[Not sure if this is already a topic somewhere on the site. If so apologies]
Councilman Clark (District 3) has sponsored legislation (215-360) that would close public river access at Richmond St. & Little Van Wert in Avondale (District 14) at the request of the two adjacent property owners. The property would revert to the property owners (reserving a JEA right-of-way).
Section 3 of the proposed legislation waives Ordinance Section 744.104, which requires that the applicant seeking closure of public access convey comparable property providing comparable access as a condition of closure in addition to administrative review by COJ Public Works.
It appears (according to the legislation) that both the COJ Parks and Planning departments have objected to the street closure.
http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2015-0360/Original%20Text/2015-360.doc (http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2015-0360/Original%20Text/2015-360.doc)
So are they getting free land out of this?
basically they paid a fee, and are requesting the easement go back to them, so their can't be any pedestrian access.
Quote from: jaxlore on May 18, 2015, 09:18:12 AM
So are they getting free land out of this?
No, looks like it is their land with an easement over it.
Ahhh.
Wow so parks and planning are against this and all it takes a fee and a smile and you can get them to waive the existing laws, nice.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,90y,127.37h,76.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,90y,127.37h,76.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!6m1!1e1)
It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 18, 2015, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: jaxlore on May 18, 2015, 09:18:12 AM
So are they getting free land out of this?
No, looks like it is their land with an easement over it.
I'm not so sure about that. According the this, they're just trying to nab a small plot of land that runs between their properties.
http://maps.coj.net/WEBSITE/DuvalMapsSQL/viewer.htm?Layers=01101100001100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000110&Tools=Yes&ActiveLayer=2&Query=RE%20%3D%20%27092413%200000%27&Queryzoom=Yes
Edit: Sorry, but you'll have to pan down a bit to see the properties in question.
Google Earth:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Van+Wert+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32205/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,75y,127.73h,81.95t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e5b83962767f87:0x3851cf2edc46ba06!6m1!1e1
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 18, 2015, 10:07:22 AM
It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.
Or even why he's the one sponsoring legislation outside of his district? Wouldn't/Shouldn't this be a Jim Love issue?
The property owners don't like it that people from outside of the neighborhood come down to the river to fish. They hired Paul Harden who wrote the legislation for Clark and is lobbying the other council members.
We used to drink here a lot. Knew both neighbors, still do. I'm sure they're tired of neighborhood kids doing illegal things next to their house.
However, my God, where are the Avondale kids and Ortega kids going to wrabble rouse once all these easements are taken back by millionaire riverfront property owners? An already lily white crime free neighborhood will become even whiter and safer.
These are the things you get concerned about when there's nothing else to concern you. "Oh my God, I caught [made up Anglo names] Jack Dempsey's and Barbara Walter's kids out there with a 30 rack and a marijuana cigarette! Ugh, oh my God what is the world coming to?"
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 18, 2015, 10:07:22 AM
It would be great to hear the 2 property owners or Councilman Clark explain why this is a good idea.
I can explain for them since I live very close and walk by it twice a day. It is not maintained at all. The vegetation has not been kept up in my eight years of living in the neighborhood. The easement is littered with an excessive volume of trash. Despite being posted that it is only accessible during daylight hours, there is often a group hanging out there late after dark.
I also walk by often. Yes it is not "maintained" and there is much "secondary succession" (http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/successn/second.htm (http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/successn/second.htm)) going on to the right and left of a narrow footpath that leads to a clearing at the river. (It has been much the same in the 30+ years I have observed it).
It is actually quite nice to have some "wild" in the neighborhood. A great place to walk the dogs. That said, I can understand why some (most?) would like to see it maintained as the other access points in the area are. Those are presumably maintained by adjacent homeowners...
If there is morally ambiguous activity going on there at night, it is not significantly more obtrusive to the neighborhood than that going on in private backyards.
I suppose the question is: are these two issues commensurate to the proposed remedy?
It is probably not maintained because COJ has WAY more park land than we can afford to maintain properly. Maybe we could sell some of it and use the proceeds to maintain areas like this. and parks that are in sad shape.
I thought I had typed this in yesterday, but obviously I only thought about typing it and my telekinesis keyboard must still be broken...
Looking at this thing from both sides, I can understand why the homeowners want to 'take over' the property. After some thought, I'm not against it. I went by there yesterday, and it really is just, well... nothing. So on the one hand, my though is if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
You know that strip of land between the water-meter and the curb of most everyone's front lawn? Yeah, that's also PU easement that we maintain all the time with no worries, why should this strip be treated any differently?
On the other hand....
I am, however, completely against allowing them to file some paperwork and basically take the property via what essentially becomes 'eminent domain'. If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.
This sounds like a job for J-BILL man, great pontificate for sticking his nose where it does not belong, to cure the wrongs of society for Truth, Justice and whatever he can get out of it.....
QuoteHowever, my God, where are the Avondale kids and Ortega kids going to wrabble rouse once all these easements are taken back by millionaire riverfront property owners? An already lily white crime free neighborhood will become even whiter and safer.
I know, the Nextdoor boards are going bonkers, eh, if they want to pay more taxes with a larger space, so be it. Give it to 'em.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 19, 2015, 09:26:23 AM
This sounds like a job for J-BILL man, great pontificate for sticking his nose where it does not belong, to cure the wrongs of society for Truth, Justice and whatever he can get out of it.....
Your fascination is downright creepy.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.
This is the spirit of the current ordinance that the adjacent property owners (via legislation sponsored by a District 3 Council person) would like to explicitly exempt themselves from... (Section 744.104: "convey comparable property providing comparable access")
Quote from: bencrix on May 19, 2015, 01:06:33 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.
This is the spirit of the current ordinance that the adjacent property owners (via legislation sponsored by a District 3 Council person) would like to explicitly exempt themselves from... (Section 744.104: "convey comparable property providing comparable access")
Yes. I'm aware of that. But when you don't quote the entire statement, context is lost. Let me help you:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
I am, however, completely against allowing them to file some paperwork and basically take the property via what essentially becomes 'eminent domain'. If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.
There is a Public Hearing on this at the 5/26/15 Jacksonville city council meeting. Where are the Friends of Public Access?
If surplused, many other such similar RAP area dead -end street "Commons" could be next.
I recall decades ago 'studies' of the riverfront dead end street public parcels.
Interesting to see Paul Harden's involvement,Council District maneuvers.
RAP has,predictably and perhaps, thankfully, responded. RAP website narrative includes acknowledgement of adjacent property owner's concerns, needs for better management, lengthy list of COJ entity opposed, meeting schedule.
I am ambivalent."Dead End" so to speak. So these little sea wall cliff spots are an image of public River access?? 8) Fact is,River access is woefully limited and meaningful expansion is likely impossible, even in this designated "Best Place", which has often proven so limited.
A place to launch kayaks and paddle boards would be super.
Maybe they are just doing this to get the city to finally get their shit together and you know, properly maintain it.
Quote from: edjax on May 26, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
Maybe they are just doing this to get the city to finally get their shit together and you know, properly maintain it.
Two multi millionaires do not hire Paul Harden, lobbyist, development attorney, good ole boy, and get Paul Harden to go of the proper district boundaries, &(hire) get his BF on CC, Richard Clark to override Jim Love the appropriate council member, only to try to get city to maintain this area.
There has to be a large suspension of reality to believe this.
Quote from: Jax native on May 26, 2015, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: edjax on May 26, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
Maybe they are just doing this to get the city to finally get their shit together and you know, properly maintain it.
Two multi millionaires do not hire Paul Harden, lobbyist, development attorney, good ole boy, and get Paul Harden to go of the proper district boundaries, &(hire) get his BF on CC, Richard Clark to override Jim Love the appropriate council member, only to try to get city to maintain this area.
There has to be a large suspension of reality to believe this.
I am not sure about that. They both have plenty of riverfront property and this is a tiny sliver. They've lived there for years (according to Simms) and apaprently haven't felt the need to close this access and annex the property.
I am not sure of their motives, but it's far too easy to paint this out as some sort of land grab. I'd assumed it was motivated by their frustration with the amount of antisocial behavior that takes place on the land. I used to go drinking down there (and I'd get high down there) when in high school.
I am not saying I want the access closed. But I have yet to hear the reason(s) why this is happening. If it is simply because the property owners want to very slightly increase their land, then I am against it. If it is due to issues with how the land is maintained or used, then I might be a bit more sympathetic.
Pocket Parks- Pocket Piers
Watched the 5/26/15 Jacksonville city council meeting and the endless stream of speakers to speak during the Public Hearing on 2015-360.
Does anyone else feel sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412?
Sydney Gefen Park?
Palmer Terrace Park?
Hogans Creek 2013-384 and zero access to the Creek. The legislation withdrawn.
Palms Fish Camp- A million bucks and you never open the door. Sign me UP! Cha Ching!
Dozens of other examples.
Councilman Redman Dist. 4 to his credit asked that this legislation 2015-360 be sent to Waterways. Will this then be put on the 6/10/15 Jacksonville Waterways Commission agenda?
Watching this Public Hearing should be a glaring example to the people of Duval county how our Public Access and Economic opportunity to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative continue to be crushed and destroyed in Jacksonville.
Visit Jacksonville!
Quote from: Adam White on May 27, 2015, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: Jax native on May 26, 2015, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: edjax on May 26, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
Maybe they are just doing this to get the city to finally get their shit together and you know, properly maintain it.
Two multi millionaires do not hire Paul Harden, lobbyist, development attorney, good ole boy, and get Paul Harden to go of the proper district boundaries, &(hire) get his BF on CC, Richard Clark to override Jim Love the appropriate council member, only to try to get city to maintain this area.
There has to be a large suspension of reality to believe this.
I am not sure about that. They both have plenty of riverfront property and this is a tiny sliver. They've lived there for years (according to Simms) and apaprently haven't felt the need to close this access and annex the property.
I am not sure of their motives, but it's far too easy to paint this out as some sort of land grab. I'd assumed it was motivated by their frustration with the amount of antisocial behavior that takes place on the land. I used to go drinking down there (and I'd get high down there) when in high school.
I am not saying I want the access closed. But I have yet to hear the reason(s) why this is happening. If it is simply because the property owners want to very slightly increase their land, then I am against it. If it is due to issues with how the land is maintained or used, then I might be a bit more sympathetic.
One property owner has lived there for years. The other would like to build a house on the vacant lot.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
Here in Springfield, we do that all the time! Especially with our alleys. :)
Quote from: Jax native on May 26, 2015, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: edjax on May 26, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
Maybe they are just doing this to get the city to finally get their shit together and you know, properly maintain it.
Two multi millionaires do not hire Paul Harden, lobbyist, development attorney, good ole boy, and get Paul Harden to go of the proper district boundaries, &(hire) get his BF on CC, Richard Clark to override Jim Love the appropriate council member, only to try to get city to maintain this area.
There has to be a large suspension of reality to believe this.
Maybe Paul Harden is a friend of theirs? Do you know them well?
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
My thoughts as well. There is a lot of underbrush that could be cleared out that would increase visibility and therefore make it harder for troublemakers to get away with making trouble.
Since when is the maintenance of a public park the obligation of adjacent landowners? If the public wants the use of the park, it should pay for it. Or, here is a novel concept, RAP actually steps up and does something positive for the neighborhood. Perhaps, set up a separate fund (distinct from RAP's general fund) to which neighbors could donate. Those funds could be utilized to maintain the pocket parks in the area.
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 27, 2015, 01:09:00 PM
Since when is the maintenance of a public park the obligation of adjacent landowners? If the public wants the use of the park, it should pay for it. Or, here is a novel concept, RAP actually steps up and does something positive for the neighborhood. Perhaps, set up a separate fund (distinct from RAP's general fund) to which neighbors could donate. Those funds could be utilized to maintain the pocket parks in the area.
It's not an obligation, but that doesn't mean they can't do it (with an OK from the city).
I live next to a small public parking lot and the city where I live did not really take much care of the green space, so it I cleared and re-planted the part adjacent to my house (actually had one lady come by and donate some plants after she saw me working on the public green space).
Win-win.
Guerrilla gardening is the act of gardening on land that the gardeners do not have the legal rights to utilize, such as an abandoned site, an area that is not being cared for, or private property. It encompasses a diverse range of people and motivations, ranging from gardeners who spill over their legal boundaries to gardeners with political influences who seek to provoke change by using guerrilla gardening as a form of protest or direct action. This practice has implications for land rights and land reform; aiming to promote re-consideration of land ownership in order to assign a new purpose or reclaim land that is perceived to be in neglect or misused.
The land that is guerrilla gardened is usually abandoned or perceived to be neglected by its legal owner. That land is used by guerrilla gardeners to raise plants, frequently focusing on food crops or plants intended for aesthetic purposes.
Some guerrilla gardeners carry out their actions at night, in relative secrecy, to sow and tend a new vegetable patch or flower garden in an effort to make the area of use and/or more attractive. Some garden at more visible hours for the purpose of publicity, which can be seen as a form of activism.
http://www.guerrillagardening.org/
Little page on the subject:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access)
I believe Littlepage is spot on.
(except for the minimizing of kayak and stand up board facility...)
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 01:33:53 PM
Guerrilla gardening is the act of gardening on land that the gardeners do not have the legal rights to utilize, such as an abandoned site, an area that is not being cared for, or private property. It encompasses a diverse range of people and motivations, ranging from gardeners who spill over their legal boundaries to gardeners with political influences who seek to provoke change by using guerrilla gardening as a form of protest or direct action. This practice has implications for land rights and land reform; aiming to promote re-consideration of land ownership in order to assign a new purpose or reclaim land that is perceived to be in neglect or misused.
The land that is guerrilla gardened is usually abandoned or perceived to be neglected by its legal owner. That land is used by guerrilla gardeners to raise plants, frequently focusing on food crops or plants intended for aesthetic purposes.
Some guerrilla gardeners carry out their actions at night, in relative secrecy, to sow and tend a new vegetable patch or flower garden in an effort to make the area of use and/or more attractive. Some garden at more visible hours for the purpose of publicity, which can be seen as a form of activism.
http://www.guerrillagardening.org/
You know I actually like this idea right up to the point when someone pisses on my curly leaf kale
*** River Window Public Palace ***
......now,if we could just somehow actually get out there on the water with our relatively inexpensive, easily stored and transported "hand launched" vessels............."Best Place" launch 8)
Quote from: Jason on May 27, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
My thoughts as well. There is a lot of underbrush that could be cleared out that would increase visibility and therefore make it harder for troublemakers to get away with making trouble.
Both of these adjacent landowners have professional landscaping companies to maintain their property. Additional cost for them to just mow the access would be minimal and would reduce the problems. Each landscaper could do it once per month which would be plenty.
We are obligated to maintain the space between our sidewalks and the street which is actually city property. This would not be much different.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 28, 2015, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jason on May 27, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
My thoughts as well. There is a lot of underbrush that could be cleared out that would increase visibility and therefore make it harder for troublemakers to get away with making trouble.
Both of these adjacent landowners have professional landscaping companies to maintain their property. Additional cost for them to just mow the access would be minimal and would reduce the problems. Each landscaper could do it once per month which would be plenty.
We are obligated to maintain the space between our sidewalks and the street which is actually city property. This would not be much different.
I thought the property between our sidewalks and the street was the homeowners' property - but the city has an easement. Is that not the case?
Quote from: Adam White on May 28, 2015, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 28, 2015, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jason on May 27, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: finehoe on May 27, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
...if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
Bingo!
My thoughts as well. There is a lot of underbrush that could be cleared out that would increase visibility and therefore make it harder for troublemakers to get away with making trouble.
Both of these adjacent landowners have professional landscaping companies to maintain their property. Additional cost for them to just mow the access would be minimal and would reduce the problems. Each landscaper could do it once per month which would be plenty.
We are obligated to maintain the space between our sidewalks and the street which is actually city property. This would not be much different.
I thought the property between our sidewalks and the street was the homeowners' property - but the city has an easement. Is that not the case?
Nope, it's City property. Take a close look at the plat of any property on a city street.
You have to get a permit ($130) to do any construction on it other than landscaping. The City had to cut down a pecan tree on my CROW. It was in a big mound of dirt that I wanted to remove and make flat like the rest of the CROW around my home. Had to get a permit to remove the dirt that made up the mound. Also had to remove the stump at my expense since the City is years behind in grinding them out.
Quote
Nope, it's City property. Take a close look at the plat of any property on a city street.
You have to get a permit ($130) to do any construction on it other than landscaping. The City had to cut down a pecan tree on my CROW. It was in a big mound of dirt that I wanted to remove and make flat like the rest of the CROW around my home. Had to get a permit to remove the dirt that made up the mound. Also had to remove the stump at my expense since the City is years behind in grinding them out.
That sounds like a nightmare.
Quote from: Adam White on May 28, 2015, 03:18:23 PM
Quote
Nope, it's City property. Take a close look at the plat of any property on a city street.
You have to get a permit ($130) to do any construction on it other than landscaping. The City had to cut down a pecan tree on my CROW. It was in a big mound of dirt that I wanted to remove and make flat like the rest of the CROW around my home. Had to get a permit to remove the dirt that made up the mound. Also had to remove the stump at my expense since the City is years behind in grinding them out.
That sounds like a nightmare.
The only nightmare was removing the pecan tree stump. Seems that they have root system deeper and more extensive that an oak tree. The thing was the size of a VW beetle when we finally got it out which took two days of digging. An oak tree stump would have been easy since they are actually quite shallow rooted.
The permit and removing the dirt was the easy part.
Folks on here are really good at spending other people's money.
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2015, 03:57:52 PM
Folks on here are really good at spending other people's money.
What is worse is how willing everyone is to let the City off the hook. In a functioning city, this is what taxes pay for. It's a remarkable commentary on the state of our government that the immediate reaction is a workaround, rather than trying to get the city to do the things it should already be doing.
Quote from: Ming The Merciless on May 28, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 28, 2015, 03:57:52 PM
Folks on here are really good at spending other people's money.
What is worse is how willing everyone is to let the City off the hook. In a functioning city, this is what taxes pay for. It's a remarkable commentary on the state of our government that the immediate reaction is a workaround, rather than trying to get the city to do the things it should already be doing.
Exactly.
So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.
Anyone else feeling sorry for the Baltimore guys 2014-412? They wanted to expand and showcase these waterfront Public Access street ends. So look at this outrage on this issue that was introduced by Clark Dist. 3 and being represented by Paul Hardin. Contrast that with our new super duper restricted 4.8 miles rivers edge zone according to a CRA consultant. And that boundary is from the Fuller Warren Bridge to the Mathews Bridge. WOW! Dozens of examples to pick from.
Let us all hope that Capt. Lenny and the NEW First Mates will correct this crushing of the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.
Visit Jacksonville!
Quote from: Ralph W on May 28, 2015, 10:05:01 PM
So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.
No one is being suckered. If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY. The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 29, 2015, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on May 28, 2015, 10:05:01 PM
So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.
No one is being suckered. If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY. The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.
Apparently this is not entirely the case - because two homeowners have decided that they want to take this land from the public because they are not pleased with the level of service provided by the city.
So it's not just raise taxes or DYI. It's raise taxes or DYI or convince the city to gift you public land.
Having watched the goings on at County Dock in the dark for years I can sympathize with the homeowners. And as a home owner it is just not what I'd want high school kids drinking and getting high next door. I suspect the trash is impressive too. I think the city should maintain it like they are supposed to or give it to the HOA. Not all HOAs are evil. Or perhaps give it to the Neighborhood watch group. I suspect they have one.
The problem is as a home owner maintaining city property is you expose yourself to the goodness of city bureaucrats, lawyers, and the public. All are known to turn on you for no good reason.
Take out some bushes............somebody complains. The bureaucrats will support you unless the wind blows the other way. Then the lawyers get involved and before you know it you're paying damages for making improvements. The city has a bad habit of breaking promises.
How long have these two homeowners lived there?
Quote from: Adam White on May 29, 2015, 11:08:01 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 29, 2015, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on May 28, 2015, 10:05:01 PM
So, following this logic... We, as individuals, we, as members of neighborhood or civic organization and we, as corporate or other entities are all suckered by COJ (such as "Clean it up, Green it up", etc) into doing what rightfully and exclusively is their taxpayer funded job.
No one is being suckered. If you want a higher level of city services you will have get folks elected who will raise taxes or DIY. The voters appear to be ok with the level of services they get because candidates who favor tax increases can't win in city-wide races.
Apparently this is not entirely the case - because two homeowners have decided that they want to take this land from the public because they are not pleased with the level of service provided by the city.
So it's not just raise taxes or DYI. It's raise taxes or DYI or convince the city to gift you public land.
To be fair, it's not just these two homeowners who are not satisfied, but rather many folks in the neighborhood. If the folks in our neighborhood are being honest, very very few residents utilize that access at all. In my eight years of living very close by, I can recall only seeing one of my neighbors walking to and from this access point. That does not mean others don't use it, I'm not all knowing, but any claims that the neighborhood residents frequent this area are simply not true. Now, if it stays cleaned up, I could see it being utilized more.
And we should not pretend that it's just trash and overgrown vegetation. I've been yelled at by large groups of non-neighborhood folks on late night walks at least twice. I quickly turned around and walked the other way but no one wants an area attracting that sort of crowd late at night. The only way to deter that is keeping it clean and ensuring that JSO makes regular runs by the area. Neither of those action items is all that difficult. However, unless that occurs, I'd prefer the area is closed. The fact that it would be given to adjacent landowners is inconsequential.
If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not. It is an abandoned sewage ROW. So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.
Quote from: edjax on May 29, 2015, 12:33:23 PM
How long have these two homeowners lived there?
One of them for a while, the other does not. The second lot is vacant and the landowner wants to build a house.
I said it once and I think it bears repeating, especially in light of some of the commentary: If the 'park' is unused (mostly) and unkept (mostly) and the homeowners are willing to pay the city fair market value for the property, then I'm all for them getting it as long as there is sufficient public input to make a fair decision.
Otherwise, their 2 options are to maintain the land themselves to prevent shenanigans from happening. (Broken Window Theory) Or just deal with it and continue to file complaints to the city.
IMO, the land being gifted to them is a non-starter and shouldn't even be part of the discussion, no matter the paperwork they filed.
Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.
Just speculation.
It needs to be a waterfront Public access street end with active recreational opportunities made available for everyone. Pocket Parks, Pocket Piers. Why not? Did a site inspection the other day and the area is cleared out. 3 people were fishing. The surveyor guys were putting out the surveying stakes. And some people were up talking near the street next to the parking area. Jump in to a community organized opportunity. Public, Private, Partnership?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 29, 2015, 06:34:36 PM
IMO, the land being gifted to them is a non-starter and shouldn't even be part of the discussion, no matter the paperwork they filed.
I agree. If the city is struggling to do things like cut the grass, etc because of budgetary issues, the last thing it should be doing is giving away prime public land for free. That's ludicrous.
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2015, 06:53:37 PM
Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.
Just speculation.
I think you are spot on. The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time. By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan. Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public. And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect. Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property.
Quote from: SunKing on May 29, 2015, 04:35:58 PM
If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not. It is an abandoned sewage ROW. So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.
This strikes me as the rather conveniently overlooked essential point. But I would say the question isn't that which is posed by SunKing. The question, to me, is this: Even if the City has the legal authority to maintain control of this space . . . should it? And my answer is no, it most definitely should not.
Most of the folks who frequent this board are all into city planning, etc. Can't we at least be honest and admit this space was NEVER contemplated as a city park? And, it was never contemplated as a river-access space, was it? When the need for the sewage right of way vanished, the use of the property SHOULD have gone back to the adjacent property owners . . .
shouldn't it ? ? ?Most of y'all are getting to a question that should never be reached, or, at least, is a question that is secondary in nature.
We're talking about the power of government to command use of space for a need, and then that need subsequently going away. But the vibe on this board seems to be all for government conveniently commanding some
other utility for this space, a utility that wasn't originally contemplated when the right of way was asserted -- which is all well and good, I suppose -- presuming that the CURRENT adjacent property owners are cool with that utility and sign off on it.
It doesn't sound as though they are cool with, and it doesn't matter to me that one of those property owners wants to build on the adjacent land --
so what? Right is right. The City's need for the sewage right of way is completely gone. Back away, City of Jacksonville, and leave these people be.
This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell.
Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about
returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an
unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.
Isn't that right ? ? ?
To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.
I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.
Quote
This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell. Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.
Isn't that right ? ? ?
To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.
I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.
I don't follow. By your argument, are you basically saying that any homeowner should be allowed to annex public property that abuts his property for no charge? This particular parcel has been public since 1914 (if I am correct). There is no way the current owners have owned this property at any time - so gifting them the property certainly is not a case of returning something to them that they previously owned.
Quote from: Kay on May 30, 2015, 08:09:15 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2015, 06:53:37 PM
Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.
Just speculation.
I think you are spot on. The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time. By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan. Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public. And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect. Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property.
stop making stuff up. The plans for the house do not encroach on the area in question. As for people saying that they use the area, outside of one of those speakers, well, I don't want to call them liars but ...
Kay, how about RAP take charge of keeping these areas. Rather than merely complaining being a pary of the solution.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 18, 2015, 10:15:09 AMQuote from: Noone on May 30, 2015, 02:28:42 AM
It needs to be a waterfront Public access street end with active recreational opportunities made available for everyone. Pocket Parks, Pocket Piers. Why not? Did a site inspection the other day and the area is cleared out. 3 people were fishing. The surveyor guys were putting out the surveying stakes. And some people were up talking near the street next to the parking area. Jump in to a community organized opportunity. Public, Private, Partnership?
Google Earth:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Van+Wert+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32205/@30.292434,-81.703748,3a,75y,127.73h,81.95t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW6Y_iBskr8Lkmg8yAySgJg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e5b83962767f87:0x3851cf2edc46ba06!6m1!1e1
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 30, 2015, 11:23:52 AM
Quote from: Kay on May 30, 2015, 08:09:15 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2015, 06:53:37 PM
Just took a look on Google Maps. Here's what I THINK is going on - the vacant lot in question (3680), and the one just east of it (3672) are both 1 acre lots, but very narrow compared to the rest of the lots on the block (very deep lots). The 3672 lot has it's house built literally on the property line (or within 3 feet-ish) with 3680, so my guess is the property owner at 3680 who is looking to build probably wants the land to accommodate the house they are looking to build on the lot.
Just speculation.
I think you are spot on. The COA to build the house and the application to close the ROW happened at the same time. By the way, closing river access points is contrary to the 2030 Comp Plan. Testimony at Council last Tuesday showed an overwhelming desire to keep this river access open to the public. And many residents of the area spoke to their use of this space, so to say it is not being used is incorrect. Those in favor of closing it are primarily owners of riverfront property.
stop making stuff up. The plans for the house do not encroach on the area in question. As for people saying that they use the area, outside of one of those speakers, well, I don't want to call them liars but ...
Kay, how about RAP take charge of keeping these areas. Rather than merely complaining being a pary of the solution.
If you have the plans for the house, feel free to share. I was going to public records request them myself but if you have them it would save me a step. Also, not sure either Kay or myself were making stuff up. I stated that my feeling was speculation, based on looking at google maps-not exactly a secret source, and if Kay said that the COA and the ROW closure happened at the same time, then knowing Kay for as long as I have, I would tend to believe her. While Kay certainly has no problem sharing her opinion, I've yet to find an instance where she completely fabricated something that is a black and white fact.
BTW in regard to RAP, your statement about RAP being part of the solution seems like an echo from what RAP email blasted out last Thursday. Great minds think alike I guess.
The only way to know the situation for sure is to read the deeds for the properties and the legislation. The land in question may be part of the deeds with a reserved right of way. If that is the case then the owners are already deeded the property and just need to remove the ROW. This costs about $1800 and the legislation then becomes part of the deed. I had a similar situation when building my house on a lot with a ROW reserved for a yet to be built road. The city was willing to remove the right of way. As that land was already in the deed, no change to deed was required. The land reverted back to my use except for a JEA easement for drainage maintenance. It did need all city department review and could have been opposed, as the Parks Dept. is doing in this case. If this is the case I have no issue with the situation.
If this is actually "city owned" land being deeded to the adjacent owners, that is different. They should pay fair market value for the land.
Quote from: jaxjags on May 30, 2015, 01:17:23 PM
The only way to know the situation for sure is to read the deeds for the properties and the legislation. The land in question may be part of the deeds with a reserved right of way. If that is the case then the owners are already deeded the property and just need to remove the ROW. This costs about $1800 and the legislation then becomes part of the deed. I had a similar situation when building my house on a lot with a ROW reserved for a yet to be built road. The city was willing to remove the right of way. As that land was already in the deed, no change to deed was required. The land reverted back to my use except for a JEA easement for drainage maintenance. It did need all city department review and could have been opposed, as the Parks Dept. is doing in this case. If this is the case I have no issue with the situation.
If this is actually "city owned" land being deeded to the adjacent owners, that is different. They should pay fair market value for the land.
If you read the ordinance, it states that the land is owned by COJ and that the City would have a utilities easement once the land is given to the adjacent property owners. Not sure if that's what you mean - but the ordinance seems to make it pretty clear that this is public land as opposed to an easement on land which is deeded to the adjacent property owners. Also, there was link posted earlier which showed that this land was not part of either plat.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riversideavondale.org%2Findex.php%3Fs%3Dfile_download%26id%3D184&ei=WPtpVbm7PMXYywPco4HACg&usg=AFQjCNGt9C2zNWdEgk-G4_E19cb5Z2tNJw&bvm=bv.94455598,d.bGQ (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riversideavondale.org%2Findex.php%3Fs%3Dfile_download%26id%3D184&ei=WPtpVbm7PMXYywPco4HACg&usg=AFQjCNGt9C2zNWdEgk-G4_E19cb5Z2tNJw&bvm=bv.94455598,d.bGQ)
Why does it matter that the ROW vacation and building plans were submitted at the same time?
I did not receive the RAP email. Please share.
And what do you think the fair market value is far a small strip of land that cannot be built on?
I'm not sure they want the land as much as they want to be able to keep bad elements away from it.
According to Councilman Crescembeni in an email to me about it, over $600k.
Quote from: Steve on May 30, 2015, 05:26:49 PM
According to Councilman Crescembeni in an email to me about it, over $600k.
Seems a bit high based on the assessed value of the comparable properties around to it, but even at half of that, it's quite a damn bit more than their current 'offer'.
Quote from: RattlerGator on May 30, 2015, 09:13:34 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 29, 2015, 04:35:58 PM
If it was a park, then you would have a point, but its not. It is an abandoned sewage ROW. So the question is should the city spend xxx amount of dollars to make it a park or should the city not spend the money and let someone else do it.
This strikes me as the rather conveniently overlooked essential point. But I would say the question isn't that which is posed by SunKing. The question, to me, is this: Even if the City has the legal authority to maintain control of this space . . . should it? And my answer is no, it most definitely should not.
Most of the folks who frequent this board are all into city planning, etc. Can't we at least be honest and admit this space was NEVER contemplated as a city park? And, it was never contemplated as a river-access space, was it? When the need for the sewage right of way vanished, the use of the property SHOULD have gone back to the adjacent property owners . . . shouldn't it ? ? ?
Most of y'all are getting to a question that should never be reached, or, at least, is a question that is secondary in nature.
We're talking about the power of government to command use of space for a need, and then that need subsequently going away. But the vibe on this board seems to be all for government conveniently commanding some other utility for this space, a utility that wasn't originally contemplated when the right of way was asserted -- which is all well and good, I suppose -- presuming that the CURRENT adjacent property owners are cool with that utility and sign off on it.
It doesn't sound as though they are cool with, and it doesn't matter to me that one of those property owners wants to build on the adjacent land -- so what? Right is right. The City's need for the sewage right of way is completely gone. Back away, City of Jacksonville, and leave these people be.
This thing about GIFTING the property owners strikes me as odd as hell. Gifting? Wasn't there a prior TAKING? Isn't this about returning complete property owner use of that land, not gifting. Yes, it's a bigtime benefit to them but, hell, that's life. It sure doesn't strike me as an unfair benefit. You win some, you lose some. They win on this. So be it.
Isn't that right ? ? ?
To me, even if the City of Jacksonville has effectively assumed ownership of this plat of land over the course of time so that the discussion no longer technically centers on matters of right of way, etc., the right thing to do here is still to RETURN it to the adjacent property owners. Anything else is an outright taking by the City of Jacksonville, in spirit if not in law, and that isn't cool in my book.
I know someone will correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and, if so, I look forward to that logical argument. I'm not personally invested in this matter at all-- aside from being sympathetic to the property owners in the abstract.
You would perform pretty shitty to a group of Native Americans about ownership of property.
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
um no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others. George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.
Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.
The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.
I think some of this story line is inaccurate. Parts of Riverside were platted as far back as the 1860s and Avondale was developed around 1920. Riverside/Avondale would have already been largely developed by the 1929 plan. Also, Brooklyn and Riverside were carved out from the Dell's Bluff Plantation. Avondale sits on the former Magnolia Plantation. The Honeymoon Plantation was slightly north of both.
In any event, it is correct that the developers for both Riverside and Avondale included publicly owned riverfront access in the form the street ROW. So Rattler is incorrect with the abandoned sewage access concept and the idea that property should go back to the adjacent land owners. The property was never their's or even their predecessors.
^Brooklyn and Riverside (and Silvertown) predate the name change to Riverside Ave by almost 30 years. That area was once the Dell's Bluff Plantation. I'd have to go back and find the map but I believe the 1880s plat of Edgewood (portions later replatted as Murray Hill and Avondale) also had street ROW running into the river.....like the original plat of the city....well before Simons time or influence.
So, what has RAP proposed?
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 31, 2015, 08:59:24 PM
So, what has RAP proposed?
Waiting to see if anyone eats pizza on it to make their mind up.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2015, 08:43:20 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
um no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others. George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.
Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.
The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.
I think some of this story line is inaccurate. Parts of Riverside were platted as far back as the 1860s and Avondale was developed around 1920. Riverside/Avondale would have already been largely developed by the 1929 plan. Also, Brooklyn and Riverside were carved out from the Dell's Bluff Plantation. Avondale sits on the former Magnolia Plantation. The Honeymoon Plantation was slightly north of both.
In any event, it is correct that the developers for both Riverside and Avondale included publicly owned riverfront access in the form the street ROW. So Rattler is incorrect with the abandoned sewage access concept and the idea that property should go back to the adjacent land owners. The property was never their's or even their predecessors.
2015-360 will be in Rules in about 9 hours. Anyone going? So this is in District 14. Councilman Love is also the Chair of Waterways. Will this be sent or maybe it already has to the 6/10/15 Waterways meeting. Don Redman a member of Waterways made that request at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360.
Councilman Clark Dist.14 and Paul Hardin doesn't anyone else now appreciate Shipyards even more. This gives greater understanding to the Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel 26' Berkman Floating dock compromise (Shipyards III) misrepresented by OGC to Waterways and the Jacksonville city council during the 2013 FIND grant application process and then positively reinforced by then member of Waterways Dist.5 city councilwoman Lori Boyer and the OGC opinion on Catherine St.
I'm stoked with the new IG Thomas Cline who should restore the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.
Plan on doing a RICO loop.
I am Downtown and why you aren't.
Visit Jacksonville!
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 31, 2015, 08:59:24 PM
So, what has RAP proposed?
I wouldn't say that RAP has proposed anything (nor did I above). I just said that they want to be part of the solution. Here is the link on the website (this was what was sent out in an email box).
http://www.riversideavondale.org/index.php?id=272
I am not a RAP fan, but in this case I agree with their position, but for a different reason. This land is not without value and cannot be deeded or legislated to the owners for free. This lot may be unbuildable, but when combined with the adjoining property gives the owners: one of the bigger properties on the river for that area; a lot with more flexible building capability; no concern of intrusion by others on their property. $600,000 may be high, but this is not an inexpensive place to build and live.
In Rules right now. Councilman Love indicated that he wants to take 2015-360 up. Rules is being broadcast live right now. COJ.net go to city council.
No one has taken up (I don't think) my assertion that this strip was never contemplated as a park and it wasn't contemplated as public access to the river. So . . . even if the City has the legal authority to maintain control of this space . . . should it? And my answer is no, it most definitely should not.
Fine, haggle over fair market value but that's the limited issue this question should center upon. That 600k figure is absurd, however.
I have no idea of how the monetary value for this strip of property was generated. Nevertheless, if the public street ROW was originally platted to the river, then that's public access. Whether we refer to that access as a park, street, grass or whatever, really doesn't matter. Ideally, the city should maintain everything it owns.
Well, the entire issue has been put off until the end of July, so we can debate conjecture until then.
Here are some interesting notes:
- This has been ongoing since 2012ish with no ground gained or given.
- After the legislation was filed, not only has there been more scrutiny on this 'park, but many of the other access points in the area as well.
- As it stands, there are plans for turning from ROW into an actual park.
- If the property reverts to the adjacent owners, they won't be allowed to build due to easements. (Until they file that legislature to remove the easement of course. ;) )
- RAP and JLove are against it, if for no other reason, they don't want this to set precedence for others' with $$$ and similar situations.
I'm confused- who in fact is my Council Person Representative? Jim Love or Kevin Kunzel?
;D
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2015, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 31, 2015, 08:59:24 PM
So, what has RAP proposed?
Waiting to see if anyone eats pizza on it to make their mind up.
This will require Brick Health Salad and mounds of Bluefish oysters,followed by Biscottis Carrot Cake and a La Finde Du Monde,and finally,a Mojo Whiskey in aromatic producing glass....Uppermost Shelf.
:)
Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.
Quote from: camarocane on June 01, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.
It was mentioned at the meeting, but as I mentioned in my post above, legislating out the easement could/would/might be the next step.
Possession is 9/10....
I would love to believe that they're just being altruistic, you know, for the kids on their scooters, but my cynicism won't allow it.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 01, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
Quote from: camarocane on June 01, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
Without seeing much of the council session, was anything mentioned of the JEA easement? Depending upon the language, there may be certain unobstructed ingress/egress rights on the property... as is with many of these contracts, especially from JEA. Assuming these owners somehow acquire the property, they may not be able to fence it or "protect" it any more than the city is currently doing.
It was mentioned at the meeting, but as I mentioned in my post above, legislating out the easement could/would/might be the next step.
Possession is 9/10....
I would love to believe that they're just being altruistic, you know, for the kids on their scooters, but my cynicism won't allow it.
It would have to be an eventual step, but I doubt it would happen. The JEA is very protective of its easements and unless those sewer lines were rerouted I personally don't see them giving it up.
If deeded over, did the council ask the owners what they would do differently from the COJ?
I just have a feeling that if the owners acquire this parcel, nothing else will be done. They'll just continue calling the cops as they are currently doing.... Status quo and all
Quote from: camarocane on June 02, 2015, 12:00:17 AM
It would have to be an eventual step, but I doubt it would happen. The JEA is very protective of its easements and unless those sewer lines were rerouted I personally don't see them giving it up.
True. But is there actually anything below? I won't claim to know too much about it, but I doubt there's a sewer line running downhill to the river. My guess would be that they (JEA) owns the easement in the case of any future development due to the depth of the lots on either side.
Quote
If deeded over, did the council ask the owners what they would do differently from the COJ?
I just have a feeling that if the owners acquire this parcel, nothing else will be done. They'll just continue calling the cops as they are currently doing.... Status quo and all
There really wasn't much discussion along these lines. And I agree with you that they'll do much with the property considering they won't be allowed to build anything on it. I would expect a fence and some "No Trespassing" signs to go up along the road. How awesome is that going to look? ;)
I think the best case moving forward will be for the city and RAP to actively work to make it an actual park. JLove said he has some money to put towards it, now they just need to get it done. The hope is that they can have a plan in place by the time this is taken up again in council at the end of July.
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
I wonder what a review of similar easements around Jacksonville would discover? Consistent application of a standard? Not sure about that; at the very least it would be an interesting study. An itemization of all waterway easements in Jacksonville over the last 50 years, the character of the neighborhood where the easement or property ownership exists, and the dispensation of requests for modification or elimination of easement or property ownership rights might prove to be very instructive.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 02, 2015, 08:46:40 AM
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 02, 2015, 08:46:40 AM
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
Does that mean this is one of the places that *was* polluting the St. Johns River, or *is* polluting it? Or neither? Does anyone have any idea?
Quote from: RattlerGator on June 02, 2015, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 02, 2015, 08:46:40 AM
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
Does that mean this is one of the places that *was* polluting the St. Johns River, or *is* polluting it? Or neither? Does anyone have any idea?
If you consider runoff 'pollution' then sure, but I don't think it is in the case you're making it.
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
actually it is an old sewage ROW, as in toilet
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 10:03:34 AM
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
But is still polluting:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
Quote from: finehoe on June 02, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 10:03:34 AM
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
But is still polluting:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
Lol, yes, but so is any topical runoff.
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 02, 2015, 08:46:40 AM
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
JEA owns sewer (poop) pipes, COJ owns stormwater (rain)pipes.
JEA owns the easement which leads me to believe there is a sewer pipe somewhere down there. Thats not to say it wasnt open to the river at some point during its history. But chances are there could be both down there.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: finehoe on June 02, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 10:03:34 AM
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
But is still polluting:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
Lol, yes, but so is any topical runoff.
And both cause harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife. Not sure why that is "lol" worthy.
Quote from: camarocane on June 02, 2015, 12:09:04 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on June 02, 2015, 08:46:40 AM
There is a large stormwater drain pipe that runs to the river. You can see this submerged outfall from the bulkhead. So, no, the JEA will not be abandoning that easement.
JEA owns sewer (poop) pipes, COJ owns stormwater (rain)pipes.
JEA owns the easement which leads me to believe there is a sewer pipe somewhere down there. Thats not to say it wasnt open to the river at some point during its history. But chances are there could be both down there.
Yes there most likely are both but the original intent of this ROW is a for a poop pipe that still exists and runs some 30 out into the river. It was never designed nor intended for anything else, especially a park.
Quote from: finehoe on June 02, 2015, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: finehoe on June 02, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 10:03:34 AM
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
But is still polluting:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
Lol, yes, but so is any topical runoff.
And both cause harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife. Not sure why that is "lol" worthy.
Hyperbole = lol
Quote from: SunKing on June 02, 2015, 12:33:47 PM
Yes there most likely are both but the original intent of this ROW is a for a poop pipe that still exists and runs some 30 out into the river. It was never designed nor intended for anything else, especially a park.
If that's the case (and I don't know one way or the other), then the sewage pipe wouldn't be active any longer. All sanitary sewage lines are supposed to be on a closed system.
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
um no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others. George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.
Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.
The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.
Nice shot Stephen! If you date roads to the Via Appia (certainly not the first road but the first major regional highway) you must turn the pages back 2,327 years. If you date railways to The Diolkos (Δίολκος, from the Greek διά, dia "across" and ὁλκός, holkos "portage machine") Railway, which ran across the Isthmus of Corinth very close to the route of todays Corinth Canal, then the calendar runs back 2,615 years. So actually the Greeks figured it out first, but they invested in railways... the Romans came along and invested in highways and the whole empire went to hell in a hand basket. ;)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 12:43:30 PM
Quote from: SunKing on June 02, 2015, 12:33:47 PM
Yes there most likely are both but the original intent of this ROW is a for a poop pipe that still exists and runs some 30 out into the river. It was never designed nor intended for anything else, especially a park.
If that's the case (and I don't know one way or the other), then the sewage pipe wouldn't be active any longer. All sanitary sewage lines are supposed to be on a closed system.
Drove down there during lunch (curiosity got the better of me), there are lift stations at the ends of Talbot and Greenwood. An aerial shows a manhole in the back yard of the property to the southwest of Van Wert along the river. I bet it turns at the end of the easement and heads behind the homes. If there is an additional easement behind the riverfront lots I bet that line terminates at the Greenwood lift station.
LOL Ock!
Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2015, 12:39:19 PM
Ideally, the city should maintain everything it owns.
Ennis, are you speaking here with respect to
keeping it, or
the upkeep of it? Or both? The former, I seriously question. The latter, agreed.
I'm coming to town tonight. Little Van Wert is "platted to the river," huh? May have to go down there tomorrow and take a look around. My curiosity is definitely piqued.
Quote from: finehoe on June 02, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 02, 2015, 10:03:34 AM
Stormwater is completely separate from the sewage system.
But is still polluting:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm
Very well then! Earth First ("Gainesville Chapter" ) will soon appear,thirteen dump trucks (fill from St Johns County 8) )
Kevin Kunzel phone messages overloaded
Worldwide Headlines to soon Flow
I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?
As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!
This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.
Quote from: RattlerGator on June 03, 2015, 12:58:39 PM
I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?
As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!
This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.
Actually the ROW for Little Van Wert does in fact go all the way to the river. No matter how small it is, it allows for public access. Go look at COJPA. That's the entire point of why people are upset. Yes, this particular bit of land may be small, but what about the next piece of land. We don't want to set precedents of closing these off. What happens when the adjacent property owners decide they want to close off the end of Edgewood- which is public access the same way that LVW is public access.
Quote from: RattlerGator on June 03, 2015, 12:58:39 PM
I just drove around the area and took a look at that specific place. If you're advocating that spit of land for a park or public access, you should be ashamed IMHO. That is nothing but a straight-up residential area and Little Van Wert certainly isn't platted to the river -- not like Edgewood is, just down the road (by the way, what is that heavy equipment fixing at the river's edge there?). The disparity between those two streets are glaring -- I suppose Edgewood *is* a public access space (could some knowledgeable person verify this)?
As for Little Van Wert: honestly, it's as though you are driving directly into their yard!
This doesn't appear to be a close call at all. The equitable solution is to either return full control to the adjacent property owners or maintain an easement but allow the adjacent owners to block public access.
That spit of land should definitely be a park. It's no different than the end of Challen, Seminole, Elizabeth, Donald, Cherry, Mallory. Edgewood, being a wider road has a larger river access area. These are all areas that are open to the public. The one at the end of Cherry Street is even called Cherry Street Park and is no wider than Little Van Wert.
It'll will be bad news for all of Avondale if they allow this closing. The small river access parks definitely add to Avondale's charm and I would hate to see them go.
Quote from: Apache on June 03, 2015, 09:41:21 AM
Lots of pages...apologies if this was covered and I missed it.
Has anyone determined what the designation of the property actually is?
It does not appear to be a "park"? There has been talk of easement? And access? Is it designated public access or is it just city property?
There is all sorts of city owned property that citizens can't just use as their own. If this is an easement do residents actually have the right to hang out and fish and whatnot on this parcel?
Another question just came to me...if it is not considered a "Park" what is the city's liability if someone gets hurt there. I wonder if the city will end up fencing this place off. That was mentioned in article in this months Resident.
According to the Property Appraiser, it is City Right of Way (just like any street). It's no different than the ends of most streets in Riverside or Avondale.
Website. The specifics on that block are no different than any other road. Now, if you click on a park (Memorial Park as an example), it is listed differently.
JaxGIS lists all these river access points just as a road right of way. No park designation. The end of Cherry street is the same Little Van wert and almost all the other streets in avondale that end at the river. But there is an actual Cherry Street Park. http://www.coj.net/departments/parks-and-recreation/recreation-and-community-programming/parks/cherry-street-park.aspx
It is the exact same type of land as the end of Edgewood- city-owned ROW. They're not designated as a park. In the case of Edgewood it is mowed and has a bench and swing and functions like an actual park.
The end of Elizabeth place is officially a park as well. http://www.coj.net/departments/parks-and-recreation/recreation-and-community-programming/parks/elizabeth-park.aspx So there really isn't any reason why the end of Little Van Wert couldn't be a park.
I suspect a personal interest somehow. No matter how you look at it,the property is the People's property.
Seems to me I recall a ploy a few years back to try for a land grab..
I have faith that honest council people will not let it be stolen from the people..
Quote from: RattlerGator on June 02, 2015, 04:29:15 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2015, 12:39:19 PM
Ideally, the city should maintain everything it owns.
Ennis, are you speaking here with respect to keeping it, or the upkeep of it? Or both? The former, I seriously question. The latter, agreed.
I was speaking in general of proper upkeep and maintenance for it and everything else the city owns.
With that said, in this case (and in general), I'm not a fan of "giving" away public property. Especially if most of the neighborhood is against the idea of setting a bad precedent. This isn't an easement or a strip of land that was taken from the adjacent lots. It was a street to the river, when originally platted, along with the adjacent lots, in the early 20th century. It seems the simple answer here is for the city to maintain this piece of public property and move on to addressing more important issues.
It says no parking 7pm to 7am.
2015-360 is on the agenda for the 6/10/15 Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting in council chambers at 9am. Open to the Public. Will the Chair allow Public comment? Didn't happen at the RCDPHS 6/2/15 RCDPHS committee meeting chaired by Don Redman when 360 was called. Scott Wilson feel free to jump in here.
Visit Jacksonville!
2015-397 is also on the agenda. Be transported from one Illegal side of the RIO St. Johns to the other illegal side of the RIO St. Johns the most un American River in the country.
Quote from: Noone on May 31, 2015, 11:52:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2015, 08:43:20 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
um no. Rattler. The street ends have always been publicly owned. They were built by the developers of Riverside Avondale as part of a city plan put together by Ella Griffin Alsop, Mrs. Cummer, Mrs. Trout and many others. George Simons finished it in 1924, I believe, but the Society Women of the old capitalists had already been instituting these ideas since the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding. When the property passed from the old honeymoon estate and Commercial Street was renamed Riverside Avenue the street and their ends were publicly owned from the very beginning.
Public ownership of transportation routes and roads has been a vital element of capitalism for about 2.5 thousand years.
The Romans were the first to figure this out, try and catch up.
I think some of this story line is inaccurate. Parts of Riverside were platted as far back as the 1860s and Avondale was developed around 1920. Riverside/Avondale would have already been largely developed by the 1929 plan. Also, Brooklyn and Riverside were carved out from the Dell's Bluff Plantation. Avondale sits on the former Magnolia Plantation. The Honeymoon Plantation was slightly north of both.
In any event, it is correct that the developers for both Riverside and Avondale included publicly owned riverfront access in the form the street ROW. So Rattler is incorrect with the abandoned sewage access concept and the idea that property should go back to the adjacent land owners. The property was never their's or even their predecessors.
2015-360 will be in Rules in about 9 hours. Anyone going? So this is in District 14. Councilman Love is also the Chair of Waterways. Will this be sent or maybe it already has to the 6/10/15 Waterways meeting. Don Redman a member of Waterways made that request at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360.
Councilman Clark Dist.14 and Paul Hardin doesn't anyone else now appreciate Shipyards even more. This gives greater understanding to the Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel 26' Berkman Floating dock compromise (Shipyards III) misrepresented by OGC to Waterways and the Jacksonville city council during the 2013 FIND grant application process and then positively reinforced by then member of Waterways Dist.5 city councilwoman Lori Boyer and the OGC opinion on Catherine St.
I'm stoked with the new IG Thomas Cline who should restore the Public Trust to our St. Johns River an American Heritage River a FEDERAL, FEDERAL, FEDERAL Initiative.
Plan on doing a RICO loop.
I am Downtown and why you aren't.
Visit Jacksonville!
Help me with this. Redman at the 5/26/15 PH on 2015-360 with the full Jacksonville city council requests that 360 be sent to the Jacksonville Waterways Commission for the 6/10/15 meeting and it has. But then when 360 is on the agenda for the 6/2/15 RCDPHS committee meeting which councilman Don Redman Dist. 4 Chairs, he has Scott Wilson working the audience that he is not going to allow Public Comment. Scott, Don, feel free to jump in here. There was 20 minutes left in the meeting.
This legislation is a microcosm of a larger issue where Public Access and Economic Opportunity is being crushed in this community.
Visit Jacksonville!
My information is that Redman originally was in support of keeping river access open but may now be in favor of closing this particular access point.
I streamed the meeting and Redman did indeed change his stance after visiting the site. It's quite possible that with a well developed plan for a park that he would probably change his mind back in favor of keeping access.
I don't know if he rode his bike there or drove. ;)
It's pretty clear that COJ owns far more real estate and structures than it can properly maintain. We should be selling off property that is of little use to the public and use the funds to better maintain what IS used by the public.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on July 08, 2015, 09:11:32 AM
It's pretty clear that COJ owns far more real estate and structures than it can properly maintain. We should be selling off property that is of little use to the public and use the funds to better maintain what IS used by the public.
Or raise revenue and actually take care of the property that belongs to the public. Once it's sold, it's gone. I don't want us to lose our river access just because some people are really selfish and shortsighted.
Quote from: Apache on July 21, 2015, 08:12:21 PM
I think you have to look at each parcel individually.
I would have no qualms about selling this parcel to the neighbors. I bet they would buy it if given the option.
As others have mentioned there are 3-4 de facto parks and and official on at Elizabeth Pl, that are within walking distance of this one, which clearly isn't a park in my opinion.
Can't possibly be worth the $$ to maintain it for the few people that use it. Get some one time revenue and use one of the many other parks close by.
No! Have you gone to the beaches Fernandina, PVB, or Atlantic beaches lately. It is almost impossible to find a parking space to walk to the beach. The very wealth people that live at the beaches and on the St Johns River want anything they ask for. Screw them! This is a public space for all to use not just to the people with money. Why should I have to go to the other parks.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Apache on July 21, 2015, 08:12:21 PM
I think you have to look at each parcel individually.
I would have no qualms about selling this parcel to the neighbors. I bet they would buy it if given the option.
As others have mentioned there are 3-4 de facto parks and and official on at Elizabeth Pl, that are within walking distance of this one, which clearly isn't a park in my opinion.
Can't possibly be worth the $$ to maintain it for the few people that use it. Get some one time revenue and use one of the many other parks close by.
No! Have you gone to the beaches Fernandina, PVB, or Atlantic beaches lately. It is almost impossible to find a parking space to walk to the beach. The very wealth people that live at the beaches and on the St Johns River want anything they ask for. Screw them! This is a public space for all to use not just to the people with money. Why should I have to go to the other parks.
A very sad, uniformed comment....
Quote from: SunKing on July 22, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Apache on July 21, 2015, 08:12:21 PM
I think you have to look at each parcel individually.
I would have no qualms about selling this parcel to the neighbors. I bet they would buy it if given the option.
As others have mentioned there are 3-4 de facto parks and and official on at Elizabeth Pl, that are within walking distance of this one, which clearly isn't a park in my opinion.
Can't possibly be worth the $$ to maintain it for the few people that use it. Get some one time revenue and use one of the many other parks close by.
No! Have you gone to the beaches Fernandina, PVB, or Atlantic beaches lately. It is almost impossible to find a parking space to walk to the beach. The very wealth people that live at the beaches and on the St Johns River want anything they ask for. Screw them! This is a public space for all to use not just to the people with money. Why should I have to go to the other parks.
A very sad , uniformed comment....
Sorry, couldn't help myself and had to edit that for you.
My guess is to provide public access to the river. Without the street ROW, the rest of the lots within the subdivision would have been worth less in value. If I'm the developer, I'd want to squeeze more profit out of the development's land-locked lots, as well as those on the riverfront.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/History/Avondale-suburb-plat/i-khfzq89/0/X2/IMG_20120506_133529-X2.jpg)
Back in those days, we didn't really have many officially designated parks. Probably not much of anything outside of Hemming, Springfield Park and Riverside Park. I'd assume public access would have allowed anything from sticking boats in the river and fishing, to actually swimming in it.
Cool Map Lake! My house has an "S" on it, so that was nice to see. Lots of parks in the picture too, already planned for in Avondale.
Quote from: SunKing on July 22, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 22, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Apache on July 21, 2015, 08:12:21 PM
I think you have to look at each parcel individually.
I would have no qualms about selling this parcel to the neighbors. I bet they would buy it if given the option.
As others have mentioned there are 3-4 de facto parks and and official on at Elizabeth Pl, that are within walking distance of this one, which clearly isn't a park in my opinion.
Can't possibly be worth the $$ to maintain it for the few people that use it. Get some one time revenue and use one of the many other parks close by.
No! Have you gone to the beaches Fernandina, PVB, or Atlantic beaches lately. It is almost impossible to find a parking space to walk to the beach. The very wealth people that live at the beaches and on the St Johns River want anything they ask for. Screw them! This is a public space for all to use not just to the people with money. Why should I have to go to the other parks.
A very sad, uniformed comment....
IMO your wrong. ;)
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
What is sad is your attempt to make this a case of haves or have nots. The neighborhood has been trying to have the city clean this up for DECADES. Nobody cared until the adjoining property owners decided to actually take care of it on their own dime. Latest escapade on ROW- two people having sex in the back of their car at 9:30 AM last Tuesday. If the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
And drop the class warfare theme. Avondale was an extremely diverse neighborhood last time I checked.
Quote from: SunKing on July 26, 2015, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
What is sad is your attempt to make this a case of haves or have nots. The neighborhood has been trying to have the city clean this up for DECADES. Nobody cared until the adjoining property owners decided to actually take care of it on their own dime. Latest escapade on ROW- two people having sex in the back of their car at 9:30 AM last Tuesday. If the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
And drop the class warfare theme. Avondale was an extremely diverse neighborhood last time I checked.
If you honestly think Avondale is "extremely diverse," then maybe you should get out more.
QuoteIf the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
We'd lose a lot more than this small public space if this theory was applied citywide. What will it take for the city to take care of its property? Not just in Avondale but Moncrief, New Town, the Eastside and the rest of the entire city? IMO, these are questions we should be looking for answers too, moreso than worrying about where to find the extra hundreds of millions for new projects like the Shipyards and dredging the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 26, 2015, 09:48:54 AM
QuoteIf the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
We'd lose a lot more than this small public space if this theory was applied citywide. What will it take for the city to take care of its property? Not just in Avondale but Moncrief, New Town, the Eastside and the rest of the entire city? IMO, these are questions we should be looking for answers too, moreso than worrying about where to find the extra hundreds of millions for new projects like the Shipyards and dredging the river.
Yes!
Quote from: SunKing on July 26, 2015, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
What is sad is your attempt to make this a case of haves or have nots. The neighborhood has been trying to have the city clean this up for DECADES. Nobody cared until the adjoining property owners decided to actually take care of it on their own dime. Latest escapade on ROW- two people having sex in the back of their car at 9:30 AM last Tuesday. If the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
And drop the class warfare theme. Avondale was an extremely diverse neighborhood last time I checked.
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 26, 2015, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
What is sad is your attempt to make this a case of haves or have nots. The neighborhood has been trying to have the city clean this up for DECADES. Nobody cared until the adjoining property owners decided to actually take care of it on their own dime. Latest escapade on ROW- two people having sex in the back of their car at 9:30 AM last Tuesday. If the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
And drop the class warfare theme. Avondale was an extremely diverse neighborhood last time I checked.
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Great argument sir, see my earlier post.
Quote from: SunKing on July 26, 2015, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 26, 2015, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: SunKing on May 18, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
I also live in the area. Simply put it is not a park but a ROW easement over private land that is not being maintained. I never see people fishing there mostly because it is not very accessible and nasty. There is a lot of drug activity, dead animals, trash, etc. The neighborhood has been complaining about the situation for years to Jim Love.
SunKing the reason you didn't like my other comment is your part of the problem? The people that own houses in this neighborhood are mostly white & have money. And they don't like to see anybody that is different unless that person is mowing their lawn. Or cleaning their house under the table? So what the city of Jacksonville should do is clean up this area. for I wouldn't want to walk to the river past all the over growth, trash, drug activity, dead animals, people turning tricks etc etc etc myself! :o
And SunKing did you even read what Ron Littlepage said? http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2015-05-26/story/ron-littlepage-fight-brewing-over-attempt-close-river-access He is spot on. :D
What is sad is your attempt to make this a case of haves or have nots. The neighborhood has been trying to have the city clean this up for DECADES. Nobody cared until the adjoining property owners decided to actually take care of it on their own dime. Latest escapade on ROW- two people having sex in the back of their car at 9:30 AM last Tuesday. If the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
And drop the class warfare theme. Avondale was an extremely diverse neighborhood last time I checked.
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Great argument sir, see my earlier post.
I drove over to this little park or public access to the St Johns River. I also saw the mostly empty riverfront lot next to this park. That has an outdoor staircase? I looked around at all the Millionaire Dollar homes. Now it's a lot cleaner then the photo I saw on Google back in May 2015. I walked all the way down to the river boy what a view. I saw two large JEA sewer covers and one pipe that was open and tapped off. I took my photos of the park. I like the size of this park. I should be kept as a park I would like to see a stone or concrete walk way from the street all the way to the river with a lot of grass for the people of Jacksonville to enjoy walking their animals. And clean up after them. Their was a sign at the beginning of the road in front of the park. I saw the NOTICE City of Jacksonville Real Estate Division sign 255-8700.
I was surprised to see this St Johns river access at Talbot Ave to still in bad shape as it is in this May 2015 view. https://goo.gl/maps/wLKCm
And here at Van Wert Avenue https://goo.gl/maps/NbWKi street view as of Fed 2015 it looked bad. Today July 26th 2015 The elephant ears have been cut back but they're coming back up. and you can see grass it would be such a shame for the Jacksonville real estate division to sell this property to a private owner. I Hope we Fight this to keep this open for all. Even for the local neighbors that walk their dogs or don't live on the St Johns River.
Look at this Public Access at 1895 Challen Ave May 2015 https://goo.gl/maps/6L9S4 this is what needs to happen to Van Wert Avenue.
And another park at 1840 Elizabeth Pl. June 2015 https://goo.gl/maps/bZaKo
http://www.coj.net/departments/public-works/real-estate/right-of-way-and-easement-closure-information.aspx
Right of Way and Easement Closure Information
Individuals desiring to close and abandon, or have the city disclaim all or a portion of any street, alley or easement, must fill out the Closure Application requesting the Real Estate Division to investigate the feasibility of closing or disclaiming the street, alley or easement. The completed application and the requested information should be submitted to:
Department of Public Works
Real Estate Division
214 N. Hogan Street, 10th floor
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Should you have any questions concerning the application, you may contact the Real Estate Division at (904) 255-8700.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 26, 2015, 09:48:54 AM
QuoteIf the city can't control it why should everyone else have to put up with it?
We'd lose a lot more than this small public space if this theory was applied citywide. What will it take for the city to take care of its property? Not just in Avondale but Moncrief, New Town, the Eastside and the rest of the entire city? IMO, these are questions we should be looking for answers too, moreso than worrying about where to find the extra hundreds of millions for new projects like the Shipyards and dredging the river.
Outstanding outlook Lakelander.
Folks complain about "River Access",but then what? What measures are to be undertaken to accommodate and expand meaningful River "Access"?
Reminds me of the Avondale Overlay proceedings; Citizen participants overwhelmingly lodged "Vision" for public park and river access at the Commander Apartments / Loop property at Herschel street,St Johns Avenue and Fishweir Creek.
Fairly recently,during yet another round of land use/zone request for the property (St Johns Village),Dr. Wayne Wood noted that the "highest and best use" of the property would be a public park designation.
No doubt (?) the public purchase, and transformation of the property to public waterway access and related Park is sure to be deemed unreasonable. Self fulfilling cycle.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Sorry, I've been reading your drivel the past few days and can no longer bite my tongue (or stop my fingers). First, the opposition to the issue did not start from MJ. MJ has some fantastic content and many of these issues are hashed out over the board, at varying levels of competence, but the opposition to the ROW started when the public hearing sign was first placed in front of the ROW.
Second, no one in the area did anything? Nonsense. The folks that previously owned the lot now owned by the Surfaces kept care of this area for decades. When she passed away, the Cousars took care of it for many years. My neighbors have been begging the City to clean up the ROW for years and for JSO to increase patrols. That is not being cheap - that's geting fed up with children finding human feces and needles on property in their neighborhood.
Truth be told, even after the ROW was cleared, very few folks utilize the ROW. Within two years of this controversy, it will go back to being an overgrown, nasty property where nothing good happens, That's a shame.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 28, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Sorry, I've been reading your drivel the past few days and can no longer bite my tongue (or stop my fingers). First, the opposition to the issue did not start from MJ. MJ has some fantastic content and many of these issues are hashed out over the board, at varying levels of competence, but the opposition to the ROW started when the public hearing sign was first placed in front of the ROW.
Second, no one in the area did anything? Nonsense. The folks that previously owned the lot now owned by the Surfaces kept care of this area for decades. When she passed away, the Cousars took care of it for many years. My neighbors have been begging the City to clean up the ROW for years and for JSO to increase patrols. That is not being cheap - that's geting fed up with children finding human feces and needles on property in their neighborhood.
Truth be told, even after the ROW was cleared, very few folks utilize the ROW. Within two years of this controversy, it will go back to being an overgrown, nasty property where nothing good happens, That's a shame.
Councilman Clark (District 3) has sponsored legislation (215-360) that would close public river access at Richmond St. & Little Van Wert in Avondale (District 14) at the request of the two adjacent property owners. The property would revert to the property owners (reserving a JEA right-of-way).
Section 3 of the proposed legislation waives Ordinance Section 744.104, which requires that the applicant seeking closure of public access convey comparable property providing comparable access as a condition of closure in addition to administrative review by COJ Public Works.
It appears (according to the legislation) that both the COJ Parks and Planning departments have objected to the street closure. This is the first I heard about this piece of property. Megatron I'm so pleased you and others took care of this lot if that really is the case? You attack me because the SunKing had no real agreement. And the city of Jacksonville and the JSO have more serious problems to deal with. So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up. I walked the property and took photos. This is a rather large piece of land. It sure would be a shame for the city to sell it just so you and your neighbors of Avondale can wash their hands and feel like you have solved a great mess. When really all you have done is screwed everybody else out of another right away to the river. Why should people in the other cheaper area's of Avondale be forced to drive or walk to have a good River Access? I believe the reason this area was left to overgrown was so you and others could say. See what happens here we need this closed off. You say you cleaned this area a lot I find this to be a lie. Here is a photo from google on May 15th 2015 https://goo.gl/maps/BikKy this wasn't cleaned at this point now was it? and Thank God for Google Maps for they also show what this area looked like since Nov 2007, March 2011, Feb 2015 & May 2015.Yes it looks better today look at my Avatar much cleaner but it needs more work done to it. I took this photo from the river looking back towards Van Wert Ave.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 28, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Sorry, I've been reading your drivel the past few days and can no longer bite my tongue (or stop my fingers). First, the opposition to the issue did not start from MJ. MJ has some fantastic content and many of these issues are hashed out over the board, at varying levels of competence, but the opposition to the ROW started when the public hearing sign was first placed in front of the ROW.
Second, no one in the area did anything? Nonsense. The folks that previously owned the lot now owned by the Surfaces kept care of this area for decades. When she passed away, the Cousars took care of it for many years. My neighbors have been begging the City to clean up the ROW for years and for JSO to increase patrols. That is not being cheap - that's geting fed up with children finding human feces and needles on property in their neighborhood.
Truth be told, even after the ROW was cleared, very few folks utilize the ROW. Within two years of this controversy, it will go back to being an overgrown, nasty property where nothing good happens, That's a shame.
Councilman Clark (District 3) has sponsored legislation (215-360) that would close public river access at Richmond St. & Little Van Wert in Avondale (District 14) at the request of the two adjacent property owners. The property would revert to the property owners (reserving a JEA right-of-way).
Section 3 of the proposed legislation waives Ordinance Section 744.104, which requires that the applicant seeking closure of public access convey comparable property providing comparable access as a condition of closure in addition to administrative review by COJ Public Works.
It appears (according to the legislation) that both the COJ Parks and Planning departments have objected to the street closure. This is the first I heard about this piece of property. Megatron I'm so pleased you and others took care of this lot if that really is the case? You attack me because the SunKing had no real agreement. And the city of Jacksonville and the JSO have more serious problems to deal with. So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up. I walked the property and took photos. This is a rather large piece of land. It sure would be a shame for the city to sell it just so you and your neighbors of Avondale can wash their hands and feel like you have solved a great mess. When really all you have done is screwed everybody else out of another right away to the river. Why should people in the other cheaper area's of Avondale be forced to drive or walk to have a good River Access? I believe the reason this area was left to overgrown was so you and others could say. See what happens here we need this closed off. You say you cleaned this area a lot I find this to be a lie. Here is a photo from google on May 15th 2015 https://goo.gl/maps/BikKy this wasn't cleaned at this point now was it? and Thank God for Google Maps for they also show what this area looked like since Nov 2007, March 2011, Feb 2015 & May 2015.Yes it looks better today look at my Avatar much cleaner but it needs more work done to it. I took this photo from the river looking back towards Van Wert Ave.
Its nice to see that you get out of your parent's basement every now and then for some fresh air.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 28, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 26, 2015, 10:06:40 AM
SunKing I'm still part of the haves. But before this story hit Metrojacksonville? These wealth home owners almost got their land without a fight. So for this I'm glad for MetroJacksonville and this forum. And SunKing the reason no one in your area at first did anything. Is because people like yourself or cheap. You bitch & moan about your taxes boo hoo. But I'm getting off the subject at hand. In closing SunKing if the have not's don't voice their Opinion. Then you so called haves would have Avondale closed off and gated!
Sorry, I've been reading your drivel the past few days and can no longer bite my tongue (or stop my fingers). First, the opposition to the issue did not start from MJ. MJ has some fantastic content and many of these issues are hashed out over the board, at varying levels of competence, but the opposition to the ROW started when the public hearing sign was first placed in front of the ROW.
Second, no one in the area did anything? Nonsense. The folks that previously owned the lot now owned by the Surfaces kept care of this area for decades. When she passed away, the Cousars took care of it for many years. My neighbors have been begging the City to clean up the ROW for years and for JSO to increase patrols. That is not being cheap - that's geting fed up with children finding human feces and needles on property in their neighborhood.
Truth be told, even after the ROW was cleared, very few folks utilize the ROW. Within two years of this controversy, it will go back to being an overgrown, nasty property where nothing good happens, That's a shame.
Councilman Clark (District 3) has sponsored legislation (215-360) that would close public river access at Richmond St. & Little Van Wert in Avondale (District 14) at the request of the two adjacent property owners. The property would revert to the property owners (reserving a JEA right-of-way).
Section 3 of the proposed legislation waives Ordinance Section 744.104, which requires that the applicant seeking closure of public access convey comparable property providing comparable access as a condition of closure in addition to administrative review by COJ Public Works.
It appears (according to the legislation) that both the COJ Parks and Planning departments have objected to the street closure. This is the first I heard about this piece of property. Megatron I'm so pleased you and others took care of this lot if that really is the case? You attack me because the SunKing had no real agreement. And the city of Jacksonville and the JSO have more serious problems to deal with. So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up. I walked the property and took photos. This is a rather large piece of land. It sure would be a shame for the city to sell it just so you and your neighbors of Avondale can wash their hands and feel like you have solved a great mess. When really all you have done is screwed everybody else out of another right away to the river. Why should people in the other cheaper area's of Avondale be forced to drive or walk to have a good River Access? I believe the reason this area was left to overgrown was so you and others could say. See what happens here we need this closed off. You say you cleaned this area a lot I find this to be a lie. Here is a photo from google on May 15th 2015 https://goo.gl/maps/BikKy this wasn't cleaned at this point now was it? and Thank God for Google Maps for they also show what this area looked like since Nov 2007, March 2011, Feb 2015 & May 2015.Yes it looks better today look at my Avatar much cleaner but it needs more work done to it. I took this photo from the river looking back towards Van Wert Ave.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12466-I-dont-know-what-I-expected-gi-keE7.gif)
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up.
Actually the majority of Avondale would like the property to remain open, at least thats what I took away from the council meeting... this also includes RAP.
The property can still be sold with a JEA easement attached, dont think they would care one way or another. Who are the others?
2+ months and a few council meetings later, and my first opinion still remains practically unchanged.
If the 'back of envelope' $$$ is $700k and they are willing to pay for the property, then they can have it. All this johnny-come-lately talk about access has my BS detector going off steadily.
That said, I'm still 1,000% against giving the land away.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 09:26:00 AM
I thought I had typed this in yesterday, but obviously I only thought about typing it and my telekinesis keyboard must still be broken...
Looking at this thing from both sides, I can understand why the homeowners want to 'take over' the property. After some thought, I'm not against it. I went by there yesterday, and it really is just, well... nothing. So on the one hand, my though is if it bothers them so damn much, why not be proactive and clean the area up themselves.
You know that strip of land between the water-meter and the curb of most everyone's front lawn? Yeah, that's also PU easement that we maintain all the time with no worries, why should this strip be treated any differently?
On the other hand....
I am, however, completely against allowing them to file some paperwork and basically take the property via what essentially becomes 'eminent domain'. If they would like to file the paperwork and offer the city fair market value for the little strip of land, then I'd be all for it.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
it seems like this is an attempt at adverse possession, and should be treated as such.
It went before a public council meeting. How is this adverse possession?
Quote from: camarocane on July 29, 2015, 10:14:17 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up.
Actually the majority of Avondale would like the property to remain open, at least thats what I took away from the council meeting... this also includes RAP.
The property can still be sold with a JEA easement attached, dont think they would care one way or another. Who are the others?
I drove by this afternoon and the city was working on this property down at the river? My Avatar shows whats happening today at this piece of property. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 01:41:30 PM
and you think that would disqualify it from being adverse posession how? Adverse possession requires a legal process. The arguments justifying this are literally the adverse possession legal standards.
One of the first stipulations to begin acquiring property via this route would be paying the taxes on the property. Kind of tough to do being that it's city owned and currently carries a zero tax liability.
Honestly, the best approach would have been for them to clean up the property, fence it in and landscape as part of their yard with a reasonable expectation that they would eventually get called out on it and lose their investment. But that's a $2,500 gambit that probably would have been more cost effective (and effective overall to their needs) than the process they're going through now.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 29, 2015, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: camarocane on July 29, 2015, 10:14:17 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
So now you and the other Avondale neighbors want this right of way to be sold to take care of a problem you say of Human waste and needles. I hope you loss it looks as the JEA and others don't want to give this up.
Actually the majority of Avondale would like the property to remain open, at least thats what I took away from the council meeting... this also includes RAP.
The property can still be sold with a JEA easement attached, dont think they would care one way or another. Who are the others?
Well if you go buy what megaawatt & sunking say they act as if Avondale want it to be sold.
Actually, I believe a better approach would have been for the city to simply have maintained and policed it. But if there is no money to do those things (ask your parents about this, they will know), then yes, selling the property and retaining the easement is the next best thing.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 01:41:30 PM
and you think that would disqualify it from being adverse posession how? Adverse possession requires a legal process. The arguments justifying this are literally the adverse possession legal standards.
Adverse possession aka "squatters rights" requires an owner to actually be in control of the property for a determined length of time-varies by state-5-7 years in Florida I believe. So they would have needed to have evidence of that before pursuing that route. There are actually a few instances of that around town with similar ROWs. To NonRednecks point, they would have been better off going that route, but chose not to. I think it is simply a case of "the city isn't going to take care of it so give it to us so we can."
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 29, 2015, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 01:41:30 PM
and you think that would disqualify it from being adverse posession how? Adverse possession requires a legal process. The arguments justifying this are literally the adverse possession legal standards.
Erm, it's hard to follow what all everyone is saying, but i would strongly suggest that this is in no way, shape or form adverse possession.
Correct
it happens, occasionally :)
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
I think it is simply a case of "the city isn't going to take care of it so give it to us so we can."
If they are willing to maintain it to keep out whatever element they think being overgrown attracts, why can't they just do it anyway? Why do they need the city to "give" it to them? Yes, in a perfect world COJ would maintain it just the way the adjacent landowners would like, but as was pointed out above, the costs to the neighbors would be minimal and it's not like they're living in poverty.
Quote from: finehoe on July 29, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
I think it is simply a case of "the city isn't going to take care of it so give it to us so we can."
If they are willing to maintain it to keep out whatever element they think being overgrown attracts, why can't they just do it anyway? Why do they need the city to "give" it to them? Yes, in a perfect world COJ would maintain it just the way the adjacent landowners would like, but as was pointed out above, the costs to the neighbors would be minimal and it's not like they're living in poverty.
Amen!
Quote from: finehoe on July 29, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
I think it is simply a case of "the city isn't going to take care of it so give it to us so we can."
If they are willing to maintain it to keep out whatever element they think being overgrown attracts, why can't they just do it anyway? Why do they need the city to "give" it to them? Yes, in a perfect world COJ would maintain it just the way the adjacent landowners would like, but as was pointed out above, the costs to the neighbors would be minimal and it's not like they're living in poverty.
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
Ironically enough, and stay with me now, what you are suggesting would actually constitute adverse possession.
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
And the homeowners taking possession would change this how?
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
Quote from: finehoe on July 29, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
I think it is simply a case of "the city isn't going to take care of it so give it to us so we can."
If they are willing to maintain it to keep out whatever element they think being overgrown attracts, why can't they just do it anyway? Why do they need the city to "give" it to them? Yes, in a perfect world COJ would maintain it just the way the adjacent landowners would like, but as was pointed out above, the costs to the neighbors would be minimal and it's not like they're living in poverty.
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
Ironically enough, and stay with me now, what you are suggesting would actually constitute adverse possession.
FailingKing the google map photos I gave links to shows during 2007 up to May 2015 not much was ever done to this property. So it must have been before 2007 that you kept this place cleaned up? Give us a break. ::)
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:12:38 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
And the homeowners taking possession would change this how?
Ummm ... putting money into property you own and to which you can control access versus putting money into property owned by someone else which property is accessible to anyone, many of whom are perfectly willing to trash it? I am going to pretend you did not ask that question.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 30, 2015, 09:16:37 AM
FailingKing the google map photos I gave links to shows during 2007 up to May 2015 not much was ever done to this property. So it must have been before 2007 that you kept this place cleaned up? Give us a break. ::)
Yes, again, its a decades old problem. It was kept up by neighbors for many, many years. Not sure when that stopped but it has not been kept up since at least 2008 or so.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 09:49:16 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:12:38 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
And the homeowners taking possession would change this how?
Ummm ... putting money into property you own and to which you can control access versus putting money into property owned by someone else which property is accessible to anyone, many of whom are perfectly willing to trash it? I am going to pretend you did not ask that question.
And I will pretend you are being deliberately obtuse. If, as Sunking asserts, they have been treating it as if they own it "for years," how does actually owning it make any material difference? Paying to maintain it is the same either way, calling the cops when someone is doing something illegal is the same either way. What would change if they suddenly held the deed?
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 30, 2015, 09:16:37 AM
FailingKing the google map photos I gave links to shows during 2007 up to May 2015 not much was ever done to this property. So it must have been before 2007 that you kept this place cleaned up? Give us a break. ::)
Yes, again, its a decades old problem. It was kept up by neighbors for many, many years. Not sure when that stopped but it has not been kept up since at least 2008 or so.
OK so now we are at this point and the best way to get rid of the problem is to sell the property because the city of Jacksonville doesn't want to cut and maintain the property? And so some Avondale neighbors don't have to spend their own money or worry about human feces & needles in the public right of way. I still believe this is wrong. But this is just my Opinion we will all have to wait and see what becomes of this issue won't we. ;)
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:59:03 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 09:49:16 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:12:38 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
And the homeowners taking possession would change this how?
Ummm ... putting money into property you own and to which you can control access versus putting money into property owned by someone else which property is accessible to anyone, many of whom are perfectly willing to trash it? I am going to pretend you did not ask that question.
And I will pretend you are being deliberately obtuse. If, as Sunking asserts, they have been treating it as if they own it "for years," how does actually owning it make any material difference? Paying to maintain it is the same either way, calling the cops when someone is doing something illegal is the same either way. What would change if they suddenly held the deed?
First off, you tear up the little stretch of road that is there. Second, the property is private and fenced off. It becomes a private trespass if someone attempts to access the property.
And to clarify (and I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for many of you to understand), the neighbors stopped taking care of the property years and years ago.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 10:05:12 AM
you tear up the little stretch of road that is there.
Will the homeowners pay or will the taxpayers be expected to foot the bill?
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:59:03 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 09:49:16 AM
Quote from: finehoe on July 30, 2015, 09:12:38 AM
Quote from: SunKing on July 29, 2015, 11:28:23 PM
They did that for years, maintained it, put out garbage cans, but that only increased the problem. One homeowner moved away and the other one just got tired of it. We are talking about an issue that has gone on for decades. Now that the bulkhead and sewer is caving in, it is not a minor cost to maintain.
And the homeowners taking possession would change this how?
Ummm ... putting money into property you own and to which you can control access versus putting money into property owned by someone else which property is accessible to anyone, many of whom are perfectly willing to trash it? I am going to pretend you did not ask that question.
And I will pretend you are being deliberately obtuse. If, as Sunking asserts, they have been treating it as if they own it "for years," how does actually owning it make any material difference? Paying to maintain it is the same either way, calling the cops when someone is doing something illegal is the same either way. What would change if they suddenly held the deed?
First off, you tear up the little stretch of road that is there. Second, the property is private and fenced off. It becomes a private trespass if someone attempts to access the property.
And to clarify (and I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for many of you to understand), the neighbors stopped taking care of the property years and years ago.
But they stopped taking care of the property so most people not shooting drugs or taking a dump or having sex. Wouldn't want to walk down to the river. Look at the old google street map photos I pulled up in another comment. The reason I believe your Avondale river Neighbors didn't want this area cleaned was to leave it nasty so only the people doing drugs using it as a toilet and having sex would play right into you getting this piece of river property back.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2015, 10:15:49 AM
Megatron.It must be like that little bit of right of way in front of your house, between the sidewalk and the street.
The city has right of way so screw it, right?
I imagine everyone in the city should follow the same advice?
Yeah, its exactly like that but it's sixty feet wide and probably a couple hundred feet deep. The two situations are not remotely similar.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2015, 10:46:27 AM
hmm. how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way? Would it be like half that? A third?
You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street? Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 01:11:43 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2015, 10:46:27 AM
hmm. how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way? Would it be like half that? A third?
You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street? Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.
These home owners https://goo.gl/maps/Qgmcm are so far back unless their homes have paper thin walls shouldn't hear any noise from the Public right away? Or maybe it's just the site of the cars that park on the little road going to the public right away that has some of the Avondale neighbors really upset. https://goo.gl/maps/ldgNk
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 30, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 01:11:43 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2015, 10:46:27 AM
hmm. how would you say that compares with a city block long of right of way? Would it be like half that? A third?
You mean the 3-4 strip in the front yard that runs parallel to the street? Not sure I understand your question, but the two types of property are not remotely similar.
These home owners https://goo.gl/maps/Qgmcm are so far back unless their homes have paper thin walls shouldn't hear any noise from the Public right away? Or maybe it's just the site of the cars that park on the little road going to the public right away that has some of the Avondale neighbors really upset. https://goo.gl/maps/ldgNk
Those homeowners have stayed out of this mess intentionally.
Not sure why I keep responding to you, but it really has nothign to do with noise. Nor does it have anything to do with parking.
Case Closed we will have to wait and see who the COJ decides to screw next. The tax payers of Jacksonville, JEA or other Agencies or the Avondale residents that what the right of way sold and closed to the general public.
....and another thang!......take down the dang sea wall. You go to the end of these spots,.....yippie!.....The River!!!,as you stand on the edge of a concrete wall. We need to modify these spots and build gentle incline ramps in place of the walls- perfect for hand launched kayak and paddle board.
Quote from: Know Growth on July 30, 2015, 11:10:57 PM
....and another thang!......take down the dang sea wall. You go to the end of these spots,.....yippie!.....The River!!!,as you stand on the edge of a concrete wall. We need to modify these spots and build gentle incline ramps in place of the walls- perfect for hand launched kayak and paddle board.
If the city of Jacksonville isn't cleaning this area then why would they spend a dime on a ramp to make it easier for people with a kayak to get into the water?
Latest news on this controversy:
The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.
A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU") between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."
https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ (https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ)
The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:
- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.
Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.
The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.
Quote from: bencrix on August 17, 2015, 11:05:12 AM
Latest news on this controversy:
The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.
A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU") between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."
https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ (https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ)
The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:
- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.
Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.
The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.
>
Got to love the Richmond folks wanting their own private rules. Let the other plebes in Avondale have street parking and stripes.
Maybe Paul won't get his way. It seem like he gets whatever he wants. Money talks. If you were having a party, would you have to issue guest permits?
Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden seems to be a tool?
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 17, 2015, 05:38:28 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 17, 2015, 05:33:55 PM
Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden seems to be a tool?
Or, you know, a very successful and smart attorney. Jesus the these-people-are-rich-and-must-be-assholes hate is ridiculous here. I'd love to be able to see everyone's opinions if they owned these properties.
I live on the Ortega river and my neighbors are not Assholes. Google Paul Harden http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=49846 etc etc etc
Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients. Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it. Setting the record straight.
Quote from: bencrix on August 17, 2015, 11:05:12 AM
Latest news on this controversy:
The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.
A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU") between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."
https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ (https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ)
The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:
- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.
Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.
The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.
Quote from: Kay on August 17, 2015, 06:21:36 PM
Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients. Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it. Setting the record straight.
Quote from: bencrix on August 17, 2015, 11:05:12 AM
Latest news on this controversy:
The City Council voted 18-0 to withdraw the legislative proposal.
A little over a week ago Attorney/Lobbyist Paul Harden presented Councilman Love with a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("Harden MOU") between the two Owners, the City and RAP "to provide maintenance and ensure safety within the area of the right-of-way for Little Van Wert Avenue between Richmond Street and the St. Johns River."
https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ (https://d3ghdtgvse7ejc.cloudfront.net/ca/5a/d8/ca5ad829ec401bfebbdd8c9802601ffa/SufaceWithdrawl_-_Aug_3%2C_2015%2C_1-18_PM_%281%29.pdf?Expires=1439823739&Signature=OUbJb-0cdQYVt2nXN-nPivMUlx9a1w5vDA3ryizVcgly1Sg4bdmt2CphKh6v1kAFve9Gmw55cMz3wHUdzbjTDMMMUQvf02x9PuDhy5CVoKgMSS~yJJ15S9-axAS0fwX4M0QXxq1tEA34dwSTfaL9ci~WOyteID5lawOdhpPhxFk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIXBZNN3ZZBIBSIDQ)
The legal standing of the MOU may be spurious, moreover, it contains the following questionable provisions:
- Allows construction of a privacy wall on the location of the existing fence [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3)] notwithstanding the fact that the existing fence encroaches on publicly owned land by approximately 10' to 15'.
- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
- Gives the owners the ability to re-file their application for closure should the City fail to meet its obligations within 2 years, and further provides that "RAP shall not object to the City Council's approval of said application" [Harden MOU Paragraph D]
- Obligates the Owners to install a, 8' brick/stucco privacy wall along the location of the "broken fence," to landscape the "privately owned" side of the wall, and to install irrigation on the "northern" (i.e., privately owned") side of the privacy wall [Harden MOU, Paragraph B(3), B(4) and B(5)]
- Obligates the owners to grade and stabilize the soil in the disturbed areas and clear scrub vegetation to provide clear visibility from Richmond Street to the St. Johns River.
Note that the owners' obligation only include measures they already presumably planned to undertake as part of development of their own property or has already been completed by neighborhood volunteers (spontaneously organized as the Friends of Van Wert) and COJ.
The Friends of Van Wert / other residents of the neighborhood are not party to the MOU.
Thank you Kay for your info "Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients. Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it. Setting the record straight."
Quote from: stephendare on August 17, 2015, 05:46:56 PM
trolls grow strong when they are fed, MMR.
Paul Harden is a good enough chap I think, But he's a very good very well connected attorney and he's generally so well liked that it gives him extra cachet in negotiations.
He's certainly been able to take on very unpopular causes as a result of it.
Some attorneys can grow strong when fed.
Similar to a certain attorney representing Freedom Commerce Centre,Mellow Mushroom and St Johns Village applications.
Easy to track these two, diminishing bloated returns.
Attorneys representing unpopular proposals,substantive revisions to the Citizen's Overlay and other policy dare not pull out the stops in Avondale, because they simply can't,no matter who they are,who they think they are.......or who their clients think they are.
This speaks more to the Avondale Dynamic than any single Attorney. Good for Us!!!
( a personal highlight for me was the Ortega Boatyard episode, just far enough out of RAP Boundary I was basically on my own,after stepping down from the podium before City Council,clear 'Standing' and 'Appeal' position,way too easily lodged within three minutes 8), having recited water dependent marine facility/no viable alternative,DCA Rule 9J-5,Paul trailed me out in to the hallway......."What is 9J5??".
Eventually,DCA would see major militant revamp- Urban legend has it that Citizen and Organization interface with DCA was a major driver for revamp....... )
Quote from: Apache on August 17, 2015, 07:19:13 PM
Not sure if living under the Ortega Bridge constitutes living on the Ortega River?
No I don't live under a bridge nor in a boat but I do live on the Ortega River. So why don't you sit and spin on your flat head? :P
The Ortega River is Haunted.
Quote from: Know Growth on August 17, 2015, 10:03:42 PM
The Ortega River is Haunted.
So is 99.9% of Jacksonville Florida!
Quote from: Kay on August 17, 2015, 06:21:36 PM
Paul Harden drafted the MOU to benefit his clients. Neither RAP nor the City participated in drafting it and RAP did not even receive a copy of it. Setting the record straight.
An important clarification. I am unaware of any position taken on the MOU by RAP or COJ.
MOU = MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
So has the city accepted the MOU as filed or is it just a standard procedure to get things rolling now that the original legislation was denied?
The bullet points that you posted seem like a good compromise, even in if give the owners an additional 15' of property along LVW, but there is one thing that concerns me:
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
Because once the ball gets rolling on this little gem, what's to stop the rest of the neighborhood from filing their own requests that would essentially create a permit only parking zone in R/A. This was mentioned before in one of the many Mellow threads. IMO, it sets bad precedence and opens the door for more of this NIMBY BS. What's next, closing off the many thru-streets and gating the access to the river at Edgewood?
OMG I agree with something you said "IMO, it sets bad precedence and opens the door for more of this NIMBY BS. What's next, closing off the many thru-streets and gating the access to the river at Edgewood?" This would set a bad precedence and shouldn't happen. If these Richmond St people want a gated residents go to Sawgrass or another gated community.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 30, 2015, 02:51:26 PM
Nor does it have anything to do with parking.
Yet....
Quote- Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 18, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
...these Richmond St people...
As defined by the MOU, "these people" include the two adjacent property owners only. The rest of the street / neighborhood / etc. is not party to the
proposed agreement.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 09:54:19 AM
The bullet points that you posted seem like a good compromise
I recommend reading the full MOU. It grants an unusual degree of private control over public infrastructure and property (in addition to giving ~ .15 acres of public waterfront property away for essentially $0) in exchange for very little. You already noted the bad precedent regarding parking.
Note that there is now a neighborhood-based non-profit advocating for conversion of the property to a park and offering support for maintenance. They are not party to the MOU.
Long term, there is an opportunity to set a precedent for improving river access amenities throughout Riverside / Avondale.
Quote from: bencrix on August 18, 2015, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 18, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
...these Richmond St people...
As defined by the MOU, "these people" include the two adjacent property owners only. The rest of the street / neighborhood / etc. is not party to the proposed agreement.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 09:54:19 AM
The bullet points that you posted seem like a good compromise
I recommend reading the full MOU. It grants an unusual degree of private control over public infrastructure and property (in addition to giving ~ .15 acres of public waterfront property away for essentially $0) in exchange for very little. You already noted the bad precedent regarding parking.
Note that there is now a neighborhood-based non-profit advocating for conversion of the property to a park and offering support for maintenance. They are not party to the MOU.
Long term, there is an opportunity to set a precedent for improving river access amenities throughout Riverside / Avondale.
What about these parking rules? Eliminates the existing parking along the stub end of Little Van Wert [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(3)]
- Bans parking in front of the homes located at 3672, 3680, 3681, 3693 and 3700 Richmond Street [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
- Prohibits painted parking stripes on Richmond or any of the bordering cross rights-of-way [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(12)]
Last I heard, Harden's MOU has not been accepted by Councilman Love or the City.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 09:54:19 AM
So has the city accepted the MOU as filed or is it just a standard procedure to get things rolling now that the original legislation was denied?
The bullet points that you posted seem like a good compromise, even in if give the owners an additional 15' of property along LVW, but there is one thing that concerns me:
- Creates "resident-only" parking on Richmond Street with permits to be provided for the Richmond Street residents [Harden MOU, Paragraph A(5)]
Because once the ball gets rolling on this little gem, what's to stop the rest of the neighborhood from filing their own requests that would essentially create a permit only parking zone in R/A. This was mentioned before in one of the many Mellow threads. IMO, it sets bad precedence and opens the door for more of this NIMBY BS. What's next, closing off the many thru-streets and gating the access to the river at Edgewood?
Today in The Florida Times Union Wednesday August 26th 2015 in the CURRENT section of the paper. Front page is has two photos & a story called "RIVER ACCESS STILL OPEN" thanks for doing this FTU! :D