use of the apartment building, though as they stated officially, was legal, but based on information taken from the grant it was similar to a special use and therefore illegal in his opinion. Frankly, it strikes me as odd. Still would like to know who or what changed his mind.
The Director stated at the first community meeting that he had not yet seen the grant, and was going on the information that he had at the time.
The content of the grant speaks for itself as to what the building would be used for, and thus it's appropriate zoning.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 22, 2014, 01:35:30 PM
The Director stated at the first community meeting that he had not yet seen the grant, and was going on the information that he had at the time.
The content of the grant speaks for itself as to what the building would be used for, and thus it's appropriate zoning.
Hmmm, it seems to me that Mr Burney had that info long before he left that meeting.
Yes, it does have it's appropriate zoning. It is zoned RMD-S with is exactly what it needs to be for a 12 unit apartment building.
Again, what Mr Burney is doing is calling it a similar use. Not a special use as currently defined, but a similar use because they house disabled persons with 12 month leases, they will help their tenants get the outside services, you know, like meals on wheels, in-house nurse care, job training and of course will actually check on their tenants every once in a while. So per Mr Burney, that makes it similar to a ACLF and so makes it illegal as a "special Use". Before this written interpretation, you had to actually be a special use to be not allowed, now all you have to do is be similar and have the right people not want you there. Bad governing anyway you look at it.
Maybe instead of stirring the pot, we could realize Strider, Stephen and Bill will never change each other's opinion and let it rest until the appeal.
Hi Stephen.
Various board members of SPAR have been in touch with Council on this issue for weeks.
The feedback we've recieved from Council reps is that revisions will be made to exclude the historic districts, and possibly other neighborhoods. It's our expectation that by working with Council, that will happen.
Great to see passionate people at the public comment period as well.
Quote from: stephendare on July 23, 2014, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 23, 2014, 01:01:03 PM
Hi Stephen.
Various board members of SPAR have been in touch with Council on this issue for weeks.
The feedback we've recieved from Council reps is that revisions will be made to exclude the historic districts, and possibly other neighborhoods. It's our expectation that by working with Council, that will happen.
Great to see passionate people at the public comment period as well.
It would have been even better if they had spoken on the record during public comments, Bill. That way we wouldn't just have to take your word for it. ;)
Besides, the only time you can talk to "The Council" is at these meetings. They aren't allowed to have little group phone calls on public business without notification. And it takes 10 votes. If you are talking to only one at a time, its not as effective as speaking to 19 simultaneously.
+1 Stephen. Thank you.
now it's just getting weird
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DCPS-AbilityHousing.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DCPS-AbilityHousing.jpg.html)
I guess with the minor problems of failing schools and such, the school board has free time on its hands.
^thats just foolish. Interesting that within a 1/2 mile radius of Kirby Smith there are seven houses operated by three agencies that house men just released from state prison. But by all means, please protect our kids from those who have managed to stay on the right side of the law but do not have a roof of their own.
Quote from: JayBird on August 12, 2014, 07:22:34 PM
^thats just foolish. Interesting that within a 1/2 mile radius of Kirby Smith there are seven houses operated by three agencies that house men just released from state prison. But by all means, please protect our kids from those who have managed to stay on the right side of the law but do not have a roof of their own.
Unfortunately, being on the right side of the law is not a requirement for the proposed project. Quite the opposite
In addition to DCPS, Riverside Avondale Preservation (RAP) also submitted a letter of support for the Springfield Zoning Overlay issue, among others. It's good to see the greater Jacksonville community coming together to support a community.
Fyi: http://myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17779#p17779
They are opposed to "housing homeless personnel"?
Do they think homelessness is a profession?
I'm working through my thoughts trying to figure out why DCPS would make an official statement on Ability Housing. What would cause the superintendent to stake a position in such an innocuous matter, especially concerning DCPS?
So, first thought is...money. Where is it going and where did it come from?
Then, i suppose getting involved in city planning is not new for school districts. There are rules on bars and strip club locations. There are rules for sex offenders and how close they can live to a school.
But DCPS is saying that the activity of a place/person is just as relevant as the assumed quality of a person, based on a prior life circumstance.
They are indirectly saying that a formerly homeless person should live further away than a convicted sex offender. I believe state law provides a minimum 1k foot buffer between a sex offender and a school. Kirby Middle is over 2k feet away from 139 Cottage Ave (let's hope I did my math right).
Plus, there is a particular irony to referring to people living in homes as homeless. I think it would be incorrect use of language to call someone living in a home "homeless".
I'm not sure what the debate is about, anymore. If certain people don't want the homeless living near them they won't be. Everyone will be in a home.
The only thing I hear and read is some people in Springfield and DCPS are opposed to the formerly homeless living near them. Is this a correct assessment?
posting on behalf on someone else:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_1.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_1.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_2.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_3.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/SchoolBoardampMeeksSnipePiece_Page_3.jpg.html)
Sheclown, great points and I really wish they put their name to it because unfortunately without a name it's useless fodder. Perhaps you could encourage them to actually engage the community with their ideas. I know this is just a community forum, but many influential people do read these boards regularly, even though they don't participate/comment actively they do make note of them in their talks and on social media. When you cannot assign some sort of identity to comments, it may be great ideas but it is tinged with suspicion from the outset. Thereby rendering any actual discussion about it moot because it all stems from an "unknown". I hate seeing good ideas and go intentions get pushed aside.
Stephen, well that certainly makes clear why the issue was being addressed.
Bill, I may be wrong on this but wasn't the original intent of Ability in line with the overlay? I was under the impression it was the community that was demanding changes that would make it illegal with the current overlay.
Anonymous thoughts contribute much to general discussion. Unfortunately in rooms where the decisions are mode, it is useless. There is always someone who will say it was a staged comment, and this the entire discussion stemming from it is biased. But I'll agree that it does stoke the conversation and make people think for themselves and maybe form their own opinions on the topic.
It could very well be that it's a pet peeve of mine, actually the only thing I dislike about MJ. I had commented before about how over the last few months I've gotten to meet many regular posters in person and they're amazing people, however one was completely not as they represent themselves to be here and that left a bad taste, and those who use multiple screen names here to fake community support, some that you have even outed. You're right, I shouldn't let that effect the many good ideas and posters here.
So a school board member and superintendent can't grasp simple communication, are living examples of discrimination in the worst form, appear to have acted on school board business without going thru proper channels and have questionable ties to the principals in this drama -- and you want to focus on the annonymity of posters ?
Perhaps they have gotten involved due to the fact they may reside in Springfield. I've got friends in that neighborhood who have mentioned that possibility. This is really weird that out of all the possible people to endorse or even write such a letter it was these two. The candidate running against her had no opinion? I'm assuming because he lives nowhere near this and wouldn't care much about that situation. May be wrong but something to perhaps look at.
Quote from: stephendare on August 13, 2014, 12:34:45 PM
Just got verification that this letter was not passed or even discussed with the actual school board.
So the question becomes does Mr Vitti have the authority to act for the entire school board on his own without a vote on issues like this or did this just become an ethics issue for both of them?
What is Meeks angle on it? What is he benefiting from blocking something that will have minimal impact on a school. I mean unless they are going to house pedos, sex offenders, or violent criminals I don't see the issue.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/stinky.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/stinky.jpg.html)
something stinks.
Quote from: JayBird on August 13, 2014, 08:50:28 AM
Bill, I may be wrong on this but wasn't the original intent of Ability in line with the overlay? I was under the impression it was the community that was demanding changes that would make it illegal with the current overlay.
I can't speak to the intent of the organization proposing the project, but the grant application clearly spells out the proposed use and target population. If you read it, it's not surprising that after COJ took a look at it, it was deemed a special use and thus prohibited via the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Prior to residents asking COJ to look at grant, and thus appropriateness of the zoning, some suggestions on how to make the project more palatable to the community were casually discussed with the org. However, they quickly were dismissed by org. And looking back on it, they wouldn't have impacted the zoning conflict anyways.
Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.
The org proposing the project does good work, but this was handled poorly from the start.
I had better not raise discussion here then lest I be seen as not interested in facts and opinions.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 13, 2014, 10:03:22 PM
Quote from: JayBird on August 13, 2014, 08:50:28 AM
Bill, I may be wrong on this but wasn't the original intent of Ability in line with the overlay? I was under the impression it was the community that was demanding changes that would make it illegal with the current overlay.
I can't speak to the intent of the organization proposing the project, but the grant application clearly spells out the proposed use and target population. If you read it, it's not surprising that after COJ took a look at it, it was deemed a special use and thus prohibited via the Springfield Zoning Overlay. Prior to residents asking COJ to look at grant, and thus appropriateness of the zoning, some suggestions on how to make the project more palatable to the community were casually discussed with the org. However, they quickly were dismissed by org. And looking back on it, they wouldn't have impacted the zoning conflict anyways.
Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.
The org proposing the project does good work, but this was handled poorly from the start.
Bill, you are wrong on several counts here. And, as usual, I find a lack of factual content in your posts both here and elsewhere.
One of the intents of the overlay has always been to limit the number of what are called Special Uses. Those uses, which in the opinion of the writers of the overlay, were harmful to a healthy community if there were too many of those particular uses. Therefore, the overlay prevent new "special uses". In the case of Ability Housing, nowhere in their grant do they say they are opening a rooming or boarding house nor do they state that they are opening an ACLF (Group Care Home). Those "special uses" are well defined in the overlay as well as in the municipal code definitions and everyone, including Mr. Burney in his written opinion, sees that the purchase and renting out of an apartment building by Ability Housing is not a Special Use.
So this brings us to the issue at hand. Mr. Burney, at the request of Mr. Meeks, was tasked to determine if there was any way the purchase and renting out of an apartment building could be made illegal. By looking at the grant application, Mr. Burney decided that some of the wordage made the use of the apartment building by Ability Housing with the intent to rent to a targeted clientele and the offer to help those tenants keep a roof over their heads and to help them find outside help if they needed it was "akin" to a special use and therefore illegal. In fact, Mr. Burney said it was "akin" to a rooming house and a group care home.
The written decision would make sense to me if the overlay made things like a Bed and Breakfast a special use as it is certainly akin to a rooming house, but the overlay does not do that. In fact, in every legal sense, as long as the apartment building remains an apartment building and the tenants have annual leases (actually 7 months would do it) then it can't be even considered akin to a rooming house past the obvious fact that they rent housing.
Next, we look at the fact that Mr. Burney also said it was akin to a Group Care Home. This seems like it might have a chance to stick. Until you realize that group care homes are legal by right in RMD-S zoning under the overlay. Yep, anyone can open a group care home in Historic Springfield anytime that want. It simply has to be low density, 6 and under. The only group care homes that are "special uses" are 7 and higher residents. To me this means that his idea that the Ability Housing owning and renting an apartment building is a special use because it has a couple of similar characteristics to an ACLF doesn't legally work either. For this use to be illegal because it is akin to a group care home, all group care homes would have to be illegal under the overlay.
Mr. Burney's written interpretation is very discriminatory in nature. If allowed to stand, it will enable SPAR Council and Mr Meeks to discriminate against anyone who is doing something or is someone he doesn't like if he can show that it "akin" to a special use. Anytime a non-profit buys a structure to rent it will be a special use, anyone who doesn't measure up to some artificial standard they wish to set will be unable to open their bed and breakfast.
Just another example of how bad our city can be. And how much influence a special interest group can have with this administration.
Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.
Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 13, 2014, 10:03:22 PM
Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.
**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish. And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**
Quote from: JayBird on August 14, 2014, 10:48:14 AM
Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.
Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 13, 2014, 10:03:22 PM
Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.
**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish. And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**
Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) . He has said so in public meetings.
Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings. His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.
Quote from: sheclown on August 14, 2014, 11:56:10 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 14, 2014, 10:48:14 AM
Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.
Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on August 13, 2014, 10:03:22 PM
Just a general comment: I hope you won't be surprised to know that people who are interested in factual information on this issue do not discuss it on this forum. The gossip and hypotheses are entertaining, but not meaningful.
Well said.
**warning: rant coming** Being that one of my closest friends works in the Mayors Office, and we have discussions about Jax all the time I cannot count the number of times this forum has come up. Also, those three agencies I mentioned a few pages are also closely watching this specific thread to see if any changes are going to effect them. One of those agencies are tied very closely with the respected (my own personel opinion) Glorious Johnson. So maybe you meant to say "no one from SPAR is watching this forum seriously". But of course, even that would be foolish. And FWIW, MJ has been quoted from threads verbatim by council persons, the Mayor (re downtown in a speech back in April), and even in the investor brief when Bi-Lo (now Southeastern Grocers) made the decision to relocate to Jax from SC. So though they don't comment, serious discussion does come out of the forums. **rant done**
Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) . He has said so in public meetings.
Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings. His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.
Quote from: sheclown on August 14, 2014, 11:56:10 AM
Quote from: JayBird on August 14, 2014, 10:48:14 AM
Who is actually the pushing force behind this? Is it SPAR? COJ? Another community org?
Jack Meeks is paying for it (the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultants) . He has said so in public meetings.
Jack Meeks is a developer in Springfield who develops (among other things) apartment buildings. His wife, Jo Anne Tredennick, is VP of SPAR.
Thank you SheClown, between this and the school board letter trail the picture is much clearer.
Quote from: JayBird on August 14, 2014, 10:48:14 AM
Bill I have read the grant, and it doesn't go against the intent of the overlay as it's written currently. COJ only acted once so many spoke out against it. Also, one of the things the community asked for was staff supervision on site - which itself would've made it illegal.
EXACTLY!!
JayBird, I wrote almost the
exact same thing on the Historic Springfield Community FB thread on Ability Housing (AH) and the responses were nothing short of a personal attack on me by those against AH, complete with accusations that my opinion was the result of some personal agenda. HA! Do I want to attract/encourage people that have mental or criminal issues into my neighborhood? No I do not.....
The bottomline is that what AH plans to do with the building on Cottage Avenue - rent apartments to people - is perfectly legal. They can rent to
whomever they choose as it will be THEIR property.
If AH was a 'for-profit' business instead of a non-profit, we would not even be having this discussion/debate. Why? Because no one is required to tell the anyone what he/she/they/it plans to do with the property once purchased.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2014, 05:11:51 PM
In a fairly perfidious development, apparently the email from Paula Wright (running for re election to the school board, btw) apparently wasn't ever actually sent to Ability Housing, but to Jack Meeks and JoAnne Tredinnick instead. Neither of them are with Ability Housing, but Joanne is on the SPAR board, and Jack is on the Downtown Improvement Authority.
This seems very similar to the Calvin Burney debacle, in which a letter from Jack's attorney was published as though it had been the result of a hearing before the Planning Commission.
Why not send it?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DCPS-AbilityHousing.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DCPS-AbilityHousing.jpg.html)
SPAR's latest on Ability Housing from Facebook:
QuoteSpringfield Preservation and Revitalization (SPAR)
about an hour ago · Edited
This is the historic building nestled in on Cottage Avenue that may be transformed into a homeless facility if special interests outside our community have their way on September 4th.
These homeless individuals are expected, by the special interest's own words, to have significant substance abuse, mental health, and criminal histories. The building is good shape, occupied, and for sale. There have been buyers interested in upgrading the building to nicer apartments, but unfortunately, an organization placed a contract on the building to use as a homeless facility before those other offers were made. This organization did not discuss their intentions with the community they planned to use for their project - the Springfield Historic District. Thankfully, COJ has ruled that the project project is prohibited in our community, due to our neighborhood's Zoning Overlay. But that is being challenged.
One week from today, the public hearing is set (no more postponements!) to determine if the COJ Planning Commission will allow this new homeless facility to be established in our neighborhood. This is a public meeting, and having a LARGE showing of Springfield residents & stakeholders attend is very important to ensure that our Springfield Zoning Overlay, which prohibits new "special uses" such as this from opening here, is kept intact.
The hearing is Thursday, September 4th @ 1pm at the Ed Ball Building in Downtown Jax, (214 Hogan Street, 1st floor Training Room) and open to the public. Our Zoning Overlay was established in 2000 to prevent new "special uses" from opening in our neighborhood, as the City of Jacksonville and Springfield community determined that concentration of such special uses was hurting the health and viability of the area. You see, supporting the Springfield Zoning Overlay is supporting the continued revitalization of our unique and diverse community, plain and simple.
Hope to see you there.
Our neighborhood has received support from notable planning experts, Duval County Public Schools, Riverside Avondale Preservation, the City of Jacksonville, and many other entities on this issue. It's fantastic to see the larger Jacksonville community supporting one of Jacksonville's original communities.
And to address the spin that is being disseminated by the paid PR staff on the other side of this issue: No, this project would not be specifically for Veterans.
NIMBYs?
QuoteThere have been buyers interested in upgrading the building to nicer apartments, but unfortunately, an organization placed a contract on the building to use as a homeless facility before those other offers were made.
The above I find very interesting. Here SPAR sort of indicates that the "bad" Ability Housing snatched up this apartment building from the "good" people who wanted it. I know there have been offers in the past and in one case I was involved with as a contractor, the deal did not go through due to the various issues with the building. Here also SPAR sort of admits that the talk of what happens to the poor current residents who will be forced to move out was just that, talk. They obviously would not matter to SPAR if the right person was buying this building.
That comment also made me wonder if there was indeed someone, someone like Mr. Meeks perhaps, who decided he wanted the building, played a waiting game to get a lower price and got there a bit too late. Maybe all this is more about someone wanting the apartment building and being pissed Ability Housing beat them to it?
What SPAR keeps hoping with this issue is that no one understands that this is not about supporting the overlay or not. It is about one man's interpretation of one small part of the overlay done for a special interest group lead by Mr. Meeks. If the Planning Commission finds for Ability Housing and throws out the interpretation, the overlay still remains intact. A few will find out that for the most part, the formerly homeless are not bad neighbors. Certainly no worse than any other resident of any apartment in Springfield can be.
If the decision goes for SPAR and Mr Meeks and the interpretation is upheld? That is when the overlay will actually be put at risk. The federal lawsuits the non-profits will be forced to file will radically change the overlay if not take entire sections out completely.
To help understand how SPAR and those opposing the Ability Housing project are getting their following, let's look at one of the more vocal opponent's Facebook posts on the Ability Housing page:
QuoteAH will not be making my neighborhood a safe place by continuing to force the 139 cottage homeless shelter/factility. Ability housing has repeatedly gone against the wishes of hundreds of Springfield residents by wanting to further their agenda. What a great organization AH is by sacrificing one group for another ...
QuoteAbility housing is willing to sacrifice a federally recognized historic district (FYI JAX doesn't have many) and the residents who live there. All so they can further their agenda. the VAST MAJORITY of springfield residents do not want Ability Housing in our neighborhood. Ask yourself how you can continue to pat ability housing on the back and say they are a fabulous organization when they are terrorizing a neighborhood by threatening the lives of others. Ability is not fabulous by any means
https://www.facebook.com/AbilityHousing?sk=reviews
As you can see, the opponents of Ability Housing are using implied threats and fear to convince others they are right. That Ability Housing is evil and the homeless are something to be feared.
In the not too distant past, SPAR converted a Community Meeting to a meeting about their perceived rooming house issue and used a petition against rooming houses as a sign in sheet (without disclosing that fact) and the then President of SPAR, Claude Moulton, stated for the public record that if you illegally rented rooms to the right kind of person, it would be OK. That meeting cost SPAR a lot of their support from the community. Unfortunately, things have not changed much since that meeting with the attitudes of the leadership of SPAR.
Eventually, the average newer Springfield resident will come to realize that this fight against the Cottage Ave apartments has the potential of doing far more harm to the community than an apartment buildings filled with the formerly homeless ever would.
http://www.youtube.com/v/CNtdpIjlLjg?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"
Ability Housing, executive director, Shannon Nazworth
Huge crowd here. Ability housing will not be heard until 2:30. Line runs down the hall. We are sitting on the floor
It's up
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/jasonandcalvinburney.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/jasonandcalvinburney.jpg.html)
Jason Teal and Calvin Burney
Ability housing lawyer up and Jason teal raised objections
AH Lawyer says they were not notified of planning dept. action. They were not served.
Ability housing is not allowed to show power point. Jason says it gives new info and this is appellate. Ability lawyer says they never had opportunity to give any info.
Ability Housing lawyer says ability housing is here as courtesy. Could have just gone to court
Ability Housing lawyer says it is in city's best interest to deal with this now.
(This will not go to city council -- will go to court from here -- according to Jason Teal )
Ability Housing lawyer says two points : Interpretation here is "akin" is flawed, and the argument of the higher law -- the fair housing act.
The Fair Housing issue should have been considered by Burney while he was figuring out his position.
Lawyer says is a multi family now will be multi use later
Leases. Well maintained. No different than other apts
The akin argument: we are not short term like shelter. We do not provide food. We are not a rooming house. We are not residential treatment facility which needs to be licensed. We are not license. We offer no therapeutic services.
Ability lawyer brings up group homes -- He states that a group care home of less than six residents is allowed by right
Not a special use.
And yet was used in the argument of special use against Ability Housing.
Ability lawyer: "What is the same as a special use? The people served are the same."
You must make reasonable accommodation Brings in New Orleans
Ability's lawyer asks commissioners to determine that Burney's ruling was clearly erroneous
Burney up. With Jason teal.
Brings up "clearly erroneous -- "
References a handout. Teal talks about multi family and the request for written interpretation. Teal says they have no right to have a notice from the planning dept and that any interested person can ask for the interpretation.
Brings up grant application. Jason says the grant application is proof
Of their intent
"You are being asked if burneys interpretation is erroneous ". We will cross the fair housing bridge when we get there.
"As the expert, Burney's opinion is accorded great deference "
Ability housing did not bring up why Birney was erroneous. That's the only question.
Burney asked simple question. "Here is a list of specific activities. Is it multi family or is it something else?"
This is the total basis of your decision
Jason says the questions will be answered when ability housing applies for the certificate of use
Burney up: room is deathly quiet
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/abilityhousingcrowd2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/abilityhousingcrowd2.jpg.html)
Providing chronology First step zoning verification form. Planning gave them an okay at the time
Next was town hall meeting. (Oh remember that well).
Burney:
Dept received request from Jack and Joanne's lawyer.
Burney:
Is homeless supportive housing appropriate for the zoning or is it illegal user the overlay.
Supportive housing is not defined so the planning contact ability housing
Fair housing never came into play.
Not typical landlord relationship
Ability rebuttal:
Lack of notice. Not required sure but city should have given opportunity to AH
City council put the planning dept in this. Brings up case law
Saying they need to consider fair housing act. Should have from
The beginning
The directors interpretion is clearly erroneous
From our perspective it is futile to apply for a certicate of use.
Landlord relationship question. Disagrees. All of those uses -- brings meals on wheels as example
Ability Housing:
"Target occupants. That's what it is all about "
Teal rebuttal: not typical landlord relationship.
Burney: their grant application clearly points out that they are not typical landlords.
The services that the residents need clearly indicate this is not a typical landlord application
"If you are a landlord you are only concerned that your tenants just pay the rent"
Back to notification. The application itself speaks for what ability housing was going to do
The clientelle has no bearing on this "
Break is over
It's planning commission time
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/abilityhousingcrowd.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/abilityhousingcrowd.jpg.html)
Question asking time.
Commissioner (the young lawyer at the end) Likes what ability housing does but ... This isn't going to be about them
"Are we holding up their building process ?" He asks.
He is clearly supportive of Ability Housing and their mission
Burney : "If they were just renting to an average person ..."
He seriously said this out loud.
Will continue as jaxunicorn Battery dying
Okay that didn't work out well. Kim's phone is too touchy for me to operate.
Battery feels better now.
Apparently questions still being asked
Seems too tough to call at this point
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/abilityhousingmeeting.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/abilityhousingmeeting.jpg.html)
Commissioner Dietrich asking about services. She says this is the crux of the matter.
"Which cart does the fruit fit into ?"
The meeting went on for a bit longer but in the end, after all the questions, I guessed 3 for granting the appeal, 1 firmly for upholding the interpretation and 3 that seemed they could go either way pretty easily. That left the Chairman who had yet to say his peace. When he did, I knew how the vote would go. The Chairman was firmly in the Burney camp and said so. What was ultimately voted on was the idea that if the Planning Director used the information given to him (and only that information) to come up with an interpretation that could be considered reasonable then the interpretation needed to be upheld. The final vote was 6 to deny the appeal and 2 to grant it. I did read one wrong apparently or he just felt he had to go with the Chairman and vote it was a possible interpretation.
What also seems to have come out of tonight's decision, the term "Permanent Supportive Housing" being now defined as an illegal use, at least in Springfield under the overlay. Perhaps even in other areas, depending upon who is asking.
On the surface it may appear that the Community won. They certainly got what they were hoping for here. Except that perhaps they did not win anything at all. It was made very clear in the opening statements that this was Ability Housing checking off another box before they pursued the other legal remedies available to them.
I have been assured by Ability Housing that this is not over and while I hate the idea that this is going to end with a bad lawsuit due to the discrimination against the disabled, I keep reminding myself that this is Jacksonville after all and fear and prejudice is often the order of the day. Many here require getting hit with the proverbial sledgehammer before they figure out what at least most of the rest of the country has already. That the disabled, all disable, have the right to live where they chose and that they have the right to reasonable accommodations to be able to live there. The residents of Springfield do not have the right to make that choice for them nor, frankly, does the city. And yet, they just did for at least 12 of them.
QuotePlanning Commission supports ruling that blocks Springfield homeless apartments
After months of neighborhood controversy, Jacksonville's Planning Commission endorsed a ruling by the city's planning director Thursday that blocks development of an apartment building for homeless people in Springfield.
"I do not find any sign of a 'clearly erroneous' [ruling]," Vice Chairman Chris Hagan told commissioners, referencing the standard the board would have had to meet to reverse Planning Director Calvin Burney's finding that the 12-unit project on Cottage Avenue conflicts with neighborhood zoning rules.
The decision represents the last step in a city review of plans by nonprofit Ability Housing of Northeast Florida. But it could move the dispute over the project into court instead.
Ability Housing attorney Tim Franklin told the commission Ability had come to the board to try to resolve the dispute administratively, but could still sue.
He noted the federal government had sued New Orleans for violating the Fair Housing Act by blocking a similar, 20-unit project, and that city ended up agreeing to fund 350 units of homeless housing to settle the case.
The nonprofit's executive director, Shannon Nazworth, said a committee from the organization's board of directors would weigh its options carefully before deciding whether to sue over the project. The project had been promoted as a way to house veterans who had mental illnesses or other disabilities that are protected from discrimination under fair housing laws.
"We feel very firmly that we owe it to those 12 veterans," Nazworth said, but added that "we're not going to just dig in our heels and fight for the sake of fighting.
"We know we're right in what we're trying to do. We just have to be sure it's the right thing for everyone involved," she said. "Going through a lawsuit is a big deal and we don't jump into that lightly."
Springfield has a history as a magnet for group homes, rooming houses and facilities for the poor and disabled, and many residents objected that the new project would bring in people who were homeless because of drug abuse, psychiatric problems and other issues that could make them problem neighbors.
An area property owner had his lawyer request Burney's guidance on whether the project would meet zoning requirements.
In May, Burney concluded the "supportive housing" that homeless advocates wanted wasn't mentioned directly in city ordinance, but was "akin to" rooming houses and other uses that haven't been allowed to move into Springfield since around 2000.
Burney said he hadn't considered fair housing laws in reaching his conclusions.
"The target group didn't matter to me. It could have been any target group. ... I didn't delve into the fair housing laws," he said.
Instead, Burney said he assessed whether Ability Housing's plan was consistent with norms for multifamily housing, which was how the nonprofit described its intended use of the building to the city.
He decided that agreements the nonprofit had reached for helping residents line up assistance with job training, mental health services, individualized case management and other services was "a cut above" anything available through a conventional landlord. What it was closest too, he said, was the kind of oversight found in group homes and similar "special uses" that zoning rules for Springfield don't allow.
Although they were not allowed to speak during the meeting, dozens of Springfield residents waited several hours in a city-owned office building for the commission's decision, some sitting on the floor with their backs to the back and side walls of a big training room where every seat was taken.
Commissioner Lisa King said the neighborhood's history of concentrated rooming houses, and the harmful effect their numbers had, made it the wrong place to set up homeless apartments.
"I'm sympathetic to what Ability is trying to do. ... But I'm also sympathetic to the residents," King said.
"There are many sections of this city where a facility could be located. ... It's just that Springfield has done more than its share."
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-09-04/story/planning-commission-supports-ruling-blocks-springfield-homeless
QuoteI have been assured by Ability Housing that this is not over and while I hate the idea that this is going to end with a bad lawsuit due to the discrimination against the disabled, I keep reminding myself that this is Jacksonville after all and fear and prejudice is often the order of the day. Many here require getting hit with the proverbial sledgehammer before they figure out what at least most of the rest of the country has already. That the disabled, all disable, have the right to live where they chose and that they have the right to reasonable accommodations to be able to live there. The residents of Springfield do not have the right to make that choice for them nor, frankly, does the city. And yet, they just did for at least 12 of them.
And Jacksonville will soon be in the news, for yet again, acting as a backward city with yet more people, this time in the pioneer neighborhood called "Springfield" acting as a bunch of whiny NIMBY's. Nice. :o
And the editors of MJ are happy to throw the WLA crowd under the JTA bus, yet, crickets over this latest decision.....when it does impact the neighborhood and casts a black eye on the City as a whole.
Let's talk "Reasonable Accommodations"
Quote
State and local governments -- Title II Highlights.
May not refuse to allow a person with a disability to participate in a service, program, or activity simply because the person has a disability.
For example, a city may not refuse to allow a person with epilepsy to use parks and recreational facilities.
Must provide programs and services in an integrated setting, unless separate or different measures are necessary to ensure equal opportunity.
Must eliminate unnecessary eligibility standards or rules that deny individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to enjoy their services, programs or activities unless "necessary" for the provisions of the service, program or activity.
Requirements that tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, such as requiring a driver's license as the only acceptable means of identification, are also prohibited.
Safety requirements that are necessary for the safe operation of the program in question, such as requirements for eligibility for drivers' licenses, may be imposed if they are based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.
Are required to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration in the program would result.
For example, a city office building would be required to make an exception to a rule prohibiting animals in public areas in order to admit guide dogs and other service animals assisting individuals with disabilities.
Must furnish auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication, unless an undue burden or fundamental alteration would result.
May provide special benefits, beyond those required by the regulation, to individuals with disabilities.
May not place special charges on individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures necessary to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment, such as making modifications required to provide program accessibility or providing qualified interpreters.
Shall operate their programs so that, when viewed in their entirety, they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
http://www.hum.wa.gov/Documents/FairHousing/SamplePolicies/TenantsWithDisabilities.pdf
Wouldn't "supportive services" qualify as REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS under the Fair Housing Act?
By denying these services, or worse yet, using the fact that the disabled need special accommodations -- calling them a "special use" because of them and disallowing them -- the city has violated the rights of the potential tenants.
Taken together, these provisions are intended to prohibit exclusion and segregation of individuals with disabilities and the denial of equal opportunities enjoyed by others, based on, among other things, presumptions, patronizing attitudes, fears, and stereotypes about individuals with disabilities. Consistent with these standards, public entities are required to ensure that their actions are based on facts applicable to individuals and not on presumptions as to what a class of individuals with disabilities can or cannot do.
http://www.ada.gov/reg2.html
QuoteSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE CITY OF ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPLAINT NUMBER 204-14-150
The parties to this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") are the United States of America and the City of Ansonia, Connecticut. The City of Ansonia is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1), and is, therefore, subject to title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.
This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") pursuant to title II of the ADA. The complainant, Recovery Network of Programs, who planned to open a treatment facility for qualified individuals with substance abuse disabilities, was not permitted to open the facility by the City of Ansonia because the City's zoning code excluded substance abuse treatment facilities from certain zones. The complainant alleges that the City refused to allow the facility on the basis of disability, in violation of the ADA.
Under title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, such as the City of Ansonia, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. Zoning and land use decisions are services, programs, or activities of a public entity.Â
The Department of Justice is the federal agency responsible for administering and enforcing title II of the ADA with respect to all programs, services, and regulatory activities relating to planning and development by public entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.190. The Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action enforcing title II of the ADA if the Department of Justice is unable to secure compliance by voluntary means. 42 U.S.C. § 12133; 28 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart F.
The United States of America and the City of Ansonia have agreed to resolve this matter as set forth below. This agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the City of Ansonia.
B.       Injunctive Relief
The City of Ansonia shall not discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA on the face of its regulations; or in making land use decisions regarding, or plans to create, operate, or modify, facilities that provide services for individuals with disabilities. Such non-discrimination includes making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a facility, unless such modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the land use
So the bottom line here is that the city of Jacksonville is preventing a landowner from providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled. The city has said that if Ability Housing wants to rent to "average people" that is fine.
They have, by design, forced Ability Housing (with this determination) to break the ADA requirements that they and all others are forced to follow.
This interpretation is "akin to" the city refusing to put a ramp or lift in a newly built government building and allow the disabled access to those services.
If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue?
Not according to Calvin Burney.
Quote from: chris farley on September 06, 2014, 01:07:53 PM
If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue?
Two things about this. To begin with, they are studio apartments and so are not conducive to a family situation. The only reason to bring this up is to try to justify the prejudice against the project. The other is everyone goes through Ability Housing so that if there is a need for housing for a family, the other properties available to Ability Housing can be offered to fill that need. It has also been stated multiple times that consideration would be given for a couple if a need and desire would arise. That might apply to a single person and single child as well.
None of that matters at this point since the city and a group of Springfield residents has already denied the right of reasonable accommodations to the potential residents of the apartment building. It is a shame that people have to learn the hard way but with a city that can't get it right either, not much else can be expected I guess.
Quote from: strider on September 06, 2014, 01:40:22 PM
Quote from: chris farley on September 06, 2014, 01:07:53 PM
If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue?
Two things about this. To begin with, they are studio apartments and so are not conducive to a family situation. The only reason to bring this up is to try to justify the prejudice against the project. The other is everyone goes through Ability Housing so that if there is a need for housing for a family, the other properties available to Ability Housing can be offered to fill that need. It has also been stated multiple times that consideration would be considered for a couple if a need and desire would arise. That might apply to a single person and single child as well.
None of that matters at this point since the city and a group of Springfield residents has already denied the right of reasonable accommodations to the potential residents of the apartment building. It is a shame that people have to learn the hard way but with a city that can't get it right either, not much else can be expected I guess.
That's what I was thinking too Joe. I thought that since the project's focus is on PERMANENT supportive housing, you wouldn't put a small child with adults in a studio apartment -- you'd want to find a more suitable and PERMANENT location.
Those darn babies grow up to be large children quite quickly.
Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2014, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 06, 2014, 05:58:48 AM
QuoteI have been assured by Ability Housing that this is not over and while I hate the idea that this is going to end with a bad lawsuit due to the discrimination against the disabled, I keep reminding myself that this is Jacksonville after all and fear and prejudice is often the order of the day. Many here require getting hit with the proverbial sledgehammer before they figure out what at least most of the rest of the country has already. That the disabled, all disable, have the right to live where they chose and that they have the right to reasonable accommodations to be able to live there. The residents of Springfield do not have the right to make that choice for them nor, frankly, does the city. And yet, they just did for at least 12 of them.
And Jacksonville will soon be in the news, for yet again, acting as a backward city with yet more people, this time in the pioneer neighborhood called "Springfield" acting as a bunch of whiny NIMBY's. Nice. :o
And the editors of MJ are happy to throw the WLA crowd under the JTA bus, yet, crickets over this latest decision.....when it does impact the neighborhood and casts a black eye on the City as a whole.
Hmm. I wouldn't bet on editorial complacency over this issue, Mtrain. After all, one of the principal players in this mess has been actively trying to blackmail and intimidate me for a few months over the issue.
seriously? To what end?
Quote from: sheclown on April 03, 2014, 07:52:13 PM
Jack Meeks brings up DIA which will remove "homeless footprint "downtown
Has the DIA taken up an official position on this yet?
In today's paper:
QuoteLETTERS FROM READERS
Housing for Homeless
Are city rules discriminatory?
At Ability Housing, our goal is to end homelessness in Northeast Florida.
The solution to ending homelessness is to provide homes for those in need.
The major challenges to that solution are funding and community acceptance.
The state of Florida has agreed to provide funding for Ability Housing to acquire and rehabilitate 12 apartments on Cottage Avenue in Springfield for homeless persons with a disability.
Ability Housing has chosen to prioritize veterans to receive the housing.
The funding from the state is site specific. It cannot be moved to another location.
Springfield residents have opposed the project and have consistently maintained that the only alternative they will consider is for the development to be abandoned.
Last week, the Planning commission sided with the residents when it upheld the city's decision that the proposed development violates the Springfield Overlay Zoning district.
This fight is not over. The Ability Housing Board is determining an appropriate response.
The ruling by the city calls into question whether the entire Springfield Overlay is in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in zoning and land use decisions.
In a strikingly similar case settled earlier this year, the city of New Orleans agreed to:
* Reverse it decision to deny permits for a 20-unit development for homeless persons with disabilities.
*Amend its zoning ordinance so that developments of this type are allowed in any zone where multi-family housing is permitted.
*Provide funding for 350 additional homes for the homeless.
Perhaps the outcome of this case is that state funding is lost for these 12 apartments -- and replaced with city funding for 350 others.
Greg Matovina, chairman
Ability Housing of Northeast Florida
The ruling by the city calls into question whether the entire Springfield Overlay is in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This is what Joe has said from day one.
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2014, 06:09:30 PM
Looks like Jack Meeks and Joanne Tredinnick might have struck the hornet's nest.
Increased homeless housing and no more Springfield Overlay....
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/hornetsnest.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/hornetsnest.jpg.html)
Yes, seems like it Stephen.
Wow. Several of us have said that an owner of a property can rent that property to whomever he/she chooses and that the fight against the AH project was a property rights issue. Looks like we will be seeing this fight continue in court.
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2014, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on September 10, 2014, 08:47:29 PM
Wow. Several of us have said that an owner of a property can rent that property to whomever he/she chooses and that the fight against the AH project was a property rights issue. Looks like we will be seeing this fight continue in court.
It seems like, given the history of this issue that Jack Meeks, the mayor's appointee to the Downtown Investment Authority would be on the hook personally.
As I am sure you can imagine, I would have no problem whatsoever if he were "on the hook personally". He can be a nasty pompous ass at times...believe me...I have personal experience being on the receiving end.
The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/LBa0Ga_WQMIfXkLBUsoEKXfRmuJjNbS9Q6FedyqPVKQEKZ8Doa2wmhGPa185JKNZGg6wCe71Dk6DbOUGsifO5Q=s200)
Quote from: jaxbuilder on September 10, 2014, 10:10:58 PM
The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !
Yes, it will be interesting to see how a local ordinance faces off against a federal law.
And if you think this action PROTECTED the overlay, that's a laugh. This action endangered the overlay way more than any 12 unit apartment building ever could.
Quote from: jaxbuilder on September 10, 2014, 10:10:58 PM
The planning commission decision was correct. Springfield must have a viable economic base in order to move Historic Preservation forward . I am certainly encouraged by the City's determination to protect Historic Springfield and will be acquiring additional parcels . I am certain more capital will flow into the community now that the Historic zoning overlay was upheld. Jack Meeks certainly deserves accolades as does Jason Teal in the GC office . Bravo !
The last decade in Springfield has shown that the actions like those of Jack Meeks have done more harm than good in the long term. Since the economic crash, it has been the very non-profits that the so-called leadership of Springfield have often criticized which brought the most positive press to the community. And before anyone makes the ridiculous statement that non-profits like Ability Housing (and the terrible "Special Uses" already in Springfield) hurt property values and development, let's review history and remember that those same "Special Uses" and non-profits were here before the last boom. In fact, they survived the crash and are still here while property values work their way back up. It can be proven that values follow something other than the number or types of non-profits the area may or may not have.
The rest of Jacksonville has always viewed Springfield as this crime-filled-wasteland. Ironically, fights like this --against Ability Housing-- give the press the foot-stomping declarations of an overload of terrible non-profits reaffirming those mistaken opinions rather than dismissing them. What do you think will be remembered more, the headline of "Springfield Hates Veterans" or that Springfield residents fought down a "terrible" non-profit? In fact, I think you will find that most within the city are wondering why a community that needs good development turned away a $ 750,000.00 investment of an apartment building.
This recent interpretation, which was paid for by Mr Meeks and written by Mr Burney and, yes, reaffirmed by the Planning Commission, was not touted as this great interpretation by Mr Teal. Rather it was Mr Burney's right to give an interpretation which Teal was defending. If you read what he said, you will see that Mr Teal knows where this is heading, and he was already taking steps to lesson the impact of a Federal lawsuit. Lest we forget, the Feds have already declared the city incapable of handling the federal funds properly, does anyone really think that the Feds will hesitate to find this city which lacks the capacity to follow federal guidelines, guilty of discrimination?
The most amazing thing to me is how many people -- in not just Springfield but working for the city -- seem to need constant reminders of why the anti-discrimination laws exist.
What amazes me is the terribly unkind rhetoric and accusations. It does not help a cause, we have been through that with "Federal Funds" and demolition. What also is amazing is that out of 12808 views (currently) there are 204 answers, more than 50% (118 I believe), from the same two people. I believe the answers in relation to the views are only .0013%, my math is not always great so the figure may change, but the percentage of people replying, other than the main two, is almost negligible.
It is also possible that a previously wounded single Mom veteran (or Dad for that matter) could live easily in a studio apartment with a small child, but that will not be allowed under AH conditions. Remember we used to have whole families living in one room during Springfield's dark days.
The unkind name calling and posting of photos/pictures did not help in the "code" issue. Can we please give it a break and let any legal matters take their course.
Uh huh. Those who are speaking up for the rights of the disabled are the ones being mean?
Not the ones teaching their children to fear the poor and the sick
I guess hatred is in the eye of the beholder
I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts. I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?
Discrimination Against Families
While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).
Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,
Also the money figures being used are incredibly high. For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12.
Quote from: stephendare on September 11, 2014, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: chris farley on September 11, 2014, 02:58:49 PM
I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts. I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?
Discrimination Against Families
While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).
Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,
Also the money figures being used are incredibly high. For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12.
For the past 8 years you personally have been one of the meanest, and most slanderous people in that neighborhood, Chris. Its just amusing to hear you decry 'mean ness' considering some of the truly awful, and mostly untrue narratives that you have spread. Some of them have been the kind of zombie lies that got repeated long after they had been disproven.
And spare me the lecture on how you like rules except the ones that apply to you.
You have lectured long and hard about the rules of the Zoning Overlay (which Im not sure you ever really understood, to be honest, and I don't remember you from any of the actual committee meetings which created the overlay either, to be frank) And now that it turns out that there is an even more powerful rule: you know....a Federal one regarding non discrimination for disabled people, you would like to pretend that it doesn't actually exist.
It is no one's fault but Jack Meeks that the argument has painted the supporters of the overlay into this unfortunate corner. Perhaps if people hadn't acted like such uppity swine in the first place, it wouldn't have come down to undermining the very amazing tool that so many people worked on so hard simply for the fact that it has been used as a weapon (and at times a bludgeon) to further the financial interests of a handful of developers.
Right on.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/elijahpaintshimselfinacorner.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/elijahpaintshimselfinacorner.jpg.html)
Quote from: chris farley on September 11, 2014, 02:58:49 PM
I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts. I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?
Discrimination Against Families
While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).
Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,
Also the money figures being used are incredibly high. For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12.
OK, let's try this:
The phrase you were looking for to explain the cottage ave tenant/ landlord situation is that it will function just like a regular tenant/landlord situation. What makes it different is the reasonable accommodations the tenants require.
What 2 million? The cottage avenue one is only $750K. There is another project attached to the grant the $750K is coming from but I thought the total amount for both was higher than 2 million.
The "infamous 100SF rule" was only for existing Special Uses and no longer appears in the Overlay. That means it has no validity anywhere in this argument. In this case, one person or maybe sometimes two in each studio apartment is all that is being talked about.
The idea of no families or just the disabled is the same as deciding that a complex is only for 55 and older. It can be done. Part of the issue is how it is or isn't advertised to the public. Besides, this is not a fair housing issue in so much as it is a ADA issue. The Disabled are a protected class of individual and as such are entitled to various "reasonable accommodations". It is because of those reasonable accommodations that businesses must put in wheel chair ramps and doors must be a certain width. Ability Housing helping a disabled person find help from an outside service agency is also a reasonable accommodation. Denying Ability Housing or any entity the ability to provide the needed reasonable accommodations is the same as denying those reasonable accommodations to the individual needing them.
Quote from: sheclown on September 11, 2014, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 11, 2014, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: chris farley on September 11, 2014, 02:58:49 PM
I am not talking about anyone being mean, it is just that if you use rules or laws, really should abide by them in total, you cannot pick out parts. I pulled the following from the Fair Housing Act which is being toted around, Maybe there is another part that counteracts this? We are told that Cottage will be a regular tenant/landlord situation, aren't we?
Discrimination Against Families
While some landlords don't like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair
Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won't be safe in the
building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).
Actually under the infamous 100 square foot rule it would be possible to put 4 human beings in each apartment,
Also the money figures being used are incredibly high. For $2,000,000, you could probably build 20 beautiful homes which instance would certainly be better than small efficiencies helping only 12.
For the past 8 years you personally have been one of the meanest, and most slanderous people in that neighborhood, Chris. Its just amusing to hear you decry 'mean ness' considering some of the truly awful, and mostly untrue narratives that you have spread. Some of them have been the kind of zombie lies that got repeated long after they had been disproven.
And spare me the lecture on how you like rules except the ones that apply to you.
You have lectured long and hard about the rules of the Zoning Overlay (which Im not sure you ever really understood, to be honest, and I don't remember you from any of the actual committee meetings which created the overlay either, to be frank) And now that it turns out that there is an even more powerful rule: you know....a Federal one regarding non discrimination for disabled people, you would like to pretend that it doesn't actually exist.
It is no one's fault but Jack Meeks that the argument has painted the supporters of the overlay into this unfortunate corner. Perhaps if people hadn't acted like such uppity swine in the first place, it wouldn't have come down to undermining the very amazing tool that so many people worked on so hard simply for the fact that it has been used as a weapon (and at times a bludgeon) to further the financial interests of a handful of developers.
Right on.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/elijahpaintshimselfinacorner.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/elijahpaintshimselfinacorner.jpg.html)
Love the picture. The city does seem to be doing exactly that.
Those developers pay the taxes that allow Ability to get funding in the first place . Did anyone ask how many housing vouchers could be provided by recycling the capital ($1.2 million) in Ability's Grant . I suspect housing could be provided for a lot more than 12 souls in Springfield . But then again , there's no profit in that ! Is there ?
Quote from: jaxbuilder on September 11, 2014, 07:40:21 PM
Those developers pay the taxes that allow Ability to get funding in the first place . Did anyone ask how many housing vouchers could be provided by recycling the capital ($1.2 million) in Ability's Grant . I suspect housing could be provided for a lot more than 12 souls in Springfield . But then again , there's no profit in that ! Is there ?
Again with the overstated amounts. The Cottage Ave is 750K. Which developers are you talking about here? They all pay taxes, or at least are supposed to and they (developers) are not the only ones paying them so they are not the only ones "supporting" Ability Housing.
But let's call your bluff. If Ability Housing were to be able to take that 1.2 million and do rent vouchers for housing for their disabled homeless folks that they are targeting for Cottage Ave and spread them out in all the quadrants of Springfield, you would support the effort fully, right?
Good news, the coming lawsuit may bring lots more than just 12 to Springfield so in a way, you might get your wish. And profit? Yes, I think everyone profits when a homeless person is able to get off the street and back into "normal" society. Don't you?
Federal Housing Voucher Guidelines for Veterans . And yes I would be happy to rent to a qualified homeless veteran with a voucher and have in the past in Riverside , Neptune Beach as well as Springfield : HUD has issued over 58,000 housing vouchers for veterans . Seems to work :The Federal Government thinks so anyway : http://www.va.gov/homeless/housing.asp#one .
^ super. Call the homeless coalition and see what you can do to help
Quote from: jaxbuilder on September 11, 2014, 10:08:45 PM
Federal Housing Voucher Guidelines for Veterans . And yes I would be happy to rent to a qualified homeless veteran with a voucher and have in the past in Riverside , Neptune Beach as well as Springfield : HUD has issued over 58,000 housing vouchers for veterans . Seems to work :The Federal Government thinks so anyway : http://www.va.gov/homeless/housing.asp#one .
Very cool. So you like this program and think it should be the way to go, even in Springfield.
Just so everyone has the info, here's the program description:(emphasis mine)
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and VA Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH) partner to provide permanent, supportive housing and treatment services for homeless Veterans.
As of September 30, 2013, HUD had allocated more than 58,000 Housing Choice vouchers across the country, which allows Veterans and their families to live in market rate rental housing while VA provides case management services. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the local public housing authority on behalf of the participating Veteran. The Veteran then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. The case management services facilitate the attainment of the Veteran's recovery goals. The HUD-VASH Program is for the most vulnerable Veterans, and provides special services for women Veterans, those recently returning from combat zones, and Veterans with disabilities.
Interesting that this is almost exactly what Ability Housing wants to do and what Jacksonville just declared illegal. Jaxbuilder, if you accept that voucher, will Mr Meeks and Mr Burney declare your rental a "special Use"?
I can't get to the September 4th Planning Commission meeting minutes online. Anyone else having problems with this?
Public records request.
Transcripts for the meeting are out.
COJ web site
Starts on page 87.
Burneys "average person" quote is on page 145 line 14-22
Rather damning IMHO
DIRECTOR BURNEY:
Well,
if they came to us
and they were not changing,
they were just picking up where the current owners of Cottage Avenue left off
renting to just the average person,
not providing any services, you now,
following that typical landlord/tenant relationship, you know,
we would just issue a Certificate of Use and allow them to move
forward
That is borderline if not full fledged general discrimination. I mean if a handicapped person needed special accommodations would this would apply to them as well? Jesus almighty people need to think before they say certain things. I am sure his defense will be the same as what every other city person has been seen saying in the past... "I didn't mean it like that... It was taken out of context." Just go back to that general rule... Think before you speak...
It is a shame indeed
transcripts posted here:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,22620.0.html
QuoteSunday's Lead Letter: Don't put the entire burden of solving homelessness on Springfield
Fri, Sep 12, 2014 @ 3:11 pm
Letters from Readers
In its recent letter, Ability Housing brought up the issue of discrimination.
Discrimination can mean different things to different constituents.
I believe it discriminatory to single out one residential section of any city to place large numbers of homeless.
The city realizes that the Historic Springfield district has provided more than its share in housing for homeless and social services.
SPRINGFIELD HAS BEEN SINGLED OUT
In Duval County, there are 699 properties with social service exemptions.
Duval County is 840 square miles.
That equates to less than one social service organization per square mile.
Within Historic Springfield — which is one square mile — there are 45 such properties.
The Springfield Zoning Overlay was designed to prevent this neighborhood from becoming the receptacle for all the social problems of a large city.
All of Jacksonville's citizens have the responsibility of taking care of those who are less fortunate.
Historic Springfield has many families.
Every day these residents come face to face with the homeless, disabled and disadvantaged.
Springfield residents respond daily with money, clothes, food and even medical care for those who struggle.
We do this gladly on our own time.
And with our own money.
It is in the spirit of our community.
RESPONSIBILITY MUST BE SHARED
But placing more homeless housing in Springfield only makes residents feel resentful and discriminated against.
Is the Historic Springfield residential area the only square mile in this large city where these kinds of facilities can be located?
I believe not.
I ask that Ability Housing and other social services become more creative and spread their visions across all sections of our wonderful city.
Don't break the back of one section of Jacksonville.
This responsibility needs to be shared by all citizens!
Susan Dobson, Jacksonville
for a list of the 45 structures, look to this thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21248.0.html
Not sure how counting the SPAR building as a burden on the neighborhood (as it is included in one of the 45) -- but it is the script which is being passed around.
Quote from: sheclown on September 16, 2014, 06:55:07 PM
for a list of the 45 structures, look to this thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21248.0.html
Not sure how counting the SPAR building as a burden on the neighborhood (as it is included in one of the 45) -- but it is the script which is being passed around.
Yes, but that was the conversation back in April. Please tell me that by now someone has actually formed a list that they were using to base that off of (because the list mentioned in that old thread wasn't the "official" one).
Also, is this special purpose overlay unique to neighborhoods, or is it a flat across the board that can be applied to any neighborhood? (
EDIT: Sorry sometimes my Yankee brain jumbles my words: translation: is it one overlay for Springfield, Riverside, San Marco or do they each have their own different unique overlay rules?
Quote from: JayBird on September 16, 2014, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: sheclown on September 16, 2014, 06:55:07 PM
for a list of the 45 structures, look to this thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,21248.0.html
Not sure how counting the SPAR building as a burden on the neighborhood (as it is included in one of the 45) -- but it is the script which is being passed around.
Yes, but that was the conversation back in April. Please tell me that by now someone has actually formed a list that they were using to base that off of (because the list mentioned in that old thread wasn't the "official" one).
Also, is this special purpose overlay unique to neighborhoods, or is it a flat across the board that can be applied to any neighborhood? (EDIT: Sorry sometimes my Yankee brain jumbles my words: translation: is it one overlay for Springfield, Riverside, San Marco or do they each have their own different unique overlay rules?
Ironically, Burney's interpretation makes new permanent supportive housing illegal in all Jacksonville neighborhoods. New Rooming houses are not allowed in any neighborhood. Therefore being "akin" to one makes it an illegal use.
Historic Districts with restrictive overlays are no different in this regard (from the rest of the city).
HUD calls Permanent Supportive Housing a best practice --
As far as the list of 45 goes, yes it is from the talking points initially circulated last spring and has little to do with "special uses".
Each overlay is different.
So, as I see it, these are the possible courses of action:
1.) Ability Housing closes up shop and there is no new Permanent Supportive Housing placing Jacksonville in direct opposition to HUD's favored policy.
2.) Calvin Burney defines Permanent Supportive Housing and then is compelled to determine what zoning allows it. (And therefore must decide where it will not be allowed as well -- not a wise move with Fair Housing and ADA watching).
This is not a Springfield Overlay issue. This is a Jacksonville issue.
Neither of these options will work out well for Jax.
from page 202/203
Commissioner Detrich:
But supportive housing has been in existing over the last five, ten, fifteen years, and the code, if you -- since those uses are already out there in multitudes, it didn't -- and before your time, before you were even the Planning Director, because I know you're not responsible for those actions that came before you. To your knowledge or under your terms or direction, knowing this use is out there, you didn't feel it necessary to amend the code to address them?
Director Burney:
Well, one of the things that we have done since I have been with the Planning Department, we have gone back and taken a look at the code. And in certain areas where we feel that there amendments, we have been pulling together language to amend the code, we have just not submitted the language to council for approval or ran it through the process. But the thing is we are aware that in some instances there may be some things in the code that might need to be updated. And when we do run across some of those things, we are putting together language to address those issues.
The term used in the Springfield Overlay, "Special Use", is only found in the Springfield Overlay. But as Sheclown pointed out, the term itself does not matter too much. Rooming houses and high density group care homes are defined in the overlay as "Special Uses" and the written interpretation states that as Permanent Supportive Housing is akin to a rooming house or group care home, then as a potential new special use, it is not allowed. That would seem to apply to Springfield only then. Except that rooming houses are not allowed anywhere in Jacksonville except in a few select zoning codes and then only by Exemption. High density group care homes are essentially in the same boat. Permanent Supportive Housing as been declared by Mr Burney to be essentially the same as a rooming house or high density group care home. People being what they are, how long before complaints from other communities start rolling in? Mr Burney and the Planning Commission just made Permanent Supportive Housing illegal in all of Jacksonville. Unless you are in the right zoning code and can get an exemption. Remembering the foot stomping crowd in Springfield, what are the odds of that?
Quote from: Kay on September 17, 2014, 06:53:02 AM
Each overlay is different.
Yes, each historic district (Riverside/ Avondale, Springfield and Downtown?) has it's own overlay and each is different. They all share the basic definitions from the regular zoning codes and I believe the first one done, Springfield, is the only one that goes into as much detail with the uses. In fact, at the time, I was told it was unique in how it addressed "use". Most historic overlays only address the physical needs, as does the overlay for Riverside and Avondale, and lets regular zoning code handle "use".
Additionally, Springfield's overlay is not well written in many areas and therefore much of it cannot be enforced.
From: Springfield Block Captains <sparblockcaptains@gmail.com>
Date: September 25, 2014 at 12:01:23 AM PDT
To: Springfield Block Captains <sparblockcaptains@gmail.com>
Subject: SPAR Block Captains Update 9.24.14
Quote(2) Success at Planning Commission Hearing
You've heard by now, no doubt, that on 9/04/14 the Planning Commission rejected the appeal to allow the unsupervised homeless housing project for those with serious chronic issues to open in our neighborhood. In a 6-2 vote, the Commission upheld the COJ Planning Department's denial and agreed with the Springfield community (and various subject matter experts) that the project was more than simple apartments, as other side was arguing.
To all residents and stakeholders who attended either of the large community meetings, who wrote emails, who wrote actual physical letters (old fashioned!), who corrected the local media after they repeatedly fell for the paid PR spin of the developers, who attended the community walk, who researched the proposed program details, who contacted the state agencies, who took time off their actualy job to work on this issue, who volunteered their materials and sweat, who spent their own dollars (and a lot of them), and who spent hours at the September 4th hearing: THANK YOU.
A special thanks goes out to Jack, JoAnn, Adam, Michael, Crissie, Bill, and Brian for their efforts, which were substantial. Councilman Gaffney, Riverside Avondale Preservation, and Duval County Pubic Schools were also very supportive of our neighborhood on this issue.
This is a diverse community with diverse opinions on any number of issues. There was a clear majority opinion, however, on this issue and in the end the result was best for the continuing improvement of our neighborhood. However, the purchasing future of the Cottage Avenue property remains unclear. And a collection of social service organizations may challenge the City's zoning rules in federal court over this issue, which could hypothetically impact zoning across Jacksonville. Who knows how long that would take.....it would be a lengthy process.
(3) Follow Up
Whether that specific project was approved or denied, we promised to follow up on this issue by examining a possible change in the process for which these types of grants are approved, to include input from the community where such projects are planned. Currently, organizations are under no obligation to engage the community they seek to operate in, and the agency that awards the grants has no idea whether a project is being embraced or rejected by citizens. These grants are funded by taxes and we're tax payers, thus we feel that community input should be considered.
okay few questions. Have they already purchased the property they were going to use? if no, then is there a contract between the group and the land owner to purchase the space?
I'm sure they optioned it contingent upon the grant. As at least one other sale of this property fell thorough due to issues with the property, I'm sure the seller was OK with waiting the several months I think it took for the grant approval. I also know they were letting out the RFP to contractors but I do not know how far that got. In this case, I think they need some other paperwork from the city (other than what was from the city saying it was OK and was attached to the grant.) to be able to close on the grant funding. There is also normally a time limit involved as well. So the delay, regardless of whatever else happens, may be what truly stops the project.
The beauty then is that Ability Housing will then have been hurt by the City and Springfield rather than just the discrimination issue, which is bad enough on its own. It just gets more expensive for the City.
Well at least the owner is willing to sell and they haven't convinced him/her/them to simply refuse the sale. That in itself is a good sign as it could pan out to hurt the landowner as well which then would cause the city some bad publicity if not more repercussions.
"Violent Double Murder in the Building Realtors protested over Ability Housing"
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23091.msg396140/topicseen.html#new
I have a suggestion: the owner simply rent to people who don't have criminal histories.
Apartments in SPR are in demand, the owner doesn't need to settle for high risk tenants anymore.
Just require a background credit search as a part of the rental application process and base your decision to rent off what you can stomach from the results. No big deal. It's pretty common practice. With that said, you can't completely buffer yourself from crime. Things happen.
Things happen...yes they do. However, after all the rhetoric over the disabled persons Ability Housing wanted to house at Cottage Ave, after all the fear those proposed disabled caused the community, after all the times Ability Housing was chastised because they would have to move the current residents out; to have had this tragic event happen at this controversial location is simply...ironic.
Well bless her heart, I just got word that Michelle Tappouni is donating her time and money on this cottage street property to replace the windows and repoint the brick. I sure hope this isn't some stunt for votes or a desperate attempt on Ability Housing's part to weasel their way back into Historic Springfield.
Oh yes, we all saw that murder coming. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen... How about sticking to the issue. We all knew the pro-Ability camp was salivating when they heard there was a murder in that building. How about no being so transparent. The issue at hand was that more economically undesirable people were going to be pushed into Springfield. Other neighborhoods in the area could take some of the burden, with probably better outcome for the tenants. The bottom line is that Ability Housing and murder drives economic opportunity away from Springfield.
What is bizarre is that a non-community member, i.e. those who did not buy into or care to foster community in Springfield, is coming in to establish their own organization for what they see as the greater good. Springfield already gets the trickle down effect from downtown homelessness. I think if there was some limit on how long Ability could operate a given location as a group home I would be more on board. Springfield does not need another magnet for the unfortunate, it can barely support those that are here already. As far as my previous comment being labeled as repellent, I think you are trying some Fox News crap on me. Maybe if you say it enough times it will be true. I'm for fostering growth in this neighborhood and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that Ability is not the correct route... Or you can just call me stupid again...
stephendare I didn't come on here to be anymore of a jerk than you already are to most of the posters on here, and by most I mean anybody that isn't part of your good ole gal network. Is there a rating system on how good or not good a first post should be? Ability Housing doesn't belong in Historic Springfield and it seems pretty obvious that the people and the city have made that clear. I'm guessing overlays and zoning restrictions are legal and probably explain why you don't see these types of projects in other historic districts or in upper crust hoods like those that the Ability Housing members actually live in.
Apache I'm pretty sure most MJ readers are well aware that Springfield and the entire city has a murder issue and aren't dumb enough to think that Ability Housing has any real bearing on the murder rate.
I posted this information as I think the taxpayer has a right to know what Ability Housing is up to. Michelle Tappouni isn't donating time or money as I previously understood, she is getting paid and spending tax payers money on what I'm guessing is an attempt to salvage some grant money and at the same time using it to do some PR work. Ability Housing has not purchased the Cottage Street building but are working with the current owner to make improvements. This seems really underhanded. It would be really nice if Michelle would clarify what is really going on.
I'm all for taxpayer money going to non profit organizations to house or take care of people in need. I fully support Veteran housing, in fact Ability Housing should be made to actually open a true real Veteran housing project. I'd fully support that in Springfield. The problem is Ability Housing isn't about that. This is a group of people in the homeless business. They use government money to purchase these buildings outright and instead of allowing people to use these facilities as a stepping stone at a severe discount or at no cost, they "target" the people that will fetch them the highest rent, this also is usually paid for by the taxpayer. AH board members and staff also make really obscene salaries and apparently seem to think they can do as they please and even use our money to fight the people and the city . They actually have a PR person, Why? If they were just doing the good work they should be doing that wouldn't be necessary. Michelle Tappouni was even hired right in the middle of all this controversy. Coincidence?Playing politics? it's all so gross. It's fantastic that some people besides those at the top benefit from this organization, I'm just wondering how many more could actually really be helped with the money this organization is wasting on shenanigans. It would be wise to let this cottage project go, if Shannon Nazworth is all about second chances I wondering why she doesn't explore that option.
Opinions: everyone has one, and think theirs is the best. Gotta love human nature.
stephendare Is that your real name? This is Jacksonville there are poor uneducated people everywhere. I don't recall ever saying anything about kicking them out or being too good to live amongst them. In all honesty, I'm a paycheck or two away from being poor myself. Poor people rarely have the resources to restore homes and they generally don't provide the demographics required for commercial growth, especially when they are lumped or quarantined to one area. The litter, petty crime, and building fires alone are proof that this segment shouldn't out number those that are here trying to turn their blood, sweat, and last paycheck into a better life and neighborhood. Pick on Meeks or Joanne all you like but at least they are actually doing something. Where is your contribution aside from slinging mud all the time? Are you opening another successful hot spot in the hood? Is your home filled with homeless people needing a hot meal? I doubt you rolled out the red carpet for any of them at any of your exquisite businesses in your hay days. I'm actually curious how you came to love a historic district with such a rich past, I'm guessing you saw a glimpse of gentrification that you could capitalize on.
It would be fantastic if Springfield could keep it's balance of economic and social diversity while it pulls itself out of decades of decay. I don't see how AH carefully planned, not really a Veteran project (read the grant for yourself) loophole approach to sneaking into a federally protected historic district garners any support. It honestly reflects poorly on them not having the courage to approach the hood in the first place. Oh and then the obvious, they probably should have selected a property a few blocks away, or better yet found a property that really needed to be brought back to life. As in one of the hundreds of properties that need care. I think the city even owns hundreds that are just sitting there, hardly being taken care of. The whole thing has been underhanded and the real motive is to make money. That's why they are fighting so hard.
As far as attacking a politician goes you might want to read through most of your posts, I think you have broken most of MJ's rules of conduct several times. If being called out to act in a transparent way is offensive to someone running for city council they probably shouldn't be running for office. It's in really poor taste for a Republican to jump on the taxpayer funded social net when it provides a job, and accepting a position at AH during a controversial time wasn't the wisest choice for Michelle. Having someone as a potential representative on city council is exciting but doesn't make her immune to tough questions or situations. I'm looking forward to her open forum discussions on this issue. I'm sure you will be there with all your besties and you will all be adding positive notions that maybe finally will amount to something, or as usual your mouths will be moving but nobody will be influenced and nothing will happen. I will say this, if AH opens up shop in Historic Springfield I'll be first in line at the city to request my zoning to be changed. The Stephen Dare Glory Group Home kinda has a nice ring to it. It's for wayward boys, of course.
Apache I'm thinking I might be wasting my time explaining why people don't want to live next to houses people were just killed in,or next to registered sex offenders, or the list of targeted folks AH has planned for cottage. It's logical, may not be nice but I'm sure most people would conclude that not living next to violent criminals is logical. Allowing AH to violate the overlay would set a permanent precedent that Historic Springfield is the spot to deal with all the socioeconomic issues facing the city. The Armory wasn't a good idea for a homeless drop in center and this isn't either. There are plenty of these types of projects and programs in this neighborhood and nobody is requesting any of those close or move. We just have enough already and don't need to be bullied into what a handful of people are demanding based on their own translation of a zoning overlay. Shannon Nazworth also admitted that these targeted people really could use some supervision and other services but that they absolutely can't provide those services at this location because of the overlay. Duh! How money hungry do you have to be to piss off an entire neighborhood, fight city hall, and risk jeopardizing the success of the people you get paid help?
Springfield and downtown is still poised for revitalization, it seems like its usually a two steps forward one step back kind of progress but its going to move in that direction. If AH knocks down the overlay that is meant to keep a healthy balance it won't be long before others follow suit or they start duplicating their holdings as they have done in other hoods. The only significant commercial progress I've seen here is Family Dollar, 7-11, and McDonalds. Oh and Operation New Hope, convenience stores, and a huge flat screen scoreboard. I think we were also coined one the best rental property investment areas in the country by some financial genius. Are you seeing the trend here? The economic opportunity for poorer and working class people are far stronger in revitalizing this entire area then opening the flood gate to a bunch of highfalutin non-profit outsiders trying to expand their investment holdings. I'm telling you families and owner occupied dwellings are the solution to turning around this area.
Stephen I will get to your post soon, promise. Yes, there has been a double murder in that building and in another low income housing nearby a suspected prostitute's son burned someone's cat, and not long ago a preacher was killed in his own church. You know all of this. You are like our own little version of Perez Hilton, you always have the juiciest gossip. And before I even begin to respond to your post let me make this clear I don't want anybody poor or otherwise pushed out of Springfield. Twist your own words all you want but don't twist mine. I probably would throw a big party if you left but I don't think there is a space big enough to hold such a festival. I gotta run for now, the crazy lady that marches up and down my street is at it again. She is yelling the N word and all sorts profanities, it looks like there might be some violence again. Do you have Shannon's number maybe she will know what to do?
Just to remind everyone of the factual information about this subject:
Ms Wright-- who at the time was running for her seat on the school board and had her signs in Mr Meek's front yard-- followed Mr Meek's desires and lead a community walk to say that if Ability Housing was allowed to have the Cottage Avenue project, the area would no longer be safe for the children. A few months later, a double murder occurred at the Cottage Avenue apartments without Ability Housing being there. That is simply tragically ironic.
The city initially found Ability Housing's use -- owning and renting out to their clientele --- to be perfectly legal. There is paperwork to prove that. It was only after Mr Meeks paid out his money that Mr. Burney came up with his interpretation which now declares helping people find the help they need is illegal in Springfield. The Planning Commission denied Ability Housing's appeal of that decision; however, Mr Teal made it clear that no new evidence was to be reviewed, meaning little things like the Federal laws were irrelevant to their decision. The Commission was not to determine if the interpretation was correct or fair, but if Mr Burney had the right to make that interpretation and to determine if it was reasonable in any way based only on the information Mr Burney used. Knowing Mr Teal as I do, he hates to lose; he is not above stacking the deck. He made it clear he was very aware that this interpretation could be considered against Federal laws. Just go read the minutes and you will see that is true.
The only list offered by the opponents of Ability Housing to support their claims of an overload of terrible "special uses" in Springfield is a list of 45 properties owned by such "terrible non-profits" as Operation New Hope, SIAA, Karples Museum and yes, even SPAR Council itself.
The idea of Housing First comes from the Federal government and is now considered the Best Practice in dealing with the chronically homeless. That means it is not a case of putting them in housing and forgetting them. Housing First means giving them a roof over their heads, making them safe and then helping them get the help they need as they realize they need it and want it. It has proven to be more effective long term than an institutional type setting. What Ability Housing is planning on doing at Cottage Avenue is no different in the end than a elderly couple needing Meals on Wheels or wheel chair transport and getting help to figure that out.
Ability Housing was never going to do a veteran's only project and never said they were. What they did say was that they would give veterans the higher priority (remember that new VA clinic just down the way a bit?) and also give the same priority to helping the homeless living on Springfield's streets. Trying to vilify Ability Housing over the above is just petty and ignorant.
Michelle Tappouni does now work for Ability Housing. The interview happened long before this issue with Cottage Avenue. She is hard working, fair and honest. She is exactly what we need on city council. Even if (for some odd reason) you do not like the company she works for, you should be glad she is there because she can make sure the project runs smoothly and legally. Vilifying her for who she works for is a bit childish and also being ignorant of the facts.
A recent issue in New Orleans very, very similar to the Ability Housing one ended with New Orleans having to not only correct the issue, but change the laws to allow this type of housing by right and to pay for an additional 350 housing units. How many millions of tax payer dollars is that just because a group of people fear the homeless and the government was foolish enough to follow the fear rather than common sense?
i searching for ....
----------------------------
film protection iPad mini 3 (http://www.coquebox.com/category-accessoire-ipad-mini-3-22.html)
chargeur samsung galaxy s5 (http://www.coquebox.com/category-accessoires-samsung-galaxy-s5-27.html)
Quote from: samelevel on December 11, 2014, 04:27:17 PM
Stephen I will get to your post soon, promise. Yes, there has been a double murder in that building and in another low income housing nearby a suspected prostitute's son burned someone's cat, and not long ago a preacher was killed in his own church. You know all of this. You are like our own little version of Perez Hilton, you always have the juiciest gossip. And before I even begin to respond to your post let me make this clear I don't want anybody poor or otherwise pushed out of Springfield. Twist your own words all you want but don't twist mine. I probably would throw a big party if you left but I don't think there is a space big enough to hold such a festival. I gotta run for now, the crazy lady that marches up and down my street is at it again. She is yelling the N word and all sorts profanities, it looks like there might be some violence again. Do you have Shannon's number maybe she will know what to do?
It's been a while, you PROMISED! Maybe this one will be a little less about Stephen and include more facts that may support your opinions?
samelevel is right.
Michelle Tappouni working for AH and being in a position to influence policy seems like a conflict of interest. http://jacksonville.com/slideshow/2014-12-02/career-track-new-hires-promotions-december-2014#slide-2
There are so many other areas outside of Springfield that could, and should, be used for these projects.
Thanks for posting a link to a great picture of the person who will be a great and fair and honest council person. As to any potential conflict of interest, is there even a single council person that you can't say has a potential conflict of interest? If it isn't their jobs or career, it can be the church they belong to, the area they live in or even just who they know. It is the person you elect not what they do for a living and all we can do is get behind people who can rise above those potential conflicts. Michelle Tappouni is one of those people.
QuoteThere are so many other areas outside of Springfield that could, and should, be used for these projects.
Besides the fact that there are many social services all over Jacksonville, with the hospital and the new VA facility so close, the Springfield area is actually a good choice for this type of project. Jacksonville itself is so spread out that bus transportation to and from Shands and the VA clinic is iffy at best and takes much longer than most realize. The wrong location for housing like this could hurt the residents more than help them. In addition, there has not been one iota of proof that this type of housing or any social service actually does hurt housing values or lease rates. The rhetoric you hear about that is just fear based excuse making. Just like the rhetoric that the residents that Ability Housing would bring in would make the area less safe.
Quotesamelevel is right.
Actually, I do not believe he is and while I presented some supportable facts in a post above, I am still waiting for any real facts from the "anti helping the less fortunate in my community" faction that is against Ability Housing.
Well, @strider, glad you're a fan of Michelle. Considering she hasn't been in a political office before we really don't know how well she will be able to separate her employer's interest from her constituents'.
As a homeowner in Springfield I am against the AH project for the simple fact that the best pockets of Springfield are the areas with homes that contain families. The worst have similar projects to the AH one.
It's more than redeveloping a building, it's what's inside. The strong presence against, by people that live here, should be the only voice and support that really matters.
As clearly stated, we are against AH et al.
And red herrings.
The goal for most of us is to turn Springfield into a neighborhood.
The overlay should be changed to not only exclude the AH proposal but changed so that currently managed properties (even if they have a Corrine Brown sign) are no longer allowed.
We need to actually reverse the damage that allowing AH type programs encouraged now that people are interested in revitalizing the neighborhood.
Reinforcing the notion that this property would be a better asset to the community if AH moved in instead of understanding the perpetual consequence each of the properties have on hindering the progress of Springfield.
If you still lived in Springfield, and not employed by Ability Housing, you would not only see how founded and valid these concerns are, but agree.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on December 18, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
The goal for most of us is to turn Springfield into a neighborhood.
The overlay should be changed to not only exclude the AH proposal but changed so that currently managed properties (even if they have a Corrine Brown sign) are no longer allowed.
We need to actually reverse the damage that allowing AH type programs encouraged now that people are interested in revitalizing the neighborhood.
Reinforcing the notion that this property would be a better asset to the community if AH moved in instead of understanding the perpetual consequence each of the properties have on hindering the progress of Springfield.
If you still lived in Springfield, and not employed by Ability Housing, you would not only see how founded and valid these concerns are, but agree.
To begin with, Springfield is already a neighborhood. Let me clue you in, it was a great neighborhood long before you came along. It has the entire gamut of race and social economic diversity. Just like most neighborhoods do today. And also like most neighborhoods, some of the best people live in those places you don't want here while some of the worst people live in the fancy big expensive houses.
I'm also encouraged that you agree that Mr Meek's paid for interpretation is not valid and that the overlay would have to be changed to make it truly illegal. Oh, and are you willing to front the millions of dollars it would cost this city to try to push all of the legal service non-profits out of Springfield? Because I guarantee it will cost millions of dollars to do so.
What Ability Housing is going to do with the Cottage Avenue apartments will indeed make them a better asset. They will be much improved and the issues they have all resolved in positive ways.
By the way, some of the places it seems you would like to see forcibly removed from Springfield have been here since this was still one of the better locations in Jacksonville. They have been here through the worst of times and even here during the high points of real estate values a decade ago. And they are still here today. So, you and yours and this latest interest and forward progress came after they were here so it seems they do not have that terrible negative effect after all. The market and the state of the neighborhood is determined by something other than these non-profits and these people you do not want here.
I personally spend most of my days in Springfield. I also have lived through this type of issue before. The people you do not want here, the people Ability Housing wants to put into Cottage Avenue? They are not who the residents of Springfield should fear. It is the foot stomping almost a lynch mob crowd full of fear and the so called leadership driving that fear that we all need to be afraid of. They are the ones truly doing harm to the community.
I'm sure how this turned into a us vs them sort of argument.
Simply put, if it is in your best interest for the commercial corridor of Main Street to be developed than it is also in your best interest for projects similar to Ability Housing to be discouraged and eventually removed as an obstacle to Springfield's potential.
I'm not going to make the argument that the loudest advocates for "diversity" are an obstacle to Springfield's development. Obviously they are aware that there is diversity amongst higher and similar income classes as their own.
It's not people I'm against, it's the policies that are hindering the natural development Springfield by people that choose to move here, and be invested here, and the commercial development on Main Street.
The resistance to Ability Housing - by residents and neighbors no less - coming to Springfield is a positive and hopeful sign for Springfield's future.
Just because you disagree doesn't make it false.
If I was more comfortable as a critic I wouldn't have to take a position and could just throw trollish banter at every post.
Or better yet, just pick and choose choice snippets to disagree with while agreeing with the majority of a post - like that contributes.
Quote from: stephendare on December 18, 2014, 10:32:12 AM
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on December 18, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
The goal for most of us is to turn Springfield into a neighborhood.
The overlay should be changed to not only exclude the AH proposal but changed so that currently managed properties (even if they have a Corrine Brown sign) are no longer allowed.
We need to actually reverse the damage that allowing AH type programs encouraged now that people are interested in revitalizing the neighborhood.
Reinforcing the notion that this property would be a better asset to the community if AH moved in instead of understanding the perpetual consequence each of the properties have on hindering the progress of Springfield.
If you still lived in Springfield, and not employed by Ability Housing, you would not only see how founded and valid these concerns are, but agree.
For instance, the best way to do the following would be to stop permitting Ability Housing and similar projects in Springfield. Obviously there will still be diversity for diversity sake.
The best thing for the neighborhood would be to restore the homes that are there, stop tearing down historic houses, allow for a commercial strip to come back and clean up the abandoned lots.
Replace "disabled veterans" with "sex offenders".
Is the concept that these housing programs actually hurt neighborhood / commercial development still too difficult?
Anyways maybe this type of pro-diversity endorsement will continue to shape Springfield into the community you want.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent)
"Jacksonville's highest concentration of offenders and predators lies north of downtown in ZIP code 32206"
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on December 21, 2014, 10:27:08 PM
Replace "disabled veterans" with "sex offenders".
Is the concept that these housing programs actually hurt neighborhood / commercial development still too difficult?
Anyways maybe this type of pro-diversity endorsement will continue to shape Springfield into the community you want.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent)
"Jacksonville's highest concentration of offenders and predators lies north of downtown in ZIP code 32206"
Let me understand this. You just compared having Ability Housing renting to disabled veterans to them renting to sex offenders? Now in your mind and what you want others to believe is that Disabled Veterans = Sex offenders?
All of this type of rhetoric is nothing but fear mongering and is a favored tactic of the so called leadership in Springfield at the moment, and obviously you.
Yes, the urban areas have a higher concentration of sex offenders than some of the more suburban areas. Like the linked article said, most of those people never cause any problems. And that information is always available before you decide to move somewhere.
Here's the biggest issue with you and your argument. The places that you wish to move out of Springfield and the places like Ability Housing that are set up to help people screen for that issue. Yes, there are a couple that target helping the sex offender but for the most part, by stopping Ability Housing, you actually made it more likely that a sex offender would end up at Cottage Avenue.
Is the concept that the current leadership of Springfield that shares your ideals is what is truly hurting the progress of Springfield and not the existence of places like Ability Housing sinking in yet?
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on December 21, 2014, 10:27:08 PM
Replace "disabled veterans" with "sex offenders".
Is the concept that these housing programs actually hurt neighborhood / commercial development still too difficult?
Anyways maybe this type of pro-diversity endorsement will continue to shape Springfield into the community you want.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-12-20/story/protecting-public-creates-pools-sex-crime-felons-rural-and-less-affluent)
"Jacksonville's highest concentration of offenders and predators lies north of downtown in ZIP code 32206"
Oh what the heck, why not just replace "disabled veterans" with "Klingons"
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/klingons.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/klingons.jpg.html)
The art of exaggeration in it's finest form. Really, Stephen. Come on now.
Didn't say that at all Stephen, and you know it.
"In October, the banking firm announced it is funding an innovative study that will get a complete picture of homelessness in Florida and inform strategies to help prevent it."
Who doesn't like a good study?
How about the City stop tearing down structurally sound homes in the name of blight? Those homes could certainly be used to house the homeless. Just sayin'....
It was only a matter of time..... The Federal lawsuit has been filed.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-11-19/story/nonprofit-planning-homeless-apartments-sues-jacksonville-over (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-11-19/story/nonprofit-planning-homeless-apartments-sues-jacksonville-over)
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/ability-housing-sues-jacksonville-over-alleged-dis/npRG8/ (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/ability-housing-sues-jacksonville-over-alleged-dis/npRG8/)
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/city-jacksonville-sued-group-wanting-provide-house/npQ9n/ (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/city-jacksonville-sued-group-wanting-provide-house/npQ9n/)