Metro Jacksonville

Here's the thing.

At the recent meeting about the Ability Housing apartment building the current Springfield leadership incited the residents partly by saying that there were 50 to 60 "special uses" and that they were destroying the community. Several people on both sides of the issue asked to see the list of those 50 to 60 "special uses".  When confronted with the information that there were really only 10 actual special uses, one of the people campaigning heavily against Ability Housing  said he had a list of 45 of these terrible, community killing "special Uses".   

This is his list.

There is lots and lots I could say about this list. And I probably will point out various facts but to begin with, I think I will just let the list speak for itself.

Ironic, really, that the very floor boards which were being stomped (the Women's Club) on is on the list.  The list held up as detrimental to the neighborhood.

You can shave the spots off a leopard but you'll never change the feeding habits.

It's in the DNA at SPAR.

I guess I'm confused as to why this matters.  If the focus is on HELPING Ability Housing put a homeless facility here then I guess it does.  If you think it's a bad idea then why focus on anything other than the real issues. 

The facility is a bad idea for the people it purports to want to help.  Talking to people in the field and doing research shows that the "housing first" concept can work in the right situations.  It can work with the newly homeless.  It can work with the chronically homeless when services are available on site. 

The definition of chronically homeless that Ability has stated it is using as per the grant, is "homeless for over a year or 4 times in the past year" and disabled, primarily due to mental issues or substance abuse issues.  Warehousing these people isn't fair to them and the building will turn into a one stop shop for every drug dealer around.  This has happened elsewhere and it will happen here.

The grant is for 1.5 million dollars.  Looking at the budget it's apparent that the numbers have been padded to achieve the total of the grant, which enables Ability Housing to take a $112,000 'developer override' off the top. 

These are tax payer dollars, dollars that are intended to help the homeless, not the cronies of Ability Housing who perform the building management, the attorneys charging the fees, the construction company doing the unneeded work.

If, as Ability has stated, this is a landlord/tenant situation and therefore not a special use, then what they want to do violates federal Fair Housing laws.  You cannot discriminate for or against a class of people.  In a regular landlord/tenant situation the existing tenants would be allowed to stay.  Families with children could rent there.  Disabled and non-disabled could rent.  But under Ability's grant there will be NO children and ONLY disabled.  That's illegal.

To get around that they have to be a residential treatment facility or group home or some other special use. And those special uses are no longer allowed in the historic overlay.

Explain to me why the focus is not on THESE issues instead of anything else.  This is what's important.  Anything else is arguing for the sake of arguing and not about protecting our neighborhood.  All the yellow notices in the world wont' harm Springfield as much as this will.

Quote from: Springfield Chicken on April 12, 2014, 07:34:44 AM
I guess I'm confused as to why this matters.  If the focus is on HELPING Ability Housing put a homeless facility here then I guess it does.  If you think it's a bad idea then why focus on anything other than the real issues. 

The facility is a bad idea for the people it purports to want to help.  Talking to people in the field and doing research shows that the "housing first" concept can work in the right situations.  It can work with the newly homeless.  It can work with the chronically homeless when services are available on site. 

The definition of chronically homeless that Ability has stated it is using as per the grant, is "homeless for over a year or 4 times in the past year" and disabled, primarily due to mental issues or substance abuse issues.  Warehousing these people isn't fair to them and the building will turn into a one stop shop for every drug dealer around.  This has happened elsewhere and it will happen here.

The grant is for 1.5 million dollars.  Looking at the budget it's apparent that the numbers have been padded to achieve the total of the grant, which enables Ability Housing to take a $112,000 'developer override' off the top. 

These are tax payer dollars, dollars that are intended to help the homeless, not the cronies of Ability Housing who perform the building management, the attorneys charging the fees, the construction company doing the unneeded work.

If, as Ability has stated, this is a landlord/tenant situation and therefore not a special use, then what they want to do violates federal Fair Housing laws.  You cannot discriminate for or against a class of people.  In a regular landlord/tenant situation the existing tenants would be allowed to stay.  Families with children could rent there.  Disabled and non-disabled could rent.  But under Ability's grant there will be NO children and ONLY disabled.  That's illegal.

To get around that they have to be a residential treatment facility or group home or some other special use. And those special uses are no longer allowed in the historic overlay.

Explain to me why the focus is not on THESE issues instead of anything else.  This is what's important.  Anything else is arguing for the sake of arguing and not about protecting our neighborhood.  All the yellow notices in the world wont' harm Springfield as much as this will.

Did you just ask "why is it important to tell the truth?"

It just seems to me that regardless of whether or not you like the idea of Ability Housing here, you would want to make those decisions on the truth and facts rather than lies and innuendo.  From your post, Springfield Chicken, the truth does not matter much to you, at least in regards to this issue.   

All your rhetoric aside, what Ability Housing is doing, what they have proposed for this apartment building, is nothing but a legal use by right.  No amount of wishing will change that.  So you lie to yourself, you make up arguments that you use to make yourself feel better and then try to use those same arguments to make others believe what you want to be true.

The sad thing is, it doesn't work. It never has.  In the end, the Meeks, Trautman and even you cause more harm to Springfield than ten Ability Housing projects ever could.

This list matters because it is being told to people in Springfield that these are all special uses and Springfield has too many.  These are NOT the special uses that are referred to in the a Overlay.  This list pertains to tax exemptions - NOT zoning and landuse - it's TWO different things.

If you can't get this simple fact straight how is the community supposed to believe the other statements being said??  Yes telling the truth matters and getting your facts straight matters

Creating hysteria in the community with inaccuracies isn't helpful and it creates mistrust.  If you want to fight against Ability Housing then at least get your facts straight, otherwise Springfield looks ridiculous.

The Community Orchard, Women's Club, ONH lots, etc aren't Special Uses, in zoning speak.

Quote from: avs on April 12, 2014, 09:18:00 AM
This list matters because it is being told to people in Springfield that these are all special uses and Springfield has too many.  These are NOT the special uses that are referred to in the a Overlay.  This list pertains to tax exemptions - NOT zoning and landuse - it's TWO different things.

If you can't get this simple fact straight how is the community supposed to believe the other statements being said??  Yes telling the truth matters and getting your facts straight matters

Creating hysteria in the community with inaccuracies isn't helpful and it creates mistrust.  If you want to fight against Ability Housing then at least get your facts straight, otherwise Springfield looks ridiculous.

The Community Orchard, Women's Club, ONH lots, etc aren't Special Uses, in zoning speak.

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

We have to trust people we are willing to follow.  Regardless of the issues involved.

Is this seriously the list in question?

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 12, 2014, 09:39:23 AM
Is this seriously the list in question?

It is the list which was provided after inquires were made.

Quote from: strider on April 12, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
It just seems to me that regardless of whether or not you like the idea of Ability Housing here, you would want to make those decisions on the truth and facts rather than lies and innuendo.  From your post, Springfield Chicken, the truth does not matter much to you, at least in regards to this issue.   

All your rhetoric aside, what Ability Housing is doing, what they have proposed for this apartment building, is nothing but a legal use by right.  No amount of wishing will change that.  So you lie to yourself, you make up arguments that you use to make yourself feel better and then try to use those same arguments to make others believe what you want to be true.

The sad thing is, it doesn't work. It never has.  In the end, the Meeks, Trautman and even you cause more harm to Springfield than ten Ability Housing projects ever could.

Better, Stephan?  It is what I meant to say to start with.

The guy who created this list has access to a better search engine on the city data base than the general public does.  He was able to input the 500 non-profit codes as a search criteria.  He used four codes that matched certain key words he decided were important from the Special Use" category in the Springfield Overlay.

The codes were :

512   Charitable

513 -    Service Organization

514 – Benevolent Organization

515 – Affordable Housing

His purpose here was not to throw out some detailed list of non-profits but to hope that no one would read past the number of non-profits.  45.  A lot within one square mile.  Maybe.  But what does this list really represent?

It is 45 RE numbers.  One can quickly look at the list and see that those 45 RE represent only 20 non-profits.  9 of the RE numbers are empty lots and at least one more is nothing but a parking lot for the non-profit. 

Next, are there any real Special Uses on this list?  Yes, 3.

Alco Halfway House, Inc.  - main building, commercial building , empty lots. They have been here since 1963.  They also own two other houses -- one of which I believe is currently for sale but in the past it was a rental.

Alcoholic Service Center – main house and one empty lot. They have been here since the sixties.

Barbara & Grace, Inc.  - Main building and one other house next door.  The house next door is a regular rental.  Barbara & Grace as been at that location since 1987.

Let's look at how long some of these non-profits have been here.  How many predate the overlay?

Not counting the 3 above, I believe 11 of these non-profits predate the overlay.  Had they been truly considered "Special Uses" they would have been called such in the overlay.  They are not.

Metro North rehabs houses and sells to low and moderate income families.  Operation New hope, as a partner with Fresh Ministry (who has been here since before the overlay), redid the Kutho Apartments as their headquarters.  A huge plus for Main Street.

When you see the SIA, Sustainable Springfield, the Karples and even SPAR on this list, you see that it is not a list of anything but non-profits. It has no meaning in this discussion other than as an attempt at defending the statements from Meeks and others, statements that have proven to be untrue.

The bottom line here is that the non-profits on this list mostly have been huge positives to the community rather than a determent as some would like you to believe.

All I ask here is that if you are against what Ability Housing is doing, or any of the non-profits for that matter, is that you actually use the facts rather than make stuff up.

Springfield leadership had a chance here to be the heroes.  Instead, some are continuing to make Springfield known as the community who doesn't want heroes.

To me, this is a bogus list. It's being used only to incite. Though I do believe that Chicken make's some valid points. 112k off the top. I think following the money and seeing who benefits the most from the grant is an important aspect in all of this. Where may one go to read this grant.

Quote from: 02roadking on April 12, 2014, 10:46:08 AM
To me, this is a bogus list. It's being used only to incite. Though I do believe that Chicken make's some valid points. 112k off the top. I think following the money and seeing who benefits the most from the grant is an important aspect in all of this. Where may one go to read this grant.

exactly...

Strider, have you actually looked at the financials involved with this project? Do you have any idea how much these people are making off this deal? Have you considered that there is a lot of backscratching going on here? Do you really think these people are trying for rehabilitating people or are they just trying to take advantage of free government money. Springfielders love veterans and homeless people but we deserve to be informed prior to a project like this, and the project should't be a taxpayer scam!

Quote from: jaxequality on April 12, 2014, 10:52:31 AM
Strider, have you actually looked at the financials involved with this project? Do you have any idea how much these people are making off this deal? Have you considered that there is a lot of backscratching going on here? Do you really think these people are trying for rehabilitating people or are they just trying to take advantage of free government money. Springfielders love veterans and homeless people but we deserve to be informed prior to a project like this, and the project should't be a taxpayer scam!

I can't speak for Strider (but I will anyways :))

Absolutely...taxpayers have a moral obligation to look into the financials of people who are spending their money.  Anything less is ripe for abuse. 

Know the battle you are fighting.

If it is misuse of government funds... fight that battle.

Quote from: jaxequality on April 12, 2014, 10:52:31 AM
Strider, have you actually looked at the financials involved with this project? Do you have any idea how much these people are making off this deal? Have you considered that there is a lot of backscratching going on here? Do you really think these people are trying for rehabilitating people or are they just trying to take advantage of free government money. Springfielders love veterans and homeless people but we deserve to be informed prior to a project like this, and the project should't be a taxpayer scam!

I have only seen the parts that have been quoted.  To be honest, as a contractor, some of the rehab cost may be OK - higher than one would like, but not too extreme. (some of the quotes from subs lately have been lots higher than when things were hopping). I also know that it is standard practice for a non-profit getting a grant like this to take 16% as developer fees. For instance, do the math on ONH on 8th st.  Did you cry foul on that one? 

I had reservations at first over how this is being done.  I still do, but I also have read about the program type and Ability Housing, talked to an actual neighbor of another project, talked to interested parties in Springfield and came away with the idea that this is no worse than what is there now. All the arguments about fair housing or what is going to happen to the current residents are just talk.  It must be handled properly regardless of who buys the building.  That is the same as calling foul because it is a "special use".  It is not.  Even reserving the apartments for veterans, the handicapped or previously homeless simply falls into the Reasonable Accommodations category and does not change the legality of the use.

The way this is coming across is that Springfielder's do not love anyone else but themselves. That is what upsets me the most.  Springfield is a great place and has lots of potential if the current leadership would just stop shooting themselves in the foot.

This is not a tax payer scam.  It is taxpayer money being used in a way that is becoming standard practice.  At this point, the best thing is to insure they will be good neighbors. Yes, continue to follow the money.  But realize that it may require asking for changes to be made in how those funds are distributed and how much public input should be required rather than stopping this project in anyway.  You are asking for more accountability when the trend today seems to be quite the opposite.  Meaning that this is long and hard fight.

I do not mean to sound like I am taking Ability Housing's side in this. I'm not really.  I just know it can't be stopped this way, perhaps no way.  I think the wrong tack was taken on this and Springfield is now way off course. The race is most likely lost.  There was a way to benefit from this regardless of whether it is here or not and I think that opportunity is long gone. Springfield loses again. All because some prefer the stomping of feet rather than facts and what is often the hard truth.

Quote from: sheclown on April 12, 2014, 09:50:35 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 12, 2014, 09:39:23 AM
Is this seriously the list in question?

It is the list which was provided after inquires were made.

The list provided in this thread was compiled this week.  Although it may turn out to be the properties referenced during the Ability Housing community meeting last week, to my knowledge the list of "40-50 special use properties in Springfield" has not been shared yet.  I asked the President of SPAR for the list; he told me he didn't have it.  (Emphasis below is mine.)

QuoteOn Apr 11, 2014 9:15 AM, "Bill Hoff" wrote:

Hi Kim,

I think Jack Meeks contacted a city department to obtain a rough list. I don't have one. As you can see in the email below, we'll need volunteers to accumulate a thorough list of social service housing, map them out, etc, so we actually will have a detailed list for future use.  Hopefully we'll have more info on that soon.

I emailed Mr. Meeks and asked him to please provide the list of properties he was referring to during the Community Meeting. Since SPAR doesn't have a list, no one will know for sure which properties Mr. Meeks was talking about until we get the list from him.  Hopefully he can help to clear things up.

Also important to share is that the posted list is not one that strider nor sheclown put together, but one that was compiled by another neighbor after people began to ask for the list of "special use" properties in Springfield.  In the interest of privacy, I have removed the actual email addresses from the below email.  I do appreciate Max for taking the time to conduct the query to obtain the information.  Although I think the list Max created may contain the same properties that are on the list Mr. Meeks has, we won't know for sure until he shares his list. 

QuoteFrom: Max
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Subject: "Special Use" exemptions
To: Gloria, Kim, Amanda, Max

Good afternoon all:

Attached is the spreadsheet I created in an attempt to gain some quantitative perspective on the zoning issues we are facing. I used four of the 75 exemption codes that best matched the types of "special uses" similar to the AH proposal.

The first page is the Springfield list which was extrapolated from the remaining pages.

There were a total of 699. Since Springfield is conveniently one mile square, I divided the 699 by the 850 square miles that makes up Jacksonville for a result of .82 per square mile. There are 45 properties on the Springfield list, so 50 times the county average. As a comparison, there are six properties in Riverside and three in San Marco.

You can debate the particular uses or specific properties, but the simple fact is this illustrates the same conclusions others have come to that resulted in the zoning overlay--the overabundance of these type facilities in Springfield results in a negative impact on the community both demographically and socially.

I wish we could help everyone, just as I would like to help every feral cat, but there is a limit as to what we can adequately sustain.

There are 10 special uses grandfathered into the overlay.

Not 40, not 50 or more.

I think some people have been using the general spirit of "special use" and not the technical term.

So, for example, there's a property that is used as a homeless program right now on Boulevard. It's not technically considered a special use, but it is a dedicated homeless program. Etc.

If considering just the technical definition of special use, 10 is still an unusually high number for any 1 sq mile in Jax.

Factoring in the other types of social service housing in & adjacent to the neighborhood, you get a significantly higher number. And I think that's the number, whatever it may be, to look at.

Also a correction, a private citizen produced the list of properties referenced in the title of this thread, not an organization.

Bill the "SPAR makes the special list" in that it is ON the special list, not that it composed it.

What homeless program on Boulevard?

Quote from: Bill Hoff on April 13, 2014, 03:38:01 PM
I think some people have been using the general spirit of "special use" and not the technical term.

So, for example, there's a property that is used as a homeless program right now on Boulevard. It's not technically considered a special use, but it is a dedicated homeless program. Etc.

If considering just the technical definition of special use, 10 is still an unusually high number for any 1 sq mile in Jax.

Factoring in the other types of social service housing in & adjacent to the neighborhood, you get a significantly higher number. And I think that's the number, whatever it may be, to look at.

Also a correction, a private citizen produced the list of properties referenced in the title of this thread, not an organization.

Isn't it interesting that lots of people keep defending SPAR when I have not credited SPAR with anything to do with this list?  Other than being one of the "terrible" non-profits ON the list.

Here the problem with just up and redefining the definition of "SPECIAL USES" at will.  The writers of both the RUDAC study and the Overlay recognized certain uses in too large a number could be detrimental to the health of the community. Both the study and the Overlay defined those specific "Special Uses".  Both also did not specify a number that would be OK, IE: Neither stated that there had to be only 10 or 5 or 20 for things to be OK.  Then, they looked at other uses, uses that are legal by right, not only under the overlay, but all over Jacksonville and said, hey, those in the numbers naturally limited by zoning are OK, they do not contribute to the decline of the community.  Things like low density group care homes, for instance, are by right with just normal restrictions. That are the same for others areas of Jacksonville. Then some uses, like automotive uses, are considered intensive and the writers felt that they needed to be looked at on a case by case basis and so are legal by exception rather than by right.  Now, all of that sounds pretty good to me.  And many here seem to agree that they like the Overlay. Except that some want to use the Overlay to make THEIR version or definition of "Special Uses", whatever they may decide that definition may be this week,  be the uses that are detrimental to the community and illegal to boot.  That is NOT what the Overlay says nor intends.  Nor was it the intent of the overlay to make any other type of non-profit or for profit business a Special Use except as already strictly and legally defined.

And the "Technical definition"?  Try that it is the LEGAL, I repeat, LEGAL, definition.  No amount of wishing on your part will change that. Now, you can go to City Council and try to change that definition to be what you want.  But then all those uses you do not like would have to be grandfathered in and if you hurt mine, for instance, we would simply head to Federal Court.  And win.  Ask the OGC.

Laws are written, discussed and voted on so that they are not just made up or changed in an arbitrary fashion on someone's whim.  Not even the president of SPAR's whim.

Rarified air.  Too funny. I grew up in the suburbs of Miami and Jacksonville, where one could pretty much be sure your neighbor made about the same as you, because all the houses were the same, built about the same time, and cost the same. We all drove three year old Fords or Chevy's, and thought Karen's dad was exotic because he had a Karman Ghia.

The diversity in Springfield is one of the things I love about it. Rarified air. LOL. Good one, Stephen.

Well Bill Huff has said that SPAR is doing a position paper on this so all will be well soon I suppose.

Quote from: stephendare on April 14, 2014, 05:22:03 PM
SPAR,
THe Women's Club
Sustainable Springfield.
The Karpeles Museum
The Bridge
Project New Hope (one of the largest renovators in the area)
And the Boys Club?

Most people consider these things amenities.  Not something to be protected from.

The Karpeles Museum? Don't understand that one, compared to the others. I must've missed something.